Can we all stop pretending about "respecting other's beliefs" please

[Goblinmonger]

PLEASE.

I hear that old canard from theists all the time on here about how atheists need to chill out. Pardon my bluntness, but that thought (that on DU there is a respecting of other's beliefs" by theists) is a crock of shit. Let me remind you of the following that are NOT respected on here on a constant basis:

1. Evangelical Christians (you know, the ones you like to call "not real Christians," "fake Christians," or some other lovely version of the fallacy).
2. Mormons (apparently respecting their beliefs is to say that they are a cult, not christian, are all married to multiple women, wear magic underwear, etc., etc., etc.)
3. Scientology (oh, really, do I need to even go into this one?)
4. Quiverfulls (always get a reference to those "freaks" once in a while. Apparently their belief that the number of children you have should be left up to god isn't really a belief because it surely gets no respect on here).
5. That 666 guy. (I think I only read one or two people post something supportive. I mean, it is easy fodder, but the "respect other's beliefs" crowd sure was hiding under the bleachers on this one).
ON EDIT: 6. Muslims and Sharia because a)I forgot about the Muslim comments I've read and b) Solo says so below.

So, PLEASE, can we stop throwing that old chestnut around from now on?

on edit: I honestly did not see the other thread on this topic when I posted mine. I'll delete this if desired.

[saltpoint]

1. If someone posts on a board trying to save my ass, and starts waving

the Book of Revelation at me, then I know he's come as a proselytizer and not as a person.

As a person I would regard him with complete respect.

As a proselytizer, his spiel is fair game.

[ulysses]

2. that's ok, G'monger.

I respect your beliefs.

:7

[Goblinmonger]

5. Like

the opinion of a teacher means anything :evilgrin:

[ulysses]

17. easy there.

I control the minds of the nation's children. :D

[Goblinmonger]

20. psst

I'm a teacher, too. Don't tell anyone, though.

[ulysses]

21. hell, I'd already had you pegged as the one

foisting all these Bible classes on the public schools...

[Goblinmonger]

50. I remember that one

guilty as charged.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. Ok, I'll whisper

"Thank you Murshid." :)

[toddaa]

3. K&R

Because you're a fucking loonie.

[Goblinmonger]

10. I take that as a compliment from you

and thank you very much you half-wit.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. I would be much more concerned about Muslims and the Sharia than any you list

[saltpoint]

6. As for Mormons, the first one I disrespect is Mitt Romney, who's running

on the Republican primary ballot next winter, and I hope he gets crushed to death by elephants somewhere.

Absent that, I'd tell you that I'm not terribly impressed with the historical accuracy of Jesus walking around the lower 48 states. I have a real problem with that. And no, I do not respect that claim.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Do you not see the irony

to the non-Christian about discussion the "historical accuracy" of Jesus walking around ANYWHERE after his death? I mean, really, if he could have walked around after death in the middle east, why couldn't he come talk to the Native Americans? How can a mainstream christian expect any level of respect for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus when they say Jesus walking around after death in the holy land is fine but North America is just fucking crazy?

[saltpoint]

12. If they want him on a cruise ship heading for L.A., that's fine with me.

But I don't think Biblical scholars put much faith in the notion, and properly so.

Again, they're welcome to their take on things.

[Imperialism Inc.]

67. Many biblical scholars consider most of the NT Jesus story

to be just that, a story. A made up story. So should we have any respect for people who believe that it is real? And, why should we require a boat to get a dead guy to NA. I mean he's dead and walking around, why would physical laws and limitations apply? I think you maybe missed the point.

[saltpoint]

83. Possibly I got it, though. I've read authors who deny the existence of

Jesus of Galilee.

If you want to play odds, you or I might be the next Republican Senator from Idaho.

It's possible, after all.

But not likely.

[Imperialism Inc.]

88. I'm not talking about non-existence. I'm talking about legend

accruing around a (possibly) historical person. John Crossan would be the prime example. Crossan is a Christian and a scholar, who thinks the virgin birth is make believe, as is the trial, death, crucifixion and resurrection (at least in their details... he thinks he is laying dead in a box somewhere). Many others believe a Jesus existed but that the NT is mostly pure legend. Burton Mack, Robert Funk, Bart Ehrman, and GA Wells (Wells has flipped and flopped on whether there was Jesus. I think Mack convinced him Jesus existed and that is his current position) are a few examples. These are all highly qualified, practicing scholars and frankly their views are (arguably) the mainstream views in the field. The Jesus seminar wasn't some kind of fluke. It was a way to get a major current in bible scholarship out to the public. I'm not saying you have to agree with them, but insinuating that a view of the NT as mostly legend is some kind of unusual position is simply factually incorrect.

As far as playing odds, I'm all for it. What do you figure the odds are that someone walked the earth that was born from a virgin, could raise the dead, walk on water, cure disease (even though he , apparently, mistakenly thought disease was caused by evil spirits), and then just get up from being dead? It would have to be about as close to zero as any odds I've ever encountered. But this thead isn't about arguing beliefs and whether they are correct or not. Seems to me you are still missing the point, and that is that your beliefs are highly improbable themselves. I have to admit I am curious though. How does one go about determining the probability that a spirit raised from the dead will or will not go to another continent?

[mzmolly]

97. As to the question of continent.

How does one go about determining the probability that a spirit raised from the dead will or will not go to another continent?

If Jesus had appeared in North America, would anyone have known him? I'd say the trip simply wasn't necessary. ;) However some believe he appeared in the 1800's to Quanah Parker. So, he's apparently making the rounds, just a bit late by our standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church

The Native American Church Movement

Quannah Parker is credited as the founder of the Native American Church Movement, which started in the 1890s, and formally incorporated in 1918. Parker adopted the peyote religion after reportedly seeing a vision of Jesus Christ while suffering from a near fatal wound following a battle with Federal Troops. Peyote is reported to contain hordenine and tyramine, phenylethylamine alkaloids which act as potent natural antibiotics when taken in a combined form. Parker was given peyote by a Ute medicine man to cure the infections of his wounds. During the peyote experience, Parker claimed he heard the voice of Jesus Christ who then appeared to him, and told him in order to atone for his many killings and misdeeds, he must forsake a life of violence and conflict and take the peyote religion to the Indian Peoples. Parker's words and teachings comprise the core of the Native American Church Doctrine and the "Peyote Road."

I kid of course, but I wanted to "answer" your question. ;)

[saltpoint]

102. There have been some "events" in this hemisphere with Jesus and Mary.

You mention Parker's sighting... and then there are the handful of appearances by the Virgin in Mexico and some other Central American nations.

There's this, too:

“Tell me, if the Virgin Mary has walked throughout all the land, why has she never entered the wickiups of the Apaches? Why have we never seen or heard her?”

--Cochise, of the Apaches

I'd pay good money to have heard the Franciscan father's response to the man's question.

The Virgin is also said to appear annually -- annually, mind you -- in one of the satellite neighborhoods of Cincinnati. Many people show up to greet her and insist that she is there. One year there was road construction on the main artery to that site and the Cincinnati ENQUIRER ran a notice that the Virgin would appear in an adjacent neighborhood to accommodate the construction schedule.

[Goblinmonger]

105. Doesn't it seem odd, though

that if that neighborhood in Cinci said that Marilyn Monroe visited each year, I would not get in trouble for calling them delusional.

What if that neighborhood said that the virgin Mary showed up each year and sold falafel to the crowd? Again, I could publicly call them crackpots. But all I have to do is take the falafel out of the mix and all of I sudden I have to "respect" them.

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. We don't respect all beliefs on here. Just add "selling falafel" to most of the beliefs on here and I can disrespect them with no other change than that. That's pretty crazy.

[saltpoint]

106. You're killing me with Marilyn Monroe and falafel.

Our dog wants to know why I'm laughing so hard.

And what am I supposed to tell her? She's a damn good dog, too.

The neighborhood is not far from one of the I-75 exits in Cincinnati. I was told about the Virgin's appearances by a guy who sold Lemon Chills at Cincinnati Reds games. This was a few years back now, but he seemed sincere, and I listened as he sold me the Lemon Chill, which was delicious, by the way.

It took the ENQUIRER, though, to make it more official. People were quoted; there were photos; you know the kind of story I mean.

I've never made it down there. If Marilyn Monroe was slated for an appearance, I might give it some thought.

[mzmolly]

108. I'm thinking it was the Chili that brought her?

;) I don't know that anyone would travel very far for Falafel? Except of course Bill O'Reilly?

