Respecting the beliefs of others

[cosmos..33]

At one point or another, we have all been told (including on this fourm) to "respect the beliefs of others.” And it got me thinking --

Are we really obliged to respect the beliefs of others?

For instance, I do not respect belief in Hell. I do not respect the beliefs from which homophobia flows. For the most part, I do not respect religious fundamentalist belief. In short -- I do not respect beliefs that have proven harmful.

If I’m in a debate with someone, I will respect that person, out of common courtesy and social etiquette. But there are times I refuse to respect their beliefs.

Any thoughts? Is this what is really meant by “respect the beliefs of others”?

[ShoutGrace]

Any thoughts? Is this what is really meant by "respect the beliefs of others"?

I think that phrase has more to do with the appearance of respect. When posting publicly, it is important to maintain a respectful attitude. I think that it is a utilitarian/practical rule more than anything else; when people are too rude, harsh or condemning here on the forums, discussions tend to degenerate and the Mods end up having to close the threads.

I think that we are only obliged to maintain a respectful disposition when participating in the forums publicly.

One's views and esteems of any particular thought or belief will likely be infered from the nature, logic, and content or their words; outright degradation of people's cherished modals isn't part of the forum's agenda here.

[Logos]

"respect the beliefs of others" isn't saying you have to believe the same as someone else, they are implying by using the term `respect' that yes, as ShoutGrace put it, by your choice of wording when you choose to post here you do not use words that are disrespectful, hurtful, rude, derogatory, demeaning etc. to a religion or to a specific poster.

The fact that your beliefs are different from someone else should be at least *secondary* to a discussion. The mere fact that someone doesn't believe in the same things you do should not be the *point* of a discussion. That's where "These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites." comes into play.

Very very subjective of course, that's when us Mods get to deal with because obviously not everyone is going to agree on what is hurtful, derogatory etc. Your idea of harmful is not everyone else's. But believe me, I am only here to try to maintain the peace :)

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Any thoughts? Is this what is really meant by “respect the beliefs of others”?My very simple take: Yes, we should respect each others beliefs. That does not mean that we have to share them, though.

/Claes

[cosmos..33]

I still cannot respect a heinous belief, such as the belief of revisionists who claim the Holocaust never happened.

I can respect one's right to have a belief, but I have zero respect for the belief itself.

[cosmos..33]

Also ... I am not trying to change forum policy ... I am just asking theoretically ...

[amanda_isabel]

i haven't really read the whole thread, but, here's what i can say. 'respecting the beliefs of others' does not mean believing in it as well, but all it means is simply not belittling/ stepping on others' person.

p.s. i don't agree with debating on religion. it's simply non-debatable. period.

[Kelly_Sprout]

Respecting the beliefs of others is sort of like respecting the Office of the President. To say, "I respect the right of someone to hold a belief but I do not respect the belief itself" is like saying "I respect the President himself but I do not respect the Oval Office." To which any listener would say, "Huh? What the hell does the room, the rug, the paintings and the furniture have to do with anything?"

My way of looking at it is to substitute other verbs and see where that takes me.

I could "cherish" the belief. This would mean that I approve of the belief, I think.
I could "honor" the belief. This would mean that I proclaim the belief, I think.
I could "hate" the belief. This would mean that I disapprove of the belief, I think.
I could "spurn" the belief. This would mean that I disparage the tenets of the belief, I think.

Now, you say that if I (or you, actually) "respect" the belief that that would mean that I approve of the belief, but in fact, I find "respect" to be a weak, helpless verb for the concept of approving of something.

So, I could say that I "respect" the belief. This would mean, at least to me, that I acknowledge the existance of the belief. For example, I acknowledge the existance of the belief that the white race is the supreme race. Does it exist? Yes it does. Do I acknowledge that fact? Yes, I do. Therefore, I respect the belief that the white race is the supreme race. I will not argue with a follower of that belief about whether it is a real belief or not. I will not say to that person, "You are wrong for holding a belief that can't exist in my world" because clearly, whether it exists in my world or not, it does exist in the other person's world, and I've already acknowledged that as a fact. Therefore, I would in all my words and mannerisms demonstrate respect while interfacing with that person where that belief is concerned. I would in no way be compromising myself by demonstrating that respect, however, because acknowledging that the belief in the superiority of the white race exists is not the same thing as proposing that the belief in the superiority of the white race is founded on a basis of truth. I do not acknowledge that it is founded on truth. In fact, I aver that the belief in the superiority of the white race is founded on prejudice, hate, bigotry, selfishness, fear and distain, but not on a single shred of truth. And yet, I can state that clearly, in no uncertain terms, without being disrespectful.

Well, if I am not disrespectful, a double negative, then I am respectful. Therefore, it is a true statement that while I disavow the belief, I nevertheless respect it.

[Nightshade]

Isnt it respecting other people's right to belive in whatever they wish?

Are we really obliged to respect the beliefs of others?

Yes we are, belief is a a whats it called founding stone in a persons nature , a basic human right, you dont respect ( which is a Waaaaaaaaaay over used word BTW) one right whats to stop you trampliing on all the others?

[Nightshade]

Kelly thats an intresting point. but thats slightly differant wording dont you think?
Thats respecting a belief, not respecting a persons belief.

As I see it To respect the belief is to take the belief in itself taking out the person so the belief is in itself acknowledged as worthy of respect.
But respecting a persons belief is respectiong that they have that right to belive what ever they want.
If you see what Im getting at?

[subterranean]

Are we really obliged to respect the beliefs of others?


Does it ever occur to you that your existance, the fact that you're still living, able to do the things you do every day, eat whatever you want to eat, walk wherever you want to walk, and to some extend, say whatever you want to say, are actually the direct results of all kinds of respects that other people have towards you, which include the respect of your belief?

So, why not being a little less selfish and respect other people's (beliefs)?

[cosmos..33]

Does it ever occur to you that your existance, the fact that you're still living, able to do the things you do every day, eat whatever you want to eat, walk wherever you want to walk, and to some extend, say whatever you want to say, are actually the direct results of all kinds of respects that other people have towards you, which include the respect of your belief?

So, why not being a little less selfish and respect other people's (beliefs)?

They are respecting my right to hold a belief, and act upon that belief (under the law.); they do not necessarily respect my belief itself.

[Nightshade]

How about this, isn't belief and the power of belief worthy of respect no matter what its aimed at??

OK Im going to use a fairly odd example say Someone belives in the Flying spagetti monster
Look as long as you/we/I respect ( as in aknowledge/ recognise) that that belief exsist ( whatever it may be ) and do not ridcule/ discriminate against or in anyway undermine or critisie that religion it doesnt really matter whether I personally dont think its right and dont respect it as in admire/ honor it.

You cant have everything and after the centuries and indeed still on going prosecution of diffwerent people for differant religions just be granteful for what little respect you can get and give some in return.

[Whifflingpin]

"Respect" can mean a feeling we have towards something or someone, and also the way in which we act towards them. It is important to know which way we are using the term when we use it.

If someone told me she believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I would laugh and assume that she was joking, drunk or insane. If she insisted that she was sober and serious, then my respect (feeling of respect) for her would diminish.

If laughter = persecution, then I would persecute her unmercifully (I would act less respectfully.)

I would wish to discriminate against her belief (for instance, I would not want it taught about in schools, I would not want its places of worship given tax benefits.)