[saltpoint]

110. "Except Bill O'Reilly" !! LOL!

My dog is calling the mental health people right now. She's turning me in.

What a great line.

Yes, it could have been the chili.

Although a visiting Texan wrote into the Enquirer once to express how appalled she was that people in Cincinnati call what she referred to as gruel "chili." She would have none of it. She felt that only Texas makes good chili, that Texas chili was "heartier."

I've had some Texas chili. It's ok. Nothing extraordinary about it, though, IMO.

I'm not exactly hogwild about Cincinnati chili, for that matter.

And it IS a long way to come for chili -- either from Texas or from that other place.

[mzmolly]

113. Well, I'll take that as advice not to follow Mary on her particular quest for good Chili?

As for your dog, I think our pets could form a support group about now. :D

[saltpoint]

118. "Welcome house pets! There's strength in numbers!. Come one, come

all. Free chili!"

[mzmolly]

121. Ha!

:rofl:

Hmmm, my dogs and chili? Perhaps WE'LL need that support group in the "end" - no pun intended. :P

Have a splendid day OC, I'm off to the more mundane. :hi:

[saltpoint]

123. Peace to ye, Molly. You're a gem.

[mzmolly]

126. Backatcha of course.

:)

[cain_7777]

164. I'd rather have the falafel without the taint of religion

There is no respect either way when it comes to religion especially when they claim that theirs is the one true religion which in essence deems every other religion false.

[mzmolly]

167. Not all "religions" make that claim.

But, I agree it's tough to respect that manner of thought, "what I believe is the truth" whether it's coming from a religious or non-religious person.

[mzmolly]

107. Isn't that interesting?

I have Irish Catholic heritage so I have a certain reverence for Mary.

[saltpoint]

109. I'm thinking somehow that neither Mary nor Jesus nor anybody else

associated with European spiritual traditions made it into the Apaches' wickiups.

UNLESS!

Cochise was secretly a devotee of Martin Luther!

That would explain it. He was TAUNTING the Franciscans!

That crafty Cochise. Quite the player.

[mzmolly]

112. I'm thinking you're on to something with that Cochise, Martin Luther connection.

;)

[Goblinmonger]

114. "TAUNTING the Franciscans"

I fart in your general direction

Oh, wait, that's taunting the English.

Can't you just hear Cochise? "I will taunt you a second time."

[saltpoint]

117. Say, I like those costumes.

A lot.

[saltpoint]

101. 'Am very current on Crossan.

Stripped to the bone, an argument can deny the existence of Jesus of Galilee as he is given to us by extant texts, all of them secondary at best.

I place no higher authority on those texts than on contemporary commentary ON those texts, except as they divide and go into separate purposes. Namely, the intent of the author of Mark in my view had a separate purpose than the author(s) of John. I smell interpolations by the dozens in John, many fewer in Mark.

The intent informs the content and context of that document. Mark is also a reflection of an earlier document, now lost to us, but almost certainly available to those early communities, many of them Gnostic or some other blend of practices. If we could get our hands on that document, much would be made clearer, though perhaps not resolved.

I like Jesus of history against the tyranny of his times. I like his resourcefulness and his compassion. I do not believe in the Jesus of the Mormons. The zip code is all wrong. It's a bit too handy to have him walking around Oklahoma and Vermont. I'm not blocking Mormons' path to their Sunday worship. They're free to have him anyplace they want him.

But the reverence for Mark and those prior non-extant documents in my opinion completely eclipses "latter-day" renderings, whether or not there "was" a Jesus.

[saltpoint]

111. Just asking, but how do you know I'm missing a point if you don't

know what my beliefs are to begin with?

Telling you I disbelieve that Jesus of Galilee, if he existed, walked the Lower 48 doesn't give you any real insight to my cosmology, does it?

[Imperialism Inc.]

115. Because you keep arguing that dead people walking around one

place makes more sense than walking around some other place. Dead people walking around makes no sense anywhere it happens. And, if it can happen then I see no reason why floating across the ocean makes any less sense. I mean , surely if one can rise from the dead then one can handle that part of it. No?

[mzmolly]

116. I think the fact that Jesus revealed himself to those he knew if sufficient is it not?

It's not a matter of his choosing the best vacation spots. ;)

[saltpoint]

125. Good point on the geography. Which is why I have my sincere doubts

about the Virgin showing up in greater Cincinnati.

Unless she's a die-hard Reds fan, who'd want to put up with that traffic? It all bottle-necks down by the river, and I-65 can be a zoo.

Just a zoo.

[saltpoint]

122. I think you've got a gun in your hand and are insisting on firing it.

Put the gun down.

Here's my deal on Jesus: he might have existed. He might not have. I have no idea. Neither do you.

There is, however, a body of scholarship about him, some of which is extraordinarily lively, most of which is predictably sober. Some by Crossan and other modernists (or post-modernists, if you want), others by far more traditional thinkers.

You can have your favorites or not among that entire variance and the whole field, as far as I'm concerned.

You can have a resurrected Jesus or a more historical Jesus -- matters not to me.

You pick.

You can have no Jesus at all.

But in traditional academic circles, you either are able to discuss Jesus of Galilee or you are not able to. I'm able to. Sounds to me as if you are also.

Leave off with the dead walking thing. It's a dead-end.

[Goblinmonger]

127. But you are arguing that he walked as a dead man

you are just drawing some arbitrary line as to what is an acceptable area for him to be walking in. You refer to biblical scholars not seeing it credible that he was in North America, but can't you see the circular nature of that? Doesn't that SERIOUSLY beg the question? You try to just toss off that begged question as no biggie, but it is a biggie.

There is a huge body of scholarship about Beowulf. HUGE. Doesn't make him real. And I don't think the discussion of Jesus existing is quite the toss up you make it to be. There is basically NO historical evidence that he did exist. I think those that argue for Jesus really existing have a much harder uphill battle than the other side.

I agree that the appearance of Jesus in North America does not match the rest of the myth and seems out of line for a myth that was so clearly based on Homer and a few gods from other religions. But to say that it is unlikely that he only walked among the living in the middle east and not north america because north america would be foolish seems, to me, to be really a silly line to draw and kind of cuts directly against the "respect the belief of others" thing that we are talking about. Not that I care because I think any thought that this guy really rose from the dead and walked among the living is clearly a myth. Have him walkin' where ever you want.

[saltpoint]

129. If you want the man dead, kill him. If you want him alive, and in

Palestine, or Utah, or Jupiter, that's just great.

If you want him resurrected and walking, or floating, or hot-tubbing in Vegas, that's absolutely fine with me.

I have no quarrels with your insistence that Jesus is this, or Jesus is that.

I'm not a Christian.

I am fully aware of that traditional scholarly line, though. You can raise the point with seminarians the world over, and see if they give you a different answer. I don't believe they will.

And properly so.

[Goblinmonger]

133. I'm confused

I'll reread this thread later when my head is clearer. I am obviously mistaken as to whom is saying what. My apologies and I'll get it straight later.

[saltpoint]

134. M'lord. I've tried to compliment you in this thread and you've not

taken the compliment.

I'm not miffed but several mythical demons at my disposal want to understand your recalcitrance.

[Goblinmonger]

136. I should probably PM this, but this is easier

I am finishing grading for the 3rd quarter right now and taking breaks when the essays become a blur to just clear my mind for a minute or two. I have thought at various times during this that you and I are on the same vein and then later I would think you were saying something opposite. I apologize. I shouldn't grade and post obviously. Or maybe I need to move to the lounge where it doesn't take any brain power to post.

I apologize. It is clearly my fault.

[saltpoint]

137. I bear my share of the blame, Goblinmonger. I'm obtuse these days

in the haze of ultra-fundie nutbags trying to yank library books from my hands, etc.

I apologize for the lack of clarity and will work on it for next time. I will look forward to your posts.

Good luck on those papers you're grading, and then treat yourself to a good play or film.

[Imperialism Inc.]

128. I will admit that I have no idea what you are talking about.

You win. Your cryptic statements are indecipherable.

But maybe you can answer these questions for me so that I can understand your position. The original post from Goblin is below. Can you write in straight forward responses your answers to Goblin's original questions?

Do you not see the irony to the non-Christian about discussion the "historical accuracy" of Jesus walking around ANYWHERE after his death?

At this point I am reading you as saying "yes" you do see the irony but it certainly didn't seem so in your post that Goblin responded to with these questions.