I think that a belief becomes worthy of respect (feeling of respect) in so far as it explains the condition in which we find ourselves and helps us to live in that condition or better it.

Absurd or evil beliefs do not have to be (feeling of ) respected, and people who hold absurd or evil beliefs are less worthy of (feeling of ) respect than they would be if they held rational or good beliefs. Since it is my subjective feeling that is in question, I am the sole judge of "absurd" and "evil" in this context. I claim the right to act in any legal way to oppose beliefs that I consider evil. (Legal, in this forum means within the rules of this forum.)

Society also has a collective judgement as to what is absurd or evil. In this judgement, I would say that a person's right to hold and act on absurd beliefs must be respected, but that any society has the right to protect itself against acts arising from an evil belief. (In this forum, the collective judgement is defined by the Mods, who exercise the right of protecting the forum.)

[Logos]

From the Online Etymology Dictionary.. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=respect&searchmode=term)

respect (n.)
c.1300, from Latin: respectus "regard,"
literally: "act of looking back at one,"
past participle of respicere: "look back at, regard, consider,"
from re- "back" + specere "look at" (see scope (1)).

The verb is 1542, from the noun. Meaning "treat with deferential regard or esteem" is from 1560;
respectable "worthy of respect" is from 1586 (implied in respected).

[mono]

Does it ever occur to you that your existance, the fact that you're still living, able to do the things you do every day, eat whatever you want to eat, walk wherever you want to walk, and to some extend, say whatever you want to say, are actually the direct results of all kinds of respects that other people have towards you, which include the respect of your belief?

So, why not being a little less selfish and respect other people's (beliefs)?
Good point, sub - I had never thought of it that way.

In my opinion: reverence, reverence, reverence.
One must not necessarily agree or hold others' beliefs in higher regard, but show reverence and tolerance; it seems a virtuous quality far less barbaric and violent than how evolutionary ancestors and men and women in the past dealt with such problems (take the burning of 'witches' in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts, for example).
Personally, I have disagreed with nearly everyone on the forum in some way, though I seldom phrase it so bluntly; nonetheless, from them, too, I have learned more than from those with whom I agree. The diversity of thought, subjectivity in perception, variations in religion and spirituality, and differences in expression I consider better than agreeing on everything; with that, we have nothing to learn, nothing to express, and definitely no reason to have a forum for discussion.
To me, all religion, spirituality, and philosophy seem an immense, long conversation - members of which who show a virtuous tolerance, reverence, and consideration for the diversity of beliefs. With this freedom comes great learning, and those who attempt to hinder such freedom of thought, restrict its expression, and show no respect for others' beliefs only harm themselves when further hindering themselves from knowledge.

[Whifflingpin]

"One must not necessarily agree or hold others' beliefs in higher regard, but show reverence and tolerance; it seems a virtuous quality far less barbaric and violent than how evolutionary ancestors and men and women in the past dealt with such problems (take the burning of 'witches' in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts, for example)."

The Salem witch trials had nothing to do with respecting beliefs, since the so-called witches were not, in fact, witches or believers in any religion other than that of the the people who were persecuting them.

Or are you saying that we should show reverence and tolerance for the beliefs of those who thought it was a good thing to persecute women as witches?

[mono]

The Salem witch trials had nothing to do with respecting beliefs, since the so-called witches were not, in fact, witches or believers in any religion other than that of the the people who were persecuting them.
Hello, Whifflingpin.
I realize your point, and, even though I merely meant the reference as a simple analogy, I will explain more. Though no proven witches seemed executed in Salem, nearly everyone believed them as witches; nowadays, many individuals of various belief systems consider themselves witches, but do not get executed.
Why they do not get 'burned at the stake,' I believe, shows a sense of tolerance, and casting away of old biases and superstitions. :)

[RobinHood3000]

In short -- I do not respect beliefs that have proven harmful.Name one that hasn't. Please.

[subterranean]

They are respecting my right to hold a belief, and act upon that belief (under the law.); they do not necessarily respect my belief itself.


Well, I did write, "all kinds of respects" there, didn't I? And personally, I do think that the attitude of being disrespectful towards other people's belief may lead to the feeling of disrespectful towards the person as an entire being. This is because, I think, a religious belief contains basic principles/values, which influence people's opinions/attitudes/point of views.

[Whifflingpin]

"I do think that the attitude of being disrespectful towards other people's belief may lead to the feeling of disrespectful towards the person as an entire being. This is because, I think, a religious belief contains basic principles/values, which influence people's opinions/attitudes/point of views."

Indeed a belief may be the basis for a person's opinions, attitudes and actions, and when those attidudes or actions become demeaning or evil, then it is right to hold both the belief and the person in contempt.

Grand Inquisitors, suicide bombers, thugs, assassins, racists, snobs - all the greater and lesser nastinesses of humanity - can be driven by deeply held and sincere beliefs.

There is no need to respect beliefs that tend towards evil doing, and no need to respect the persons who hold and act on such beliefs.

[Fat29]

I find it difficult to respect all the beliefs of others because some of these beliefs are just so mis-aligned to my own values and outlook of life. Examples include (a) the refusal to respect the belief that one can kill others who don't share the same faith as you, (b) to condemned non believers to hell and (c) to use violence to resolve differences, just to name a few.

When I struggle to respect certain beliefs, I find it harder to be pretentiously respecting those who hold such belief. My views about beliefs can be altered and I am not fixated to it, provided I can reasoned it out.

[byquist]

Perhaps you have coined the right approach: "respect others whatever their beliefs" or "irrespective of their beliefs."

Also, another person can be viewed, separate from their beliefs. Say, if you are in the middle of Israel and Lebanon right now, and if you want to be a peacemaker, the challenge would be to see men as able to get along in spite of their different beliefs. Such may look to be impossible, but some people (I'm thinking of Gandhi) were able to get people to soften their beliefs in favor of a greater cause. He pointed out universality versus sectarian. You might say he transcended beliefs, in favor of agreeable truths, or even Truth.

[ShoutGrace]

There is no need to respect beliefs that tend towards evil doing, and no need to respect the persons who hold and act on such beliefs.

Firstly, I just want to point out the quirky (funny - to me anyway) idea that the maxim you've just described is a mere 'belief', and that when publicly posting on the Forums we will all 'respect' it (thank you for the definition Logos) regardless of whether we agree with it or give it credence.

Secondly, in some people's minds (not my own, mind you), 'evil' may be subjective and altogether unrecognizable/unquantifiable. Many will not allow for evil's existence or validity. I think your statement would fail to affect those people.

Thirdly, and this is more personal, I agree with you. I would never give up on a person or disregard their self as a member of the human race, but I will not respect certain beliefs or practices; I cannot.

On a different note, I can't help but think that we are 'missing the boat' here. Let us not forget that we are guests participating in a privately owned and operated territory. The rules of this sub-forum aren't meant to be taken as a philosophical maxim or an encompassing credo; they are utilitarian guidelines established to facilitate helpful / meaningful debate and promote the wellbeing of the overall LitNet; both it's visitors and regulars.

[Fat29]

Gandhi also had a set of beliefs and this is based on non violence. He does not believe in the taking of lives, eating meat or indulging in carnal pleasures. Some of the religions encourage the killing of animals as acts of kindness, allow polygamy not to mention carnal pleasures within the confines of a one man one wife marriage arrangement.