I mean, really, if he could have walked around after death in the middle east, why couldn't he come talk to the Native Americans?
You are saying he couldn't since he never walked around as after being dead in the first place? Is that what you are saying? That seems to ignore the assumption made in the question, "if he could have walked around after death", so hopefully you can see where the confusion might arise when you ignore the question and answer a different one without telling us you changed the question. Or do I still have it all wrong?

How can a mainstream christian expect any level of respect for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus when they say Jesus walking around after death in the holy land is fine but North America is just fucking crazy?
I take it that you agree. That a mainstream Christian should not expect any more respect for that idea? Or are you saying that it should be afforded more respect because at least, if he existed, then he was born in that area? I can't really decode what you are saying here.

I would still say that once you have people raising from the dead then where exactly they go to bring visions doesn't really matter much. I mean, if Mary is a spirit then why couldn't she visit Cinci? If we disagree then that is fine but I'd still like to understand what it is you are saying.

[saltpoint]

130. What is it you think I believe? That dead people walk? I do not believe

they do.

If you want to believe that, I'm not stopping you. If you DON'T believe that, that's also hunky-dory.

I have no stake in what you want to believe or not believe, WL. None at all.

The OP involved respect for others' beliefs. I tend to acknowledge the variance in beliefs but am less generous with prosyletizers. And said so.

That's pretty much where I came in on this one.

[saltpoint]

131. Those quotations aren't mine.

They're someone else's. You should direct your concerns to their author.

As for the visitations, alleged, of Mary to the greater Cincinnati area, I came to that knowledge first through hearsay by a Lemon Chill vendor at then-Riverfront Stadium, and later via the Cincinnati ENQUIRER.

I've never attended one of the Virgin's "appearances."

[Imperialism Inc.]

132. OK. I see Goblin re-asked basically the same thing above.

I think I understand your position now. Except for the "and properly so" part at the end. lol

[Madspirit]

7. I NEVER pretend

I NEVER pretend to repect the beliefs of any of those people because I do not respect them. To claim I do would be a hypocritical lie. I have suffered greatly and personally because of the beliefs of the people you name. FUCK THEM ALL. (Except the Quiverfulls people or the 666 guy...unless you are talking about the Christian construct Satan...because I have no idea who they are and I don't really care much.)
Lee

[trotsky]

8. A noble effort to point out the hypocrisy.

Of course the other factor that comes into play here is exactly what is meant by "respect." For some, anything other than praise of their beliefs is an attack on them.

[rasputin1952]

37. But those are the ignorant, and while they run among humanity...

even the ignorant are permitted a viewpoint. One certainly need not agree w/it, but can respect the notion that the individual has their own POV. I don't think there is any requirement for people to listen to diatribes they do not wish to, but on a message board, it is easier to reject the message and move on, just as getting out of a contentious discussion is quite often beneficial.

As for the hypocrisy, I could not agree more. Of all of the things I see, read and hear, nothing disturbs me more than hypocrisy. For every person of faith, (regardless of the faith), if they are hypocrites, they need to be brought out into the light and exposed. Hypocrisy has been more detrimental to people of faith, and those who do not believe, than any other aspect of the human condition. We have mullahs saying murder/suicide is a way to paradise; we have millionaire preachers that step over the downtrodden to step into glorious buildings that could easily have housed those that cannot find shelter...but they lock the doors, and allow only access to well heeled individuals that know nothing of mercy, forgiveness and justice.

The bane of religion is the path they have taken...They seek riches and power, not benefits to those who can be lifted up physically and spiritually. In some aspects Christianity , one of the things forgotten has been, is that works of grace and and compassion carry a lot more weight than empty platitudes.

To be sure, there are people of impeccable character that aid those that that have fallen through one of life's many traps, but they are few and far between. They continue to work because the individuals DO believe the can make a change in some small corner of of the world.

[varkam]

53. Well

even the ignorant are permitted a viewpoint.

Unfortunately, such viewpoints are often viewed on equal-footing with other viewpoints when, in reality, they are demonstrably false.

[rasputin1952]

74. I concur wholeheartedly, ignorance is one of the great wrongs of

a society.

It is the ignorant, that stand to lose because they do not understand that science, philosophy and religion walk together, not apart.

I have no problem w/anyone's belief system in life, (as long as people, animals, nature aren't being harmed), and they are free to choose to accept a religion, atheism, agnosticism whatever. But the biggest problem is that people are too easily swayed by words from others that seem to have the "ring of truth", but are patently false. The Great Flood is a prime example, I figure that in the past, there was a local flooding in the ME, but since that was the "world" as they knew it, it became "The World" as in global. So far, the most plausible theory I have seen is that after some pretty heavy rain, say 40 days for arguments sake, an ice damn across the the entrance to Black Sea could easily have broken and flooded the area using the Mediterranean as a source of the flooding. Would have seemed cataclysmic to those in the area, and would have seemed "earth-wide, but far from it in reality.

[trotsky]

66. But who is ignorant?

Is it just those who don't follow your faith like you do, that are ignorant? Your interpretation is correct, and anyone else who disagrees is ignorant?

[rasputin1952]

71. No, we are all ignorant on certain aspects of life, science, religion and a

host of other things. It is the willfully ignorant of the religious people I am speaking of, regardless of religion/philosophy; those that have refused to delve into just what they say they "believe".

Ignorance is either a natural situation, such as when someone looks at something, and doesn't know how it works/exists; or it can be a self imposed, such as when a preponderance of evidence exist to show how the item could work, and they walk away from it,simply believing it could not work. It is a case of intellectual curiosity, how, "why what happens"?

Everyone i ignorant of many things, this is not necessarily bad, do most of us know much, if anything about Quantum Physics? But we should all have a basic knowledge of biology and math. I am ignorant of trigonometry, but I know to add prices up when I shop, trig is not a priority for me, but food shopping is.

[trotsky]

72. But how would you know if they are "willfully ignorant"?

Millions of Christians have come up with millions of different interpretations of the bible. When they disagree, who is being ignorant? And how do you know when the ignorance is willful?

[rasputin1952]

81. IMO, "willfully ignorance" is what occurs when people refuse to look at

what evidence of any side that is presented.

A for-instance, there is a preponderance of evidence for evolution, and that the earth is hundreds of billions of years old, to merely dismiss this w/o looking into it and believing that the universe was created on a certain date that goes back some several thousand years is willfully ignorant.m The fear that the tenets of a specific religious are being challenged keeps a person from looking at the other sides POV...after all, there may something in there that "makes sense"...:scared:

To say that Socrates was right about the spontaneous generation of life by viewing maggots suddenly appear on dead flesh, then turn into flies, shows that until there was a way to view the fly eggs, Socrates was ignorant of the process as were many others, until a way was developed to look further into the situation. Socrates was not willfully ignorant he thought out what he observed and came to conclusion, even if in error. The willfully ignorant would have been those, that after proof was presented as to the process, that would continue to believe in Socrates' original explanation.

[trotsky]

82. Is it "willfully ignorant"...

to believe in a virgin birth when we know there is a "preponderance of evidence" that is impossible?

What about believing that a crucified man came back to life?

[rasputin1952]

86. Thanks for the bait....

:D

No, there are times when there are things that happen when we have no understanding of them, on these, faith is the recipe to come to a conclusion. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as people keep searching.

For one thing, "virgin" may not mean the same thing it does today in the texts it comes from. One of the aspects of being Caesar at the time, is that were born of a virgin, it added the aspect of the supernatural to the situation, and placed him in a "god-like" position and very powerful. This could easily have been placed into the books to allude to status. For that matter, since we are talking "supernatural, it may well have happened. If there is a God, he could do whatever he wanted.

Just as the Sodom story about "bring them out that we shall 'know' them; kind of broad, but someone decided that it meant a sexual act, beats me. Much has been lost in translation and a lack of knowledge, (ignorance), of what the original meant. What we have is what we, today, believe it alludes to.

As for the crucifixion and rising from the dead of Jesus. There actually is evidence of people coming "back to life" although 3 days is a bit long, but there are also cases of catatonia that have been well documented. Now I am not saying he didn't die and return from the dead, I do not know proof positive that that is what happened. But I do know that he died relatively quickly, and the method of death in crucifixion is asphyxiation. The possibility exist that Jesus was "knocked out from anorexia" and all of the jostling may actually have begun respirations, although shallow, to resume. I don't subscribe to that, but this is what I say when it pays to delve into hings. At the time of the Crucifixion, there was little to no knowledge of many things...oddly, death might not have been death as we know it. Just as it was only a few years ago we came to understand brain death and made it the standard for clinical death instead of a lack of breathing and auscultation of a heartbeat.

Since all of this is in the realm of the "supernatural" as described Biblically, I cannot say it didn't happen either. I occasionally find it interesting that many people will accept other "supernatural" aspects, like ghosts, UFO's, ESP, animism, curses and blessings, et al, but somehow find it difficult to accept that something supernatural like rising from the dead appears to be out of bounds. Supernatural is supernatural, it is the unexplained; some answers make more sense than others, but until proof positive comes along to counter any side, what is the harm in believing that someone could rise from the dead? Besides, that is just one small aspect of the situation, the real level this alluded to is that sacrifices for others can be made, that there is a hope for humanity if we are willing to do things that might have a cost, but humanity will benefit.

The real travesty lies in the fact that people accept a religion and do not see the base tenets of that religion as being beneficial for a society. I have known agnostics and atheists that have far more moral grounding than many who claim a religious faith, and vice-versa.

[trotsky]

89. Not intended as bait, really.

Just want to explore your line of reasoning. You answer both questions with "coulda been" scenarios that really are just an appeal to more faith. There is no way to tell if someone is being willfully ignorant, is there? You draw the line just past what you believe, and others draw it in other places.

The real travesty lies in the fact that people accept a religion and do not see the base tenets of that religion as being beneficial for a society.

But that's what I'm trying to get at. There is no agreement as to what those "base tenets" even are. And even then, interpretation comes into play. Does "Love thy neighbor; turn the other cheek" mean you should let him rape your daughter and steal your car?

What is the "base tenet" of Christianity regarding homosexuality? What specifically did Jesus say about homosexuals? Or abortion?

[rasputin1952]

92. Answers...

"There is no way to tell if someone is being willfully ignorant, is there?'

Sure there are. If one, despite all of the evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and yet, they prefer to believe otherwise. There are people out there that believe their is no gravity, clean gutters on a rickety ladder, I di, I KNOW gravity exists. That is willful ignorance.

"Does "Love thy neighbor; turn the other cheek" mean you should let him rape your daughter and steal your car?"

No it does not mean that at all. You have the right, and the obligation to protect those in your family, and to a lesser degree, your property. What is alluded to, is that a pacifistic approach is taken, justification on the part of the offender cannot be made.

"What is the "base tenet" of Christianity regarding homosexuality? What specifically did Jesus say about homosexuals? Or abortion?"

As far as I can discern, there is nothing discussed by Jesus about any of these things. These have become "morality issues" from Paul's writing to separate churches and OT verses. I, personally believe that Jesus spoke for all of humanity, no individual groups. The message was tolerance, love, compassion and empathy. The only condemnation from Jesus I see is that for hypocrisy and those that would use the name of God to make profit.

[trotsky]

96. Not really that cut-and-dried, is it?

If one, despite all of the evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and yet, they prefer to believe otherwise. ... That is willful ignorance.

What if your belief system includes someone like the Satan figure whose sole purpose is to dissuade believers from their faith? And that this Satan guy has quite a bit of power to do that, including planting phony "evidence" that causes people to believe crazy things like we & monkeys are descended from the same ancestor, or that the earth revolves around the sun. But those in the know will reject such tricks! Such a person is not being willfully ignorant, since in their eyes they are "passing" a test of faith. In fact, they think of themselves as anything BUT ignorant since they know the "real" truth and are not fooled like the rest of us.

You have the right, and the obligation to protect those in your family, and to a lesser degree, your property.

Where does Jesus say that? Does he explain just how much force you're allowed to use? Can you break someone's arm if they are trying to steal your iPod? Are you allowed to kill them if they're trying to take your car?

The message was tolerance, love, compassion and empathy.

Which of course, is still subject to the same interpretation problems. Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. In one of his parables, the character representing HIM ordered his subjects to kill everyone who didn't want him to rule over them. Tolerance, love, compassion, and empathy? Not always so clear.

The only condemnation from Jesus I see is that for hypocrisy and those that would use the name of God to make profit.

So if you really believe your interpretation is correct, and you're not making profit from it, it's OK?

[rasputin1952]

145. Not at all...

What if part of the plan was evolution all along? To me, it is not that difficult to see, especially w/todays technology that we might well have developed from monkeys, the genetic differences are not all that great between primates, a few changes in DNA, and something new pops up. As I stated earlier, I am not a proponent of creation as told in Genesis.

Jesus never said that, that was from the Commandments and the difference between murder and defense. Also, "how much force" or what can be exacted as maximum payment for loss is OT. "An eye for an eye" does not mean loss of an eye, you demand more than eye, like an eye and a leg or a life. This is an ancient Hebrew tenet designed to ensure that things equaled out if there was a grievance. Included in that situation is mercy, one not need demand anything in return for a loss, it can be forgiven and forgotten.

The "fig tree" analogy is to show how the leadership of Judaism, (can be used for other religions as well), should be cast off if it cannot produce fruit.

Sure, it is fine, one not need make profit to spread the word, and if one does take in money, that money is to be used to aid those of lesser means, those from the bottom of society who are barely alive, and then move your way up through the strata. One of the great hypocrisies is that million dollar churches are built with money that could go to feeding the hungry and aiding the sick, Statuary in grand buildings does little except make one look at wealth and create a form of idolatry as opposed to using what could be gained to aid those in distress.


edited: spell check.

[trotsky]

146. I don't think this is going anywhere.

As I stated earlier, I am not a proponent of creation as told in Genesis.

You might not be, but you didn't address my question at all. A person who believes there is an evil agent (e.g., Satan) who plants false evidence is perfectly justified in NOT believing in things like evolution. They're not being willfully ignorant, which kind of shoots your whole theory down.

Jesus never said that, that was from the Commandments and the difference between murder and defense.

See, you're already engaging in picking & choosing. There are multiple commandment listings. Which one are you going to choose? And venturing back into the OT, you're going to open not just a can of worms but several barrels full of 'em. How much OT law still applies? Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. How are you picking and choosing which bits of the law you want to apply? Are you being willfully ignorant when it comes to ignoring those laws you don't like?

Your fig tree explanation is noted, but it doesn't change the circumstances of the event. And you skipped past the parable of the king who demands his unruly subjects be killed.

And your final answer is confusing. One can preach whatever variation of "the word" ones feels like, as long as you're not making money doing it?

[rasputin1952]

147. It may well not be going anywhere. I had stated that there were some

aspects of the OT that I find quite easy to accept, like washing hands and utensils before preparing food, I also figure the 10 Commandments, in it's original form has some pretty good wisdom to it One need not agree w/all of them but it seems that not stealing or bearing false witness of one's neighbor, nor greed by coveting another's possessions are pretty good ideas.

In this instance, "Are you being willfully ignorant when it comes to ignoring those laws you don't like?" absolutely not, some of those laws in Leviticus would/are considered absurd in todays' current standards. I am far from ignorant when I say I will not stone my son because he offend me; in fact, I think that is more of an enlightened stance than an ignorant one. Nor would I send menstruating confined, and then check by priests to make sure they are once again "clean".

As I've stated on several occasions , I am not a literalist, but here is wisdom in the Bible, just a s there is wisdom in other religions as well as agnosticism and atheism.

I choose those things that benefit mankind, I reject those that bring horror upon the masses. I don't believe the Hebrews should have gone and annihilated the Canaanites, perhaps they would have gotten along through trade, etc...for all I know, the Canaanites might not have been all slaughtered, but it seems to me a massive amount of blood letting for a strip of land hat was hard to use for agriculture.

[moggie]

85. Not quite

there is a preponderance of evidence for evolution, and that the earth is hundreds of billions of years old

Er, no. Current thinking is that the earth is around four and a half billion years old. The fact that you got it wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude, and in fact made the earth much older than the universe: is this "willfully ignorant"? Obviously I respect your belief in this oddball chronology, though! ;-)

[rasputin1952]

87. Ack! Thanks for the correction, while I was typing that I was thinking

more of a universal scale, and didn't get any of the #'s right...just rolling off the top of my head early in the AM w/o my usual quantity of coffee can cause errors....:D

[MistressOverdone]

69. Very excellent point

to me, respect is you keep your mouth shut unless you are poked unmercifully, then you let them have it.