Gandhi has charisma and has won the admiration of the people but the people still carried on their beliefs. Although Gandhi has managed to mobilise the people to free India from the British through non violence means, he has not been able to free all the people from their belief that non violence can be applied widely in their lives.

I applaud you for giving the Gandhi example. I think everyone should give the teachings of Gandhi a more serious study and using this reflection to review our thinking.


Perhaps you have coined the right approach: "respect others whatever their beliefs" or "irrespective of their beliefs."

Also, another person can be viewed, separate from their beliefs. Say, if you are in the middle of Israel and Lebanon right now, and if you want to be a peacemaker, the challenge would be to see men as able to get along in spite of their different beliefs. Such may look to be impossible, but some people (I'm thinking of Gandhi) were able to get people to soften their beliefs in favor of a greater cause. He pointed out universality versus sectarian. You might say he transcended beliefs, in favor of agreeable truths, or even Truth.

[mono]

Gandhi also had a set of beliefs and this is based on non violence. He does not believe in the taking of lives, eating meat or indulging in carnal pleasures. Some of the religions encourage the killing of animals as acts of kindness, allow polygamy not to mention carnal pleasures within the confines of a one man one wife marriage arrangement.

Gandhi has charisma and has won the admiration of the people but the people still carried on their beliefs. Although Gandhi has managed to mobilise the people to free India from the British through non violence means, he has not been able to free all the people from their belief that non violence can be applied widely in their lives.

I applaud you for giving the Gandhi example. I think everyone should give the teachings of Gandhi a more serious study and using this reflection to review our thinking.
Wow, while reading the previous posts, you entirely read my mind, as I also intended to write a few words of Mahatma Gandhi. He, of all people who have roamed the earth, showed the greatest reverence and respect for all beliefs, and even considered himself of multiple religions, primarily Hindu, Islam, Christian, and Buddhist.
Though some of his philosophy may have made him seem like a martyr, here appears a man who would have sacrificed everything before renouncing his beliefs, and also before seeing others suffer (hence his incessant multiple day-long fasting) - a remarkable thinker. :nod:

[RDraconis]

At one point or another, we have all been told (including on this fourm) to "respect the beliefs of others.”

Any thoughts? Is this what is really meant by “respect the beliefs of others”?

It's another way of saying "Respect that everyone has the right to believe what they believe and don't discriminate or flame someone because they don't agree with you." It's like "heads up". It doesn't mean stick your heads up- it means watch out or incoming. It's something that people know means "don't start cursing out people- all our beliefs are equal here."


Indeed a belief may be the basis for a person's opinions, attitudes and actions, and when those attidudes or actions become demeaning or evil, then it is right to hold both the belief and the person in contempt.

Grand Inquisitors, suicide bombers, thugs, assassins, racists, snobs - all the greater and lesser nastinesses of humanity - can be driven by deeply held and sincere beliefs.
I love you put 'snobs' in there with the rest...
And That doesn't mean you shouldn't respect their beliefs. Beliefs and actiosn are different, though related, things.
In your example of the Inquisition- are you to say all the Christian beliefs don't deserve respect because members of their group decided it gave them the right to harm others?
The beliefs still have merit, it's the way they express these beliefs that we call wrong.



In relation to the topic-
My way of thinking is that as long as the person doesn't try to stop you from living how you please- they should be allowed to say and think whatever they want. Someone can think murder is fine- I won't argue or try to force any other belief on them until they suggest they'll actually kill someone.

[miss tenderness]

It's another way of saying "Respect that everyone has the right to believe what they believe and don't discriminate or flame someone because they don't agree with you." It's like "heads up". It doesn't mean stick your heads up- it means watch out or incoming. It's something that people know means "don't start cursing out people- all our beliefs are equal here."



Good definition RD, I like the way you put it. Also though mostly actions emerges from beliefs, sometimes a person may conduct in a way that verses his beliefs but people put his behavior on account of his beliefs. We should judge the belief its self not the behavior of a person who may wrong.

[Nightshade]

So in other words this entire thread has been about the semantics of the phrase "respecting the beliefs of others?"

but some people (I'm thinking of Gandhi) were able to get people to soften their beliefs in favor of a greater cause.
I dont think he did get people to "soften their beliefs" if anything I believ he strenghened them. but I think beliefs arent as unyielding as I think alot of you are hinting at.
As I understand it most people belive in pace and prosperity even if they dont actually practice it.
:D

[caesar]

The political nature of man is a necessary consequence of his being a social animal.

So it's neither possible nor disirable to respect each others beliefs.

[Whifflingpin]

"In your example of the Inquisition- are you to say all the Christian beliefs don't deserve respect because members of their group decided it gave them the right to harm others?"

Torquemada may have shared some beliefs with Francis of Assissi, but I think it very likely that there were critical areas in which their beliefs differed.
Both, presumably, believed that God became Man and died for man's salvation - Fine by me, I don't agree with that but I'll treat those who hold that belief politely.
Francis additionally believed that the proper response to Christ was a life of humility and service - that is a belief which I can respect wholeheartedly, in whatever sense we have given to "respect" in this thread.
Torquemada believed instead that the proper response to Christ was to coerce people by whatever means in his power to adhere to the "correct" doctrine as understood by him and his masters. That belief does not command my respect, or deserve it in any way. If Torquemada or his spiritual descendants contributed to this forum, and wrote that it was OK to burn people alive in order to give them the chance of repentance and salvation, I'd be happy to state that I thought his belief was evil and utterly unacceptable.

It is, of course, frivolous at this point to talk about the Church in fifteenth century Spain. It is worth being banned from the forum to state that I utterly abominate the belief that it is OK to destroy the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of fellow humans as a counter-terrorist measure, and that I hold in contempt those who act on that belief.


"The beliefs still have merit, it's the way they express these beliefs that we call wrong."
I would say (repeat, rather) that it is an individual's beliefs that drive his actions, and that those beliefs are more or less worthy of respect, depending on the nature of the actions.

[Madhuri]

I really do not understand if there is something as disrespecting beliefs of others. So far as I think one can only disagree with other people by their own reason or logic. By disrespecting I feel as if the person is trying to convey superiority and maybe trying to initiate the thought that come and believe me instead.

If you read Mahatma Gandhi's auto biography "The Story of My Experiments with Truth -- An Autobiography", you would find that he has actually experienced all forms of living life and then chose the path of non-violence and simplicity.

Here are some of his quotes that may be of some relevance at to how can we disagree without being disrespectful and allow others freedom to choose what they want to beleve

--I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.

In the above quite he is trying to say that he doesnt believe in those who spread violence and he also tells you how you can show your disagreement towards violence. He followed the path of non-cooperation for the beliefs that he dis not agree with.

--I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people's houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave.

I think that is one can say if they do not agree with what people believe in, and if they refuse to open their minds to other people's ideas they would be like a walled house that doesnt has any doors or windows.

One has to be receptive to know if they really want to dispespect or disagree.

Keep faith and believe in yourself :thumbs_up

[mansoor3]

We respect beliefs of others because in all religions one thing is common, to be good and to do good.

[andave_ya]

I'm a Christian, but! You have your right to believe what you please without any hassling from me. What I mean is, I'd love it if you got saved, but I'm not going to push my faith from you, and, I would expect the same from any other person. I wouldn't try to "preach" unless you and I knew each other personally and I knew you wouldn't be offended or think I was taking advantage of the friendship.