If I go into a village in the Amazon and meet their shaman, I am unlikely to argue theology with him. I will treat him respectfully and ask questions and take notes and if there is anything I can take from that experience, fine. If not, so be it. I feel the same way about my teacher's aide who every once in a while starts evangelizing. She's not the brightest light in the socket and so I ask a few questions and then find a reason to go do something else. But this lady has raised two grandchildren on a pitiful salary, can cook like you wouldn't believe and never, ever bounces a check...which I do at least once a month. She has been to Europe a number of times (because she saves her money and I don't) and has quite a few very nice traits, some of which help her to be quite useful to me. The evangelizing is a minor annoyance compared to her positives.

Now, here on R/T I expect there to be discussion about the various religions in the world, including from folks who don't buy any of it. And it's fine with me when they do the fairy tale schtick and fuck this and that because really, they are opening a window to their heart and soul with their words and I learn far more about them and what kind of people they are. So there are no questions in my mind, usually , who is a mature, thoughtful individual and who is an immature, juvenile cretin. I like that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Would you agree

that all of us here are possessed of life?

Would you agree that the lives each of us lead is different than other poster's lives?

Would you agree that we should all say "yes" to the above questions?

Then maybe our practice could be to respect the life each of us lives--that this is where each one of us is at this point in time. If someone posts something that we know is incorrect, we correct it-with respect (and citations if they are available).

Not an easy practice, but an interesting one.

[Goblinmonger]

13. You were one of the people I was talking about

with the 666 guy. You are one of the few I would listen to the "respect the beliefs of others" line from.

I think we all have different schemata which processes our information differently (yes, I did my master's thesis on information processing theory). I understand that. Doesn't mean that because someone comes to a conclusion, I have to think that they should live and let live with that conclusion. It might be whacked. Others may not think so.

Thanks for you input.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Thank you

and if I have, to anyone here, caused any pain or anguish, know that I am sorry. Please forgive me.

Let us continue in Life together.

[toddaa]

19. Respect for you the person

Not you the philosophy, or you the religion, or you the political party. That's really what you are asking for when you ask for respect. Respect is earned and it is given to each individual accordingly.

But that also demands that each one of us is worthy of respect and that it is not to be given to us just because we are a Sufi or an atheist.

We are the same before we are born and after we die. It's the stuff in between that makes us different. Compared to the vastness of time, our differences are nothing. We are both human.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Very profound

"Compared to the vastness of time, our differences are nothing. We are both human."

I bow to your humanity. Thank you.

[ulysses]

24. is all respect earned?

Sure, I understand giving and taking it away according to how a person lives, but I at least try to give a certain amount based on simple humanity.

[toddaa]

40. Tolerance and respect are two different things

Fundamental human rights, like freedom of thought, are starting points. What you do with them may or may not garner respect, but they should never be infringed upon.

[ulysses]

44. right. I didn't mean tolerance. n/t

[toddaa]

46. Is there a word between tolerance and respect?

I actually think we are in agreement, we just seem to be lacking a thesaurus.

[ulysses]

47. we probably are.

I don't mean to be splitting hairs, your post just touched a point of interest of mine.

Peace. :)

[MistressOverdone]

70. Maybe "acknowledge"?

[Quantess]

76. so, you appreciate people who think for themselves?

I do.

[donco6]

14. I don't pretend.

The only "not real Christians" I know of are those who seem to miss the primary commandment of "loving your neighbor as yourself." Even JESUS called them fake. I figure I can too.

[mzmolly]

16. This is a two way street frankly.

Likening ones spiritual beliefs to "flying pink elephants" isn't exactly respectful.

[Goblinmonger]

22. I never said that I did respect anyone's beliefs

now did I? As a matter of fact, I don't think I asked for respect either. If you want to go after my atheism, let's have at it; I enjoy a good argument. I'm talking about those that claim respect when they bitch about atheist when they turn around and mock plenty of other people's beliefs. Apparently that went WHOOOSH.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. What an interesting concept--

Not respecting others beliefs and not asking for respect, either. Maybe just being you? A rather refreshing concept, if you don't mind me saying.

[saltpoint]

26. I'm not seeing how your atheism is at fault in the first place. If someone

posts on one of these boards about the need for us all to repent, based on passages in the Book of Revelation, my reaction is "Well, bullshit. You're invading my space; I'll respond in kind and you'll have to defend that position or retreat." In the most recent case a knowledge of English would have made a more fair fight, but I don't go over to St. Petersburg hawking agnosticim or paganism and insisting that citizens there will be punished for an eternity if they don't do as I insist. If I did I'd hope they'd smack me a good one and send my ass home.

So I'm not seeing your atheism as an issue at all, nevermind as a target.

Just my take.

[Goblinmonger]

28. I was just using that as a

"for instance" since I didn't want people to read this thread as me saying I can shit on people's beliefs but nobody can say anything about me because I am an atheist and don't have any beliefs in the religious sense. In other words, if someone thinks I spout nonsense, then call me on it, please. I'm not asking for anyone to pussyfoot around with me for whatever reason.

[saltpoint]

30. No, I wasn't suggesting fault on your part. Just saying that I'm

able to defend the damn Pope if he says something worth hearing, or makes a gesture worthy of people's respect and consideration, while at the same time I'd howl at the prohibition of female priests, or sex before marriage, and so on. Religions can keep me on my toes. But I respect the parts I think are good even as I complain about the parts I think are bad.

The 666 guy had a natural disadvantage coming in to that board without the tools to defend his position. I don't feel sorry for him, because he came as a prosyletizer. I didn't come into his website (it's listed) to try to save him or change him in any way. So since he picked a fight, he got one.

The fundamentalists are the ones who would be most fearful of your atheism. I think the fundies are fearful that they require the crutch and you don't. They don't know how to translate an atheist's independence. It's a fearsome thing for them, and rather than reconsider their position, they attack and claim you are "unsaved."

Yucky.

[mzmolly]

29. No it didn't go "whoosh" but given the lack of respect is mutual

I felt inclined to mention it. I'm not going to "go after" anyone's beliefs. I fully respect your right NOT to believe in XYZ.

[saltpoint]

31. That's because you're a class act, start to finish. Hey there, Molly.

Long time no see.

[mzmolly]

32. Hey OC!

You are such a darling!

Personally, when I think of the term "class act" I think of you Old Crusoe. :loveya: :hug:

[saltpoint]

34. Don't make me blush -- I'm trying to stay mad at the Republicans!

I can't WAIT to get rid of the Bush administration!

[mzmolly]

36. LOL

Thankfully (worst case scenario) we're into the last two years of this nightmare of an administration. And, with Hagle sounding like Dennis as of late, it might be sooner than we think? ;)

[saltpoint]

39. I already trust your political instincts, Molly, but you and Goblinmonger

are having one hell of an intelligent exchange here in this thread on respect/religion.

I'm appreciating it very much.

You guys rock.

[mzmolly]

42. Awe thanks.

:hi: I'm having fun. ;)

[saltpoint]

43. And we others are learning something. This is an exciting thread.

[mzmolly]

45. Well, I'm having trouble understanding what I'm attempting to communicate.

But I am enjoying myself.

:hi:

[Goblinmonger]

35. Hey

get a room :evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

38. LOL

That would be against my ahhh, religion! :P

[Goblinmonger]

33. But my point is

why does it have to go both ways? Why is there the assumption that is sought on my part. I know many atheists who aren't asking for any such "respect" that many theists ask for on here. If anything, the "respect" that is being asked for is the ability to just be able to talk about it. If we're not asking for it, do we need to give it? And if so, why? I know I'm sounding like an ass here, but these are real questions.

I'm sure you do respect my right to not believe. I appreciate that. I really do. I respect your right to believe whatever you want as well. But that doesn't mean that if you come on a public board and state your opinions, that I (or anyone else) is not within their rights to call bullshit on those beliefs. I'm not telling you that you CAN'T believe, just that the belief is bogus to me for whatever reason. Saying that believing in god is the same thing as believing in pink unicorns DOES NOT mean that you can't believe that. I would still respect your right to believe it and would go tooth and nail to support your right to believe it as defined by the constitution. I could do all of that and still think you are cracked (and I am saying "you" in a general sense and not "you" specifically because I honestly can't recall knowing what your beliefs are at the moment).

[mzmolly]

41. I feel that respect should be given fully to ones beliefs or a lack thereof.

Then again you said:

I'm sure you do respect my right to not believe. I appreciate that. I really do. I respect your right to believe whatever you want as well. But that doesn't mean that if you come on a public board and state your opinions, that I (or anyone else) is not within their rights to call bullshit on those beliefs.

You appear to advocate against respect, correct? However saying you appreciate my "respect" of your non-beliefs seems contrary to that position?

Let me say this. IMO, we should respect any belief system/lack of belief system that is in-sync with progressive values. If a skin head posts here attempting to justify their collective cause, OBVIOUSLY we don't have to maintain a level of "respect."

As for what my beliefs are, I don't box myself in. I'm sort of a "non-literalist Christian, agnostic, deist." :crazy:

Anyhow, I am sorry if you were disrespected here for your non-beliefs, but apparently you don't care?

I hope I made some sense in my convoluted reply/edit # 203 ?

Peace :)

[Goblinmonger]

48. But you didn't say

that you respected my disbeliefs but my right not to believe. It is THAT which I appreciated. It is also the same curtosy that I extend. You can believe what you want. I don't have to think it is all beer and skittles, though. I don't see those two viewpoints as being incompatible.

I think if we start holding religious dogma up to progressive values, a lot of mainstream religion is out the door. Which is fine with me, but a lot of catholics on here wouldn't agree.

I don't care if people want to take on my disbelief. I really don't. What pisses me off is the attitude that I shouldn't even talk. There are many on here who react to atheists even talking about the fact that they don't believe. There are many who want us to shut up because our "issues" (crazy things like seperation of church and state) just give the right wing talking points. There are many here who think that atheists are in some manner of power as to actually persecute christians. There are many in the country, according to the UMinn poll, that put atheists as the least trusted minority in the country. That is what I have a problem with. "Attacking" my lack of belief and calling it foolish--that's just the start to a good old late night grad school "brawl" and brings back feelings of the old days.

[mzmolly]

49. Gotcha.

I don't care if people want to take on my disbelief. I really don't. What pisses me off is the attitude that I shouldn't even talk. There are many on here who react to atheists even talking about the fact that they don't believe. There are many who want us to shut up because our "issues" (crazy things like seperation of church and state) just give the right wing talking points.

Those people should read the constitution.

There are many here who think that atheists are in some manner of power as to actually persecute christians. There are many in the country, according to the UMinn poll, that put atheists as the least trusted minority in the country.

I was not aware of this. Do you have a link? As a Minnesotan, that's surprising to me.

That is what I have a problem with. "Attacking" my lack of belief and calling it foolish--that's just the start to a good old late night grad school "brawl" and brings back feelings of the old days.

So what your saying is that simply because you don't believe in a "God" that you are labeled as an albatross to Democrats, who gives fodder to the RW? And, that you are considered non-trustworthy by the majority of Americans? Those are definitely legitimate concerns.

On the other hand, if I call myself a Christian, I am lumped in with the fundy/loony crowd by many who don't subscribe to a like belief system here. Either way it's a form of bigotry.

So where do we go from here? How can progressive Christians/Atheists respect one another in a meaningful manner? Or can't we? Or shouldn't we try?

I may not be back tonight, but I promise will respond tomorrow because I think you raise an interesting point.

[Goblinmonger]

84. I think progressive Christians and Atheists

need to realize what todda was saying perhaps in another thread. Religion and politics aren't the same. You and I are both progressive democrats. The fact that you have a belief in god and I see that same god as just another in a line of mythologies has no bearing on the fact that we both see Bush as a hugh dickhead. Leave it behind us. Keep religion out of politics all together. If that's done, there are no problems.

Here a link to a blurb about the UMinn study. It was not a study of Minnesota only, but a national study done at the U. I used to live in North Dakota and then Minnesota before moving out east to Wisconsin (so I'm a displaced Vikings fan living 40 miles from the Mecca of Packerland).
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

[mzmolly]

90. Goodness, I'm a displaced Vikings fan living among them.

They are perpetually frustrating.

As for the religion thing. I thought about your question regarding "respect" and YES I do respect your "disbelief" as long as you needn't disrespect my belief to get there. Make sense? If you can hold your disbelief without trashing my belief, then I feel your belief is genuine and not reactionary, thus I respect it.

An aside - I had a related conversation with my child last year. When she was seven she told me she didn't believe in God. She said a few things that I found interesting.

1. "Mom, you're so gullible for believing in all that God stuff."

And ...

2. "Oh yeah right Mom, like there is some old man sitting in the sky."

After a good chuckle, I couldn't help but think how much she sounds like many HERE. Then again, she has been exposed to my "literalist" fundy Mother in law, so that's enough to turn anyone off to the idea of a higher being.

However, I went on to explain that MY God is not an "old man in the sky" and she seemed willing to hear me out. :D

Now what to do with this forum? Since we can't discuss religion/theology anymore? ;)

PS reading the poll now, and frankly I'm surprised at the attitudes of many Americans.

[Goblinmonger]

93. Of course we can discuss religion

people just have to realize that "discuss" means that someone will think that you are wrong, that someone will likely point out the flaws in your thinking. "Discuss" does not mean that I nod my head and say "that's interesting" and it is over. Nor does "discuss" mean that this is an echo chamber. There are specific groups for that.

The only problem I have with your post is "If you can hold your disbelief without trashing my belief, then I feel your belief is genuine and not reactionary, thus I respect it."

The problem is that the label of atheist makes us "not theist" so on some level, I have to "trash" your belief, i.e. think it is not true, in order to be who I am. So if I say that I don't believe in god because he is no different than the tooth fairy, or Zeus if you want less emotionally-ladden examples, then some will say that I am trashing their belief and am just a reactionary. Make sense?

[mzmolly]

94. No you needn't "trash" my belief. Thinking it's "not true" is not trashing.

So if I say that I don't believe in god because he is no different than the tooth fairy, or Zeus if you want less emotionally-ladden examples, then some will say that I am trashing their belief and am just a reactionary. Make sense?

I don't think that likening God to either the TF or Zeus is reactionary personally, what I personally find reactionary is when some Atheists use Biblical literalism to reject or counter the belief in a higher being.

Also, likening God to the tooth fairy can be offensive simply because many who participate here have stated that they wish not to have their spiritual beliefs likened to the tooth fairy and/or Zeus. Once that has been communicated, if you continue in that vein, it becomes "trashing." You can choose to continue offending if you like. However, I think if you word any such comparison in a personal manner, such as - "I liken a belief in God to believing in the tooth fairy" many would not take offense? On the other hand, if you say "belief in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy" it's offensive because you are characterizing some else's belief system rather than stating your own. Does that make any sense? At least that's my humble opinion.

Another tidbit. My step-dad is an atheist though not self described as such, his theory on God is summed up as follows "I don't believe any of that bullshit." My Mother, on the other hand is a spiritual person. They coexist without judging one another in this regard. They've been together for over 30 years. I've never heard him liken her beliefs to Santa or the tooth fairy, and I've not heard her say he's not trustworthy because he doesn't subscribe to the "God" thing. Perhaps that is why I have hope for "us?" ;)

[MistressOverdone]

73. I know I have come late to this party

but I keep coming back to the concept of respect. Really, respect is good manners. In my classroom, when I introduce myself to kids, I tell them that the word on the board is respect and I expect them to behave respectfully towards: me, each other, our materials and equipment, and themselves. Sums up what I want from them.

So I think that in an argument about faith, if someone pulls out the pink unicorns canard that they are using bad manners, and therefore, disrespectful. I think a mannerly, civil conversation would go like this: "Well, I don't believe in XYZ because of ABC." Your Turn "Yes, I see your point. I have another way of looking at it. DE and F have convinced me, personally, that XY and Z is the way to go, at least for me."

And so it goes. Everybody makes their point. Everybody is happy, turns off their computer and feels they have been heard. But when somebody says "You might as well believe in pink unicorns" the underlying message is "you are stupid, gullible and an idiot and I am much wiser and have no use for you." And if the other somebody replies, "yeah, well, atheism is a religion, you are closed to your spirituality and you're going to hell but you are too damned stubborn to admit it"...

Then the civil, manner discourse goes to hell in a handbasket and somebody gets tombstoned. Or should.

So, to me, respect = manners.

[mzmolly]

91. Excellent summarization.

I agree fully. :hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

103. Besides, there are other ways of making the same point, without invoking pink unicorns, santa,

or other deliberately silly comparisons.

[MistressOverdone]

104. Yes, there are

and the same old metaphors are unimaginative. It is the childlike nature that I think crosses the line. Just like if you said "pink elephants" would make me think someone was calling me a drunk.

And I sure know the atheists get tired of hearing the same old stuff, too. We need to liven the discourse up with some good writing!