That is my understanding of respecting the beliefs of others.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Whoa...I think that there's a little too much analyzing going on here.:lol:

Respect is respect. There's no need to over-analyze.;)

Respecting another person belief is simply to understand their point of view or, at least a little bit of where they're coming from.

Both parties must not show or act superior over the other. That would not be respectful.

If both parties understands that their are DIFFERENCES in each of their belief and not show that one is superior to the other, that is what I consider respect.

[.shuu.]

It's a phrase to make sure we play nice. Or try to. You see, there is a point where respecting the belief of others crosses onto the line of "tolerance vs. intolerance", simply summed like this:

The virtues of what the "free" west tries to sustain is basically tolerance, to try and be tolerant of the difference of other people within a 90% range. There are some extremes in either direction for which accommodations should probably not be made, because the severity of their beliefs leads them to intolerance, in some form or another. The fear is that the balance is lost when, in the name of tolerance, people are forced to put up with the beliefs and vocal opinions of those who are intolerant, ex: "Islam is a lie, Homosexuality is a sin, and Abortion is murder" etc. The problem is, that as the intolerant gain power because the tolerant believe it is their duty to allow all people to say anything at anytime, the intolerant eventually take control. In this, they eradicate tolerance and force people to become intolerant to the same things. The natural enemy of tolerance is intolerance; the conflict of “how tolerant should we be”, and “can we really put measures on tolerance? Shouldn’t we be totally tolerant, all the time?” are problems we need to face.

In the end, like almost all things in life, it is balance that is our solution.

[ennison]

If you shoot at me I'll shoot back. (So long as you missed first time). If you don't I won't (Unless I think you're about to shoot of course) Otherwise I'll put up with your abusive drivel and you'll put up with mine (Unless you shoot me or I you - of course) Thus are we democratic - not because we like eachother but because we hate eachother.

[billyjack]

We respect beliefs of others because in all religions one thing is common, to be good and to do good.

being=doing... we are what we do.

good might be a word held in common by all religions. but the meaning of good is different for all religions. example: christians--good is being humble, charitable, pious. taoism--good is humble AND prideful, charitable AND selfish, pious AND unfaithful. christianity calls the "yang" good...toasim calls the "yin and the yang" good.

[Walter Necks]

It is absolutely ridiculous to expect someone to respect 'a belief' if they disagree with it. Respect for the person holding the belief is another story.
None of us will entirely agree with any other person. Whether or not we respect that person is probably based on how they treat us and others and how many of their beliefs we hold to be of merit.
I have many family members with various degrees of religous belief. I have more respect for the belief in a God who created the universe and simply wants Man to treat one another with respect than the belief in a God who created the world in six days, committed genocide around the time of Noah (yet is still somehow a loving, benevolent God) and who will punish those who defy him with eternal damnation.
Such is one literal interpretation of the bible and I have a cousin who does take it that literally. I don't respect her interpretation of the bible or the God she believes in. Why would I? But she's a lovely person, friendly, generous with her time, and we get along fairly well. Although I don't respect all her beliefs I still respect her as an individual, she'd simply have to be a nastier human being to lose that.
It also holds that just because someone holds beliefs we do respect, we might not necessarily respect them as people.

[hyperborean]

Sometimes it's hard to respect the beliefs of others when you know that those beliefs are corrupting human civilization.

[Redzeppelin]

Sometimes it's hard to respect the beliefs of others when you know that those beliefs are corrupting human civilization.

True - but we do our best to tolerate these positions. A good Christian can do no less.

[Whifflingpin]

Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Sometimes it's hard to respect the beliefs of others when you know that those beliefs are corrupting human civilization. "

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"True - but we do our best to tolerate these positions. A good Christian can do no less."

Maybe the Christians are amongst those who are doing the corrupting.

[hyperborean]

Maybe the Christians are amongst those who are doing the corrupting.

lol, possibly ;)

[Redzeppelin]

Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Sometimes it's hard to respect the beliefs of others when you know that those beliefs are corrupting human civilization. "

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"True - but we do our best to tolerate these positions. A good Christian can do no less."

Maybe the Christians are amongst those who are doing the corrupting.

Christianity is not above criticism by a long shot - but the charge of "corrupting human civilization" has never been substantiated in any credible way. And, as I've invited others (hyper most directly) before, I will invite again: why don't you lay out exactly how we're "corrupting human civilization" (and lay off the silly "Christians control politics" conspiracy theory)? A real answer to my question would be refreshing, and I honestly do not expect to get any real answer of substance.

So surprise me.

[Nossa]

If you talk to someone, and you don't agree on whatever he believes to be a "belief", you have two ways to argue with that person..You can either go ahead and tell him/her that whatever they believe in is bull, and that it's piece of crap...with that attitude, you'll be showing your utmost refusal of course, as you wish. You can choose another way, which is by leading a civilised conversation, which doesn't reqiure agreement, but respect. You only respect other's beliefs cuz YOU want to be respected in return, if you refuse what I believe in, and you said it in my face with the most repulsive way, I'd def. react the same, now put yourself in that position and tell me, is it a 'must' to respect other's believe?

[Redzeppelin]

If you talk to someone, and you don't agree on whatever he believes to be a "belief", you have two ways to argue with that person..You can either go ahead and tell him/her that whatever they believe in is bull, and that it's piece of crap...with that attitude, you'll be showing your utmost refusal of course, as you wish. You can choose another way, which is by leading a civilised conversation, which doesn't reqiure agreement, but respect. You only respect other's beliefs cuz YOU want to be respected in return, if you refuse what I believe in, and you said it in my face with the most repulsive way, I'd def. react the same, now put yourself in that position and tell me, is it a 'must' to respect other's believe?

Who is the intended recipient of this post? If you'd like a specific response, such information would be helpful. Thanks.

[Nossa]

Who is the intended recipient of this post? If you'd like a specific response, such information would be helpful. Thanks.

Oh..I'm sorry I didn't quote the original post from the first page.
I was actually adressing the original poster of the thread...or anyone who disagrees with me for that matter.

[Redzeppelin]

Oh..I'm sorry I didn't quote the original post from the first page.
I was actually adressing the original poster of the thread...or anyone who disagrees with me for that matter.

Got it. Thanks - I didn't want to respond if it wasn't meant for me. :)

[Whifflingpin]

Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Sometimes it's hard to respect the beliefs of others when you know that those beliefs are corrupting human civilization. "

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"True - but we do our best to tolerate these positions. A good Christian can do no less."

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Maybe the Christians are amongst those who are doing the corrupting.

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"Christianity is not above criticism by a long shot - but the charge of "corrupting human civilization" has never been substantiated in any credible way. And, as I've invited others (hyper most directly) before, I will invite again: why don't you lay out exactly how we're "corrupting human civilization" (and lay off the silly "Christians control politics" conspiracy theory)? A real answer to my question would be refreshing, and I honestly do not expect to get any real answer of substance. So surprise me"

Redzeppelin, if I wanted to discuss or propagate a "Christians control politics" conspiracy theory then I would do so - the evidence for it is pretty obvious and overwhelming, after all - and it is the forum rules that would prevent me, not your desire to control the area of debate to suit yourself.

However, the basic corruption contributed by Christians, and indeed the followers of the other "religions of the Book," is not political but sexual. Sex is a God-given means of propagation of the species, and a God-given source of joy. Devotees of the religions of the Book have contributed more, I think, than members of other religions in making this joyful and fundamentally necessary activity into something sordid and shameful. Along with this goes the assumption that each human body is, of its nature, a shameful thing - an assumption that undermines that gift of happiness which God intended for everyone. (And if you want evidence of the silly conspiracy theory you are so afraid of you need look no further than the ridiculous laws and official attitudes to nudity that prevail over most of the western and middle-eastern world.)