[More Than A Feeling]

18. If religion were treated as ideas instead of identity, there would be no need to worry.

Ideas are fair game, identity makes it personal, and has the potential to provoke a negative reaction, even if perhaps a person makes an effort not to show it.

[cyborg_jim]

51. Indeed. Do the members here give respect to Republican political beliefs?

[Tigress DEM]

57. Some "traditional" Republican beliefs have merit.

Fiscal responsibility (that actually means a balanced budget WITHOUT having to extort from Corporate America and become their ho).

Compassionate Conservatism (that actually includes compassion and conserves something worthwhile, like oh, I don't know, the air and water that humanity depends on for its existence).

When you neo-con it and make everything backwards, then NO it isn't worth "respecting" but if someone parades their own mother around in boxing shorts and a kangaroo mask, is it the person parading their mother around that is disrespectful or the gasping crowd or the poor guy who falls into a laughing fit on the curb, but would never do that to his own mother. Hard to say.

Hard to say.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. To their right to have and express those beliefs, sure.

That's sort of central, isn't it?

To the practice of those beliefs, when it harms other people? No.

But the right to put forward your own beliefs depends on the right of everyone to be able to do so.

[MistressOverdone]

77. I often respect the ideals Republicans discuss

it's the stuff they DO that I don't respect.

[varkam]

52. Bingo.

Spot on there, friend.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. I agree. But that's exactly why the debate in this area can get so

heated. We're talking about things that are so very personal to people. It can be hard to keep the debate from becoming personal.

But I think you're right that ought to be our goal.

[varkam]

54. Often times, people confuse "respect" with "accept"

in that if their beliefs are rejected, then somehow they are not being respected. I consistently reject pretty much all metaphysical belief, but I fully respect everyone's right (my own included) to be wrong, wrong, wrong. For instance, if you want to believe that all wind is caused by a giant eagle sitting atop a mountain at the north pole flapping it's wings (as was the viking belief, I think), then I respect your right to do so - but I might just think you're a fucking loon (apologies to anyone here who does actually believe that).

Also, as Heaven and Earth posted, I think people get too tied up in letting their beliefs become who they are such that if their beliefs are threatened, then they are too. For my money, I don't care what you call me - atheist zealot, scientific fundamentalist, that I have no morals, that I'm emotionally lacking because I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus - whatever. I'm fine with that because I welcome challenges to the things I believe because they don't comprise who I am as a person. I guess that's why I don't really have a problem with my beliefs being rejected by others, because I realize that it's not a rejection of who I am.

[Tigress DEM]

56. I agree that those two are confused.. A LOT.

I just think someone's beliefs or stated lack thereof are their business to decide, not mine. It's just something I think is best accepted, like hair color or height as something about that person that is. Simply is.

I find people with different beliefs from mine interesting. I think that most everyone has a moral compass if they are working to make the world a better place.

Some people have definitely been hurt by religion that has been used as a crowd control device and in turn wound others from their pain, but some people of rational thought have also been taught how to wield sarcasm to truly draw the life blood out of someone's day.

I'm sure having to endure the whine fest about "the attack on Easter" will bring up hackles if it rears it's fluffy head again this year. Even as a person of faith, the whole Xmas carols in September made my blood boil. Jesus used for commercial profit. Jesus used to promote the war. Like watching someone wash their car with my cat. UN-fucking believable. Pointless. Bizarre.

Actually most Christians probably hate me more than atheists do. I don't fit the mold. I could maybe join a biker church downtown somewhere. Have to learn how to ride though.

[Tigress DEM]

55. Sounds like Projection to me.

Maybe you can't understand the difference between someone not agreeing with the way someone practices their faith and still feeling the basis of a particular faith is valid for an individual, but saying that others should stop "pretending to respect others" shows that you are the one who isn't grabbing the respect concept.

When people of faith or people of reason chose to make a positive difference in this world they can work for the same cause while having different beliefs. That is (to me at least) what the whole separation of church and state is about.

Thing is, I can believe in BOTH faith and reason to the degree that I choose to here in this country and it's no body's business to tell me that what I believe is wrong for me. I can certainly hear someone say it doesn't work for them and not take issue to it, but every belief system - including rational thought - should be respected and beside the point.

Don't let people justify their bad behavior by blaming it on God or the devil or the man in the moon. Their behavior is their choice. Just call the behavior and only bring up the faith issue if it's germain to the discussion.

People who claim to follow Jesus know his last instructions to his disciples were, "Feed my sheep" and people who fill the coffers of millionaires and let people starve are not following their stated faith.

People who claim to be rational and want to be respected for their logical opinions can and should be able to respect others for theirs regardless of what faith someone has or doesn't.

People who claim to follow Jesus and beat others over the head with the Gospel don't really get the content of the book in their hands.

If you don't want to be tolerant and that works for you, fine. Just don't act like it's the intelligent choice because it isn't.

Intelligent people understand they can learn from people who are different from themselves and prefer that company to those who completely agree with everything they say.

[More Than A Feeling]

58. How do you feel about calling the virtue of the entire concept of "faith"

as it relates to religion into question? Your post doesn't say, and its rather important to the whole discussion. Do you think that whether faith in a deity is a good thing to have is a topic that ought to be up for discussion, or should faith be immune from that sort of critique? If it ought to be exempt from that kind of critique, why?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. What do you mean by "valid for an individual"?

Either there is a God, or there isn't.

Either Mohammed was his messenger, or he wasn't.

Either people reincarnate, or they don't.

There is precisely one correct religious position, and it's the same for everyone. It may be that there are different religious positions it will benefit different people to hold, but that doesn't make them "valid" in most senses of the word.

[mzmolly]

98. Another take or two.

Some may be reincarnated, others not. Some may relate to the message from Mohammed, others not. Some may feel "Gods" existence, others not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism

Adherents of religious pluralism reject religious relativism. They do not believe that religious truth is relative. Adherents of religious pluralism recognize that different religions make different truth claims. That religions may apparently contradict each other but on closer examination may be widely different claims. Therefore all religions can be true as far as their own truth-claims are concerned. For example, most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that he died for the salvation of humanity while Buddhists believe that meditation is the path to enlightenment which liberates the soul from the cycle of rebirth so that it may enter into Nirvana. Christians do not claim that Christ leads to Nirvana nor are Buddhists claiming that Buddha is the son of God. Therefore neither Christianity or Buddhism can claim absolute truth but both can be true.

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism ...

Unitarian Universalists (UUs) believe in complete but responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition. They believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues like the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any heritage, have any sexual orientation, and hold beliefs from a variety of cultures or religions.

Concepts about deity are quite diverse among UUs. Some believe that there is no god; others believe in many gods. Some believe that God is everything. Some believe in a female god (goddess), a passive god, a god found in nature or one which is the "ground of being". Some UUs reject the idea of deities and instead speak of "universal spirit" or "reverence of life". Unitarian Universalists believe that individuals should be supported by their community in their personal searches for truth about deity.

;)

[Evoman]

59. This is why I've always felt kind of bad for Bryant

He's got the atheist "bashing" him from one side, and hes got the christians "bashing" him from the other. I find it all pretty darned amusing..."respect my beliefs" in one breath, "scientologists and mormons are crazy" in the next. Its hypocrisy, plain and simple.

On edit: for some reason, I found it hilarious that you called nickols k "that 666 guy". I don't know why...just tickled my funny bone. I also felt kind of sorry for him too...he obviously can't speak English well, and we are all kind of beating on him (although his post was ridiculous).

[Neoma]

60. I agree that a majority of them are assholes.

[mzmolly]

99. Who's "them?"

:shrug:

[Neoma]

120. Mainly evangelical christians.

[mzmolly]

124. Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter (for example) consider(ed) themselves evangelicals.

:shrug:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8131907/

Finding evangelicals outside the box
Like Jimmy Carter, Tony Campolo is a tireless campaigner for social justice, especially for the poor, for the environment and for oppressed populations in the Third World. Like Carter, he is also an evangelical Christian — a Baptist minister, in fact.

Although many Americans see evangelicalism as a monolithic construct, “in reality, there are a whole lot of us evangelicals who think differently,” said Campolo, who founded the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education.

Campolo puts the proportion of “progressive” or liberal American evangelicals at 35 percent to 40 percent. Other scholars say that is probably too high; the leading authority on religious populations in America, John Green of the University of Akron in Ohio, puts it closer to 20 percent.

Whoever is correct, one thing is clear: There are millions of progressive evangelicals. And yet, the conventional wisdom resolves to a very simple equation: “Evangelical” = “religious right.”

Is it possible you mean "religious right?"

:hi: I'm out for now, have a nice day.

[Neoma]

141. And that's why I said 'a majority of them are assholes.'

I didn't say all.

[Quantess]

61. Dear Goblinmonger--

I never knew what to think about you, because I remember that you gave me a snarky comment when I was a newbie. Not that I didn't deserve it. I posted something dumb and I got a lot of comments for my misguided post, but I think you were the one who was especially vicious. At least, I think so. Memory is a fickle thing.

But now I see that you are a skeptic, just like me. :-)

[CarbonDate]

62. Here's my question:

Do we have to respect the beliefs of people who don't even know what it is that they believe in?

[mzmolly]

100. Yes.

Respect the quest for a personal truth. ;)

[Odin2005]

139. WTF is a "personal" truth?

Sounds like relativist gobbly-gok to me.

[mzmolly]

142. Call it what you will.

We are all a product of our experiences. "Relativist gobbly-gok" is another way to describe it I suppose?

[Odin2005]

148. That didn't answer my question.

IMO "personal truth" is an oxymoron. Actual truths, by definition, stand apart subjective belief.

[mzmolly]

149. Spirituality is of a personal nature, thus my statement.

"Truth is subjective." You've heard it, no? While that is not the case in every regard, it certainly is when it comes to spiritual issues.

I'm guessing by your method of pressing me on this that your "spiritual truth" differs from the man in your avatar?

[cyborg_jim]

150. How quaint.

While that is not the case in every regard, it certainly is when it comes to spiritual issues.

So, in other words, spiritual truths aren't truths at all.

[mzmolly]

151. How transparent.

Spiritual truths are true for individuals seeking spiritual answers.

[cyborg_jim]

152. So not truths then.

[mzmolly]

153. I used the terms"individual/personal"

truths.

[cyborg_jim]

154. Which is a contradiction in terms.

Truths by their nature are, tautologically, independent of those divining them.

[mzmolly]

155. "There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of scholars agree..."

Truth - Wiki

A common dictionary definition of truth is "agreement with fact or reality".<1>

There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of scholars agree, and many theories of truth (usually involving different definitions of "truth") continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

So you see, our discussion is not unusual.

[cyborg_jim]

156. I don't think I said I found it unusual

But those who argue for subjective truths are shooting themselves in the foot.

[mzmolly]

158. Funny, my foot feels fine.

;)

[cyborg_jim]

159. I'm sure it does. But your inability to feel a shot foot doesn't change it being shot.

[mzmolly]

160. Your delusions about my being shot, don't make it so.

The metaphoric battle lives on....... ;)

[cyborg_jim]

163. It's my spiritual truth. Don't trample on my spirituality.

[mzmolly]

165. Well given you've taken to worshiping my foot, I'll accept that answer.

[cyborg_jim]

168. I don't know you well enough for that. Play your cards right though and who knows?

[Odin2005]

162. Damn, you beat me to the obvios answer.

:rofl:

At least mzmolly admits her irrationality...

[mzmolly]

166. Oh no, I admit to your irrationality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=118017&mesg_id=118419

;)

[CarbonDate]

161. Perhaps I should clarify.

I wasn't referring to "seekers" who aren't quite sure what to believe, but rather to people who self-identify as being a Christian or a Wiccan or a Buddhist or what have you but who have no idea what that entails. Christians who've never cracked open the Bible, that sort of thing. Most times when I discuss religion with Christians, they don't answer my questions with actual Biblical doctrine, but with idle speculation.

So: do I have to respect the beliefs of people who are literally making it up as they go?

[JerseygirlCT]

63. I see a difference between "respecting other beliefs"

and "respecting other people and their right to hold other beliefs"

I'm not entirely closed to the idea that I've got it wrong -- either about my own beliefs or about those of the others that you've named. Certainly some of those groups strike me as less "believable" than others.

But so long as their practitioners are not causing harm to others or asking that I abandon my own beliefs, I respect their right to belief whatever.

In a general sense, I'm one of those "many paths" people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. One should differentiate even further.

Respecting other people's beliefs is one thing.

Respecting other people is another.

Respecting other people's right to hold their beliefs is a third.

I think the second has more in common with the first than the third. If I don't respect your beliefs, I'm not likely to respect you as a person, either, but I still have an obligation to respect your rights.

[JerseygirlCT]

119. True. nt

[varkam]

135. I disagree

I think you're spot on that those three modes of respect are different, but I disagree with the following:

I think the second has more in common with the first than the third. If I don't respect your beliefs, I'm not likely to respect you as a person, either, but I still have an obligation to respect your rights.

I don't think the two have anything to do with one another. My best friend is greek orthodox, and I don't respect his beliefs at all. I think they're silly, and we both think the other is wrong. But he's my best friend and has been for quite some time. I do respect him as a person (he's my best friend) and I respect his right to believe what he does, but I don't put his beliefs (or those like his) on an especially high pedestal.

I think the problem comes when people make the assumption that if your beliefs are not respected, then you're not being respected. That might just be a side-effect of internalizing a belief system and using it as a personal identity.

[MistressOverdone]

68. Various faiths can get downright odd

like the fellows that kiss snakes in the pulpit. Do I respect that particular aspect? Nope. They are nuts and deluded, in my opinion.

But if I want to go to my nice church on Sundays and drink the blood and eat the body of you-know-who, I guess I have to cut them some slack.

On the other hand, it isn't just faith that leads to odd behavior. The man who lives behind me drinks beer naked in his yard and plays polka music really loud. Not annoyingly loud like the rap kids up the street, but loud enough to hear it. But sometimes we use a leaf blower that drowns out all life sounds for a mile, so we don't complain.

I guess basically, it is simply bad manners to call someone silly, crazy, whatever. But, by God (or whomever) you can THINK what you like!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. Absolutely, with the proviso that one should express that disrespect respectfully.

I fully agree that one should *not* respect beliefs one disagrees with. One should be as fully and accurately critical of them as possible.

But while one shouldn't moderate *what* one says out of respect for other people's beliefs, I do think that one should try and express whatever content one has in the most polite form possible.

"I think your views are severely misguided", and "I think your views are ridiculous" serve exactly the same purpose, but one will cause more aggravation than the other.

I think one should behave in this fashion not out of respect for other people's beliefs, but simply because it leads to more productive discussion.

I won't respect your beliefs unless I agree with them.
I may well not respect you.
But I will endeavour to express those opinions in the least disrespectful formulation possible.

(N.B. "Will endeavour to", not "will" - I lose my temper the same as anyone else...)


One *should*, where possible, respect the right of others to *hold* different beliefs and to live their lives accordingly, (although there are exceptions) but that's a very different thing indeed to respecting either the beliefs or the people.

[mzmolly]

95. Nice summary.

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

79. I had this discussion at work a few years ago

It was just after "What The *Bleep* Do We Know" had come out. One of my co-workers asked me what I thought about the movie; I said it was nothing more than a bunch of metaphysical clap-trap trying desperately to disguise itself as science. We had what I thought was a good discussion, with me disputing all her assertions about "quantum vibrations" being changed by positive thinking and so on.

It turns out that this co-worker's religious beliefs are the very same metaphysical clap-trap from the movie and she didn't like it when the pseudo-scientific basis of that clap-trap was challenged by genuine science. She told on me, and I ended up with a lecture on "respecting people's beliefs" and no, it did not matter if those beliefs were based in provably fake "science."

[Odin2005]

140. That is exaclty where the bad stereotypes about Atheists come from.

We try to rationally explain to theists why their religious beliefs are nonsensical, they take it as a personal attack and complain that we are not "respecting their beliefs;" thus we get labeled as "Atheist Fundamentalists" and such nonsense.

[cyborg_jim]

143. Yeah, it's a real shame.

If they had the good sense to choose some better beliefs then they wouldn't have to whine when they get beaten by better ones.

[JerseygirlCT]

157. Perhaps it depends on whether you've been invited to comment

on their beliefs.

Much like uninvited evangelism is in bad taste, uninvited refutations of someone's religious beliefs is as well.

[Odin2005]

138. Great post. I will not respect intolerant beliefs.

[tbyg52]

144. There's a LOT of beliefs I do NOT respect in any way, shape, or form

You probably don't want to get me started.

What I DO respect is people's right to have and defend the beliefs. There's a difference.

[Zhade]

169. And that's the ONLY thing required from anyone.

Good stance.