Followers of the religions of the Book (and, in the West, that means Christians) have burdened, do burden, will for a long time to come burden humanity with a totally unnecessary weight of guilt and misery, and all the ills that arise from that guilt and its repression.

Not to mention all the wars, religious persecutions, martydoms, political controls and blah blah blah.

[Guzmán]

However, the basic corruption contributed by Christians, and indeed the followers of the other "religions of the Book," is not political but sexual. Sex is a God-given means of propagation of the species, and a God-given source of joy. Devotees of the religions of the Book have contributed more, I think, than members of other religions in making this joyful and fundamentally necessary activity into something sordid and shameful. Along with this goes the assumption that each human body is, of its nature, a shameful thing - an assumption that undermines that gift of happiness which God intended for everyone. (And if you want evidence of the silly conspiracy theory you are so afraid of you need look no further than the ridiculous laws and official attitudes to nudity that prevail over most of the western and middle-eastern world.)

Followers of the religions of the Book (and, in the West, that means Christians) have burdened, do burden, will for a long time to come burden humanity with a totally unnecessary weight of guilt and misery, and all the ills that arise from that guilt and its repression.

Not to mention all the wars, religious persecutions, martydoms, political controls and blah blah blah.

Bravo.

This is an article i found in positiveatheism.org:

Correspondent Joe Zemecki who works at the American Atheist center sends us the following report from Australia titled: "SCANDAL, The Priest and The Swan":

In an attempt to rid the sex debate of double standards the Eros Foundation (Canberra's only honest employer) has written to Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, Senator Brian Harradine and Attorney General Daryl Williams. Eros -- whose motto could well be "Non violent sexual erotica is good for Australia" -- argues that if our politicians weren't such a bunch of hypocrites, they would institute "an urgent Parliamentary inquiry into the curriculum and running of Australia's religious training institutions."

The basic thrust of the Eros argument is that Australia's religious training institutions have taught substantial numbers of people who have subsequently become well known pedophiles. The evidence they muster to support this proposition is persuasive. Eros lobbyist Robbie Swan argues "It is now an established and obvious fact that the recently published Australian Pedophile and Sex Offender Index listed 'Clergy, Church and Religion related' as the largest identifiable group of offenders -- by almost twice the size of the next group." Court records since the publication of this references how the conviction of priests for child sex abuse is running at 4:1 to other occupations. This means that the church and religious orders in Australia could be producing up to approximately one-third of the nation's pedophiles. Warming to his argument, Swan points out "that if the same number of church-based pedophiles had come from the sex industry, a Parliamentary inquiry would have commenced years ago. The sex industry and the church both employ approximately 20,000 people in Australia. As it appears, the sex industry seems remarkable free of convicted pedophiles ... no prostitutes, X-Video producers or sex shop owners appeared on the Pedophile Index and none have been recorded in court records since."

Excerpted from AANEWS, by American Atheists.

[weepingforloman]

At one point or another, we have all been told (including on this fourm) to "respect the beliefs of others.” And it got me thinking --

Are we really obliged to respect the beliefs of others?

For instance, I do not respect belief in Hell. I do not respect the beliefs from which homophobia flows. For the most part, I do not respect religious fundamentalist belief. In short -- I do not respect beliefs that have proven harmful.

If I’m in a debate with someone, I will respect that person, out of common courtesy and social etiquette. But there are times I refuse to respect their beliefs.

Any thoughts? Is this what is really meant by “respect the beliefs of others”?

I would just like to ask how you think the belief in Hell and belief that homosexuality is immoral have ever proven harmful in their purest forms.
I mean, just believing that there is a Hell is a matter of faith: it doesn't strictly need to be acted on, and the belief that homosexuality is immoral is likewise not inherently harmful. I happen to believe that it is immoral: I don't hate gay people, although I think they are doing something wrong. I know that I do plenty of things wrong, but I don't hate myself. Make sure you keep your facts and logic straight.

[weepingforloman]

:D
Originally Posted by hyperborean
"Sometimes it's hard to respect the beliefs of others when you know that those beliefs are corrupting human civilization. "

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"True - but we do our best to tolerate these positions. A good Christian can do no less."

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Maybe the Christians are amongst those who are doing the corrupting.

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"Christianity is not above criticism by a long shot - but the charge of "corrupting human civilization" has never been substantiated in any credible way. And, as I've invited others (hyper most directly) before, I will invite again: why don't you lay out exactly how we're "corrupting human civilization" (and lay off the silly "Christians control politics" conspiracy theory)? A real answer to my question would be refreshing, and I honestly do not expect to get any real answer of substance. So surprise me"

Redzeppelin, if I wanted to discuss or propagate a "Christians control politics" conspiracy theory then I would do so - the evidence for it is pretty obvious and overwhelming, after all - and it is the forum rules that would prevent me, not your desire to control the area of debate to suit yourself.

However, the basic corruption contributed by Christians, and indeed the followers of the other "religions of the Book," is not political but sexual. Sex is a God-given means of propagation of the species, and a God-given source of joy. Devotees of the religions of the Book have contributed more, I think, than members of other religions in making this joyful and fundamentally necessary activity into something sordid and shameful. Along with this goes the assumption that each human body is, of its nature, a shameful thing - an assumption that undermines that gift of happiness which God intended for everyone. (And if you want evidence of the silly conspiracy theory you are so afraid of you need look no further than the ridiculous laws and official attitudes to nudity that prevail over most of the western and middle-eastern world.)

Followers of the religions of the Book (and, in the West, that means Christians) have burdened, do burden, will for a long time to come burden humanity with a totally unnecessary weight of guilt and misery, and all the ills that arise from that guilt and its repression.

Not to mention all the wars, religious persecutions, martydoms, political controls and blah blah blah.

Okay, first off, if Christians control politics, why is abortion still allowed at all? Why is homosexual marriage allowed at all? Why would other faiths be tolerated if Christians control politics? Why would there be immense pressure and rancor from the PC left wingers if Christians controlled politics? Additionally, sex is not condemned by Christianity, only fornication and adultery. There are HUGE differences, there. It actually says in the Bible, I think in Proverbs, "May your wife's breasts always satisfy you." You're hearkening back to Augustine, who did link sexuality to shame, probably because he himself struggled intensely and for a long period of time with lust and sexual immorality. To address the point about Christianity considering flesh shameful: we do in a sense, but not the one you think. We are promised resurrection of the flesh, God created matter, He likes it. The Gnostics are the ones who hate matter. It's just that our flesh is corrupt at this point. We are intended to be perfect, we will be perfect-our flesh will be perfected too. I would also like to talk about "repression." Since Freud's work (incidentally, he snorted coke--fun fact:D ) people have assumed that it is "frank" or "healthy" to act on every impulse--if that was true, how many more rapes, murders, abortions, robberies, etc. would we have? Guilt is not unnecessary, it is in fact very necessary--are you denying the importance of conscience? By the way, how is martyrdom evil? Is a decision to not deny your core beliefs, even if it means death, an evil? Or did you mean that killing people for their faith is evil, because no one will argue (or at least I hope not) there. Religious persecution is also wrong--I wish everybody else was Christian, but that ain't happenin'. Wars however--if you're referring to the Crusades, I'd say that was a big problem, but that was due to the secularization and politicization of Christianity under the early medieval popes. That was the real problem--if they had really followed what Christ said (resist not evil), they would never have started the Crusades. Beyond that, I can't really think of an overt, Christians vs. Somebody Else war, unless you wanna say that's what the Iraq War is, but that's really just speculation, and I don't think it's relevant--we live in a secular, not Christian, society.

[Redzeppelin]

Redzeppelin, if I wanted to discuss or propagate a "Christians control politics" conspiracy theory then I would do so - the evidence for it is pretty obvious and overwhelming, after all - and it is the forum rules that would prevent me, not your desire to control the area of debate to suit yourself.

Well, "corrupting" and "controlling" are two different verbs; I won't argue about the influence of Christianity, but the charge of "corruption" I do not believe you will satisfactorily prove. You may find some blemishes and stains, but that does not constitute "corruption."


However, the basic corruption contributed by Christians, and indeed the followers of the other "religions of the Book," is not political but sexual. Sex is a God-given means of propagation of the species, and a God-given source of joy. Devotees of the religions of the Book have contributed more, I think, than members of other religions in making this joyful and fundamentally necessary activity into something sordid and shameful. Along with this goes the assumption that each human body is, of its nature, a shameful thing - an assumption that undermines that gift of happiness which God intended for everyone. (And if you want evidence of the silly conspiracy theory you are so afraid of you need look no further than the ridiculous laws and official attitudes to nudity that prevail over most of the western and middle-eastern world.)

Christianity is guilty of not knowing what to do with sex - but some of this is cultural in nature; you cannot completely extract the influence of culture from how people have interpreted the Bible in the past. Perhaps you ought to drop by a Christian book store and read up on contemporary thought on sex - it's quite different from the medieval ideas.

As well, I think the pendulum has swung to the complete opposite side: there is almost total license when it comes to sexuality now - we don't conceal it at all - even from our children; our culture is highly sexualized - and what benefits, by the way, has that brought us except abortion, sexual diseases, broken homes, emotional problems and divorce? The church is guilty of shying away from the positive aspects of sex, but culture has gone completely the other way and we are not benefitting from this "open" attitude. There's a middle ground, but culture has kind of bypassed it.


Followers of the religions of the Book (and, in the West, that means Christians) have burdened, do burden, will for a long time to come burden humanity with a totally unnecessary weight of guilt and misery, and all the ills that arise from that guilt and its repression.

Not to mention all the wars, religious persecutions, martydoms, political controls and blah blah blah.

There is truth to your charges - but the "guilt" you speak of - in some cases - may be deserved. If God is real, then people who are willfully breaking His laws ought to feel guilty; the good news is that God is quite willing to relieve people of that guilt by offering His forgiveness. Not all guilt is unnecessary - and some of it helps us in terms of moderating our desires and behaviors.

As far as your final sentence and its stereotypical contents - those things are true, but they do not constitute "corruption" of society - and plenty of things equally atrocious have been perpetuated by people who didn't believe in God.

I think many nonbelievers like to think that because there have been people in history who claimed to be "Christian" and did bad things somehow implicates Christianity as a whole; it doesn't - any more than a handful of bad priests invalidates the good that the majority of Catholic priests do.

[hyperborean]

I don't really feel like reading all of this mess but I'll point out some of the flaws I've seen here. First off, Christianity doesn't control politics. Leaders use it as a tool to get elected because the majority of the populace would then share the same belief system. We aren't allowed to talk about politics here, so I can't discuss how most people in government are atheists pretending to be loyal christians. however, I do believe red agrees with me on that issue.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't really feel like reading all of this mess but I'll point out some of the flaws I've seen here. First off, Christianity doesn't control politics. Leaders use it as a tool to get elected because the majority of the populace would then share the same belief system. We aren't allowed to talk about politics here, so I can't discuss how most people in government are atheists pretending to be loyal christians. however, I do believe red agrees with me on that issue.

1. Qualify "leaders" - all leaders? Some? Few?
2. "Majority"? Where is Christianity the majority?
3. If "most people in government are atheists pretending to be loyal Christians" then isn't your claim of Christianity corrupting government null and void (since it's apparently the atheists who are causing the problems)?

[hyperborean]

1. Qualify "leaders" - all leaders? Some? Few?
2. "Majority"? Where is Christianity the majority?
3. If "most people in government are atheists pretending to be loyal Christians" then isn't your claim of Christianity corrupting government null and void (since it's apparently the atheists who are causing the problems)?

I speak of US government, by the way. Over 80% of americans call themselves christians...I guess you can call that the majority. Atheists who pretend to be christians aren't true atheists. It's more like "manipulative, satanic pigs" causing the problems.

[Redzeppelin]

I speak of US government, by the way. Over 80% of americans call themselves christians...I guess you can call that the majority. Atheists who pretend to be christians aren't true atheists. It's more like "manipulative, satanic pigs" causing the problems.

"Claim" doesn't mean "is." There are people who enter a church 2x a year and do not live their lives in any semblance to the guidelines Christ gave us who call themselves "Christians." Strike one.

Atheists who pretend to be anything are still atheists because they're pretending to be something else. Strike two.

People who are "satanic" by very nature of that adjective cannot be called "Christians." Strike three.

[hyperborean]

"Claim" doesn't mean "is." There are people who enter a church 2x a year and do not live their lives in any semblance to the guidelines Christ gave us who call themselves "Christians." Strike one.

Atheists who pretend to be anything are still atheists because they're pretending to be something else. Strike two.

People who are "satanic" by very nature of that adjective cannot be called "Christians." Strike three.

Not all christians go to church each sunday and abide by every manmade law out there.

Claiming that you are christian means you're a christian in today's society.

Men who perform mach child sacrifice once a year are satanic. They still call themselves protestant christians...the american people still believe they are christians. that's all that counts.

[Redzeppelin]

Not all christians go to church each sunday and abide by every manmade law out there.

Claiming that you are christian means you're a christian in today's society.

Men who perform mach child sacrifice once a year are satanic. They still call themselves protestant christians...the american people still believe they are christians. that's all that counts.

I can call myself an NBA player if I wish and even believe I'm an NBA player if I wish; that doesn't make me one. Name is not identical with identity. Christians are identified by their "fruits" not their claims.

[weepingforloman]

Unquestionably, we live in a secular society. Why else would the whole "everything is okay, let's accept everybody and tell them they're right" thing even exist?

[Whifflingpin]

:D

Okay, first off, if Christians control politics, why is abortion still allowed at all? Why is homosexual marriage allowed at all? Why would other faiths be tolerated if Christians control politics? Why would there be immense pressure and rancor from the PC left wingers if Christians controlled politics? .
Current politics is not permitted in this forum, and whether or not Christians currently control politics is not up for discussion.
That they have, for long and significant periods, controlled the politics of many nations is scarcely debatable, unless you choose to rewrite history. To use your sort of argument I might ask, "Why was abortion ever illegal? Why were there ever laws against homosexuality? Why were members of other faiths ever punished, banned from public office, persecuted or whatever, depending on the time and place you choose to name?"




Additionally, sex is not condemned by Christianity, only fornication and adultery. There are HUGE differences, there. It actually says in the Bible, I think in Proverbs, "May your wife's breasts always satisfy you." You're hearkening back to Augustine, who did link sexuality to shame, probably because he himself struggled intensely and for a long period of time with lust and sexual immorality.
In my recent posts in this thread, I have not mentioned "Christianity," only Christians. Every Christian, possibly, has his own views on what Christianity condemns or not. St Augustine is reckoned to be one of the greatest and most influential of the Christian teachers, so you have, in fact, not only conceded my point, but also provided us with an example, thanks.



Guilt is not unnecessary, it is in fact very necessary--are you denying the importance of conscience?
I consider individual conscience and an awareness of guilt to be necessary in order that society can exist. I believe, however, that we should feel guilt only when "we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone those things which ought to have done." That is not the same as being ashamed of our very nature.



By the way, how is martyrdom evil? Is a decision to not deny your core beliefs, even if it means death, an evil? Or did you mean that killing people for their faith is evil, because no one will argue (or at least I hope not) there. Religious persecution is also wrong--I wish everybody else was Christian, but that ain't happenin'.
I was thinking, when I mentioned martyrdoms, of those people who were martyred by Christians. I agree that killing people for their faith is evil, and Christians have, indeed, killed many for just that reason. Religious persecution is wrong, and Christians have engaged in religious persecution.


Wars however--if you're referring to the Crusades, I'd say that was a big problem, but that was due to the secularization and politicization of Christianity under the early medieval popes. That was the real problem--if they had really followed what Christ said (resist not evil), they would never have started the Crusades. Beyond that, I can't really think of an overt, Christians vs. Somebody Else war, unless you wanna say that's what the Iraq War is, but that's really just speculation, and I don't think it's relevant--we live in a secular, not Christian, society.
I wasn't referring to the Crusades particularly; as wars go they were as justifiable or not as any other. (If those naughty Popes had not encouraged the Crusaders, then the whole of Europe and America would now be Moslem.)

I simply had in mind that Christians, (in spite, perhaps, of Christ's teaching,) were as ready to go to war, against others or each other, as any section of humanity, but often enough using their religion as a goad to war, not a restraint.

[hyperborean]

I can call myself an NBA player if I wish and even believe I'm an NBA player if I wish; that doesn't make me one. Name is not identical with identity. Christians are identified by their "fruits" not their claims.

wrong. you can't compare religion and something like basketball. one is a career and one is a belief system. if on paper you're not an nba paper then you're not. religion on the other hand, well you can call yourself what you want and there is nothing to object to.

It's the fact that these leaders say they're christians. As long as the people think they are christians then that's all that matters. My insight is there to show how christianity is used as a tool.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "Christianity is guilty of not knowing what to do with sex - but some of this is cultural in nature; you cannot completely extract the influence of culture from how people have interpreted the Bible in the past. "

This is, perhaps, a "chicken and egg" question. - You blame the bad interpretation of the bible on the culture of the time; I blame the culture of the time on the interpretation of the Bible. No - too facile - unlike you, I blame some of the stuff in the Bible on the culture of its time, and I blame the adherents of the religions of the book for perpetuating the culture of the biblical peoples.
Also, I see no reason why Christians of the present should suddenly be free enough of cultural influences to interpret the Bible correctly, or free enough of biblical influences to avoid corrupting present society.


Redzeppelin: "Perhaps you ought to drop by a Christian book store and read up on contemporary thought on sex - it's quite different from the medieval ideas."

Red, you do not know how often I drop by Christian book stores - do not assume. Perhaps you should address your recommendation to members of the Silver Ring.
(Just a sidethought - "mediaeval ideas?" I think it is primarily the post-reformation Protestant interpretation of pre-Christian Hebrew ideas that I was talking about, or was it, as Weepingforloman suggests, the late-classical Augustine? Don't know, but I don't think it was mediaeval.)

Redzeppelin: "There is truth to your charges - but the "guilt" you speak of - in some cases - may be deserved. If God is real, then people who are willfully breaking His laws ought to feel guilty; the good news is that God is quite willing to relieve people of that guilt by offering His forgiveness. Not all guilt is unnecessary - and some of it helps us in terms of moderating our desires and behaviors."

I consider individual conscience and an awareness of guilt to be necessary in order that society can exist. I believe, however, that we should feel guilt only when "we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone those things which ought to have done." That is not the same as being ashamed of our very nature.

Redzeppelin: "As far as your final sentence and its stereotypical contents - those things are true, but they do not constitute "corruption" of society - and plenty of things equally atrocious have been perpetuated by people who didn't believe in God. "

Whether those things in my final sentence constitute "corruption" depends on your definition - if "corruption" means "taint, debase, spoil" then I think my argument was fair.
Of course, the fact that non-Christians do bad things does not excuse bad things done by Christians.

Redzeppelin: "I think many nonbelievers like to think that because there have been people in history who claimed to be "Christian" and did bad things somehow implicates Christianity as a whole; it doesn't - any more than a handful of bad priests invalidates the good that the majority of Catholic priests do."

In my recent posts in this thread, I have not mentioned "Christianity," only Christians. I only entered the discussion because you implied that Christians were not part of the problem of corruption, and I thought that idea could not pass unquestioned.
If you are one of those who believe that there have only been 144,000 true Christians in the history of the world, then maybe you could fairly argue that no Christian has ever contributed to corruption. Of course, only God knows who those 144,000 might be, so the argument cannot be proven or otherwise.
If you reckon that those who call themselves Christians and join in with Christian communities can be called Christians, then, I think, you have conceded my argument that being a Christian is no bar to being a corrupting influence.

[weepingforloman]

"I consider individual conscience and an awareness of guilt to be necessary in order that society can exist. I believe, however, that we should feel guilt only when "we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone those things which ought to have done." That is not the same as being ashamed of our very nature."
By our very nature, we do things we ought not to have done, and don't do things we ought to have done!
No one has ever been perfect (excepting Christ), so doesn't that mean that human nature causes people to do wrong?

[weepingforloman]

Current politics is not permitted in this forum, and whether or not Christians currently control politics is not up for discussion.
That they have, for long and significant periods, controlled the politics of many nations is scarcely debatable, unless you choose to rewrite history. To use your sort of argument I might ask, "Why was abortion ever illegal? Why were there ever laws against homosexuality? Why were members of other faiths ever punished, banned from public office, persecuted or whatever, depending on the time and place you choose to name?"



In my recent posts in this thread, I have not mentioned "Christianity," only Christians. Every Christian, possibly, has his own views on what Christianity condemns or not. St Augustine is reckoned to be one of the greatest and most influential of the Christian teachers, so you have, in fact, not only conceded my point, but also provided us with an example, thanks.


I consider individual conscience and an awareness of guilt to be necessary in order that society can exist. I believe, however, that we should feel guilt only when "we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone those things which ought to have done." That is not the same as being ashamed of our very nature.



I was thinking, when I mentioned martyrdoms, of those people who were martyred by Christians. I agree that killing people for their faith is evil, and Christians have, indeed, killed many for just that reason. Religious persecution is wrong, and Christians have engaged in religious persecution.


I wasn't referring to the Crusades particularly; as wars go they were as justifiable or not as any other. (If those naughty Popes had not encouraged the Crusaders, then the whole of Europe and America would now be Moslem.)

I simply had in mind that Christians, (in spite, perhaps, of Christ's teaching,) were as ready to go to war, against others or each other, as any section of humanity, but often enough using their religion as a goad to war, not a restraint.

I concede that people invoking the name of God and Christ have done terrible things: persecution, war, hatred, etc. However, I would seriously doubt the veracity of their claims to truly believe in Christ, if that is the sort of thing they claim, but only to have substituted the name Christ for their own desires, fears, shortcomings, and biases. That is unacceptable. By the way, "Christians" should be interchangeable with "Christianity." We are the Church after all.

[weepingforloman]

Redzeppelin: "Christianity is guilty of not knowing what to do with sex - but some of this is cultural in nature; you cannot completely extract the influence of culture from how people have interpreted the Bible in the past. "

This is, perhaps, a "chicken and egg" question. - You blame the bad interpretation of the bible on the culture of the time; I blame the culture of the time on the interpretation of the Bible. No - too facile - unlike you, I blame some of the stuff in the Bible on the culture of its time, and I blame the adherents of the religions of the book for perpetuating the culture of the biblical peoples.
Also, I see no reason why Christians of the present should suddenly be free enough of cultural influences to interpret the Bible correctly, or free enough of biblical influences to avoid corrupting present society.


Redzeppelin: "Perhaps you ought to drop by a Christian book store and read up on contemporary thought on sex - it's quite different from the medieval ideas."

Red, you do not know how often I drop by Christian book stores - do not assume. Perhaps you should address your recommendation to members of the Silver Ring.
(Just a sidethought - "mediaeval ideas?" I think it is primarily the post-reformation Protestant interpretation of pre-Christian Hebrew ideas that I was talking about, or was it, as Weepingforloman suggests, the late-classical Augustine? Don't know, but I don't think it was mediaeval.)

Redzeppelin: "There is truth to your charges - but the "guilt" you speak of - in some cases - may be deserved. If God is real, then people who are willfully breaking His laws ought to feel guilty; the good news is that God is quite willing to relieve people of that guilt by offering His forgiveness. Not all guilt is unnecessary - and some of it helps us in terms of moderating our desires and behaviors."

I consider individual conscience and an awareness of guilt to be necessary in order that society can exist. I believe, however, that we should feel guilt only when "we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone those things which ought to have done." That is not the same as being ashamed of our very nature.

Redzeppelin: "As far as your final sentence and its stereotypical contents - those things are true, but they do not constitute "corruption" of society - and plenty of things equally atrocious have been perpetuated by people who didn't believe in God. "

Whether those things in my final sentence constitute "corruption" depends on your definition - if "corruption" means "taint, debase, spoil" then I think my argument was fair.
Of course, the fact that non-Christians do bad things does not excuse bad things done by Christians.

Redzeppelin: "I think many nonbelievers like to think that because there have been people in history who claimed to be "Christian" and did bad things somehow implicates Christianity as a whole; it doesn't - any more than a handful of bad priests invalidates the good that the majority of Catholic priests do."

In my recent posts in this thread, I have not mentioned "Christianity," only Christians. I only entered the discussion because you implied that Christians were not part of the problem of corruption, and I thought that idea could not pass unquestioned.
If you are one of those who believe that there have only been 144,000 true Christians in the history of the world, then maybe you could fairly argue that no Christian has ever contributed to corruption. Of course, only God knows who those 144,000 might be, so the argument cannot be proven or otherwise.
If you reckon that those who call themselves Christians and join in with Christian communities can be called Christians, then, I think, you have conceded my argument that being a Christian is no bar to being a corrupting influence.

You're referring to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm pretty sure Red is not a Jehovah (although if he is, whatevs). But there is middle ground between the 144,000 and believing that everyone who claims to be Christian actually is.

[Redzeppelin]

This is, perhaps, a "chicken and egg" question. - You blame the bad interpretation of the bible on the culture of the time; I blame the culture of the time on the interpretation of the Bible. No - too facile - unlike you, I blame some of the stuff in the Bible on the culture of its time, and I blame the adherents of the religions of the book for perpetuating the culture of the biblical peoples.
Also, I see no reason why Christians of the present should suddenly be free enough of cultural influences to interpret the Bible correctly, or free enough of biblical influences to avoid corrupting present society.

Well, I guess there's no winning, is there? It's clear you're determined to stick Christianity with all the problematic attitudes towards sex - though those attitudes were also part of culture as well. Part of the reason contemporary Christianity has changed its view of sex is because of the problems with the view articulated in the past. It's interesting to me that when I ding the evolutionists about science's constant need to revise itself that they fire back about how science is constantly learning new things, so it's no smear to have been previously wrong about something if the knowledge was based on the best observations we had at the time. Apparently, Christianity isn't allowed the same growth and revision process.



Red, you do not know how often I drop by Christian book stores - do not assume. Perhaps you should address your recommendation to members of the Silver Ring.

The comment made no assumption that you don't go - but your comments sound to me like someone who is unaware of the current Christian writing about sex.


I consider individual conscience and an awareness of guilt to be necessary in order that society can exist. I believe, however, that we should feel guilt only when "we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone those things which ought to have done." That is not the same as being ashamed of our very nature.

And current Christian thought does not teach that we ought to be ashamed of our sexuality.


Whether those things in my final sentence constitute "corruption" depends on your definition - if "corruption" means "taint, debase, spoil" then I think my argument was fair.
Of course, the fact that non-Christians do bad things does not excuse bad things done by Christians.

Of course not - but to listen to posters like you, it would seem that our mistakes are worse than everybody else's.


In my recent posts in this thread, I have not mentioned "Christianity," only Christians. I only entered the discussion because you implied that Christians were not part of the problem of corruption, and I thought that idea could not pass unquestioned.
If you are one of those who believe that there have only been 144,000 true Christians in the history of the world, then maybe you could fairly argue that no Christian has ever contributed to corruption. Of course, only God knows who those 144,000 might be, so the argument cannot be proven or otherwise.
If you reckon that those who call themselves Christians and join in with Christian communities can be called Christians, then, I think, you have conceded my argument that being a Christian is no bar to being a corrupting influence.

Look: I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Christianity hasn't done stupid things; however, the idea that Christianity has "corrupted" society is unsubstantiated - period. As well, if I took only the bad things you've done in your life and focused on them, you'd look pretty bad too. The good done by Christians is largely overlooked - fine - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "Part of the reason contemporary Christianity has changed its view of sex is because of the problems with the view articulated in the past."

And yet, just a couple of days ago, in this forum, one of the best (in any sense) of Christians commented that homosexuality was repugnant because the bible said so. A perfect example, to my mind of one of "the adherents of the religions of the book perpetuating the culture of the biblical peoples."


Whiff: "the fact that non-Christians do bad things does not excuse bad things done by Christians."
Redzeppelin: "Of course not - but to listen to posters like you, it would seem that our mistakes are worse than everybody else's."

I have not noticed any other posters like me in this forum.
I do not remember having compared Christians to any other group, except Stalinist Russia, when I pointed out that Catholic Spain, with its Inquisition, was far less oppressive than the atheist government of Russia. Of course, the atheists then accused me (falsely) of revising history.


Redzeppelin: "I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Christianity hasn't done stupid things;"

Fine - Although I've never argued that Christianity has done stupid things, only that Christians have not been guiltless of corrupting humanity.


Redzeppelin: "the idea that Christianity has "corrupted" society is unsubstantiated - period."

Fine again - for you. I have given instances which show otherwise. You have chosen to excuse that by saying a) that others are as bad or worse and b) that Christians have done other things than corrupt. Both those arguments may be true, but they are not relevant - they do not change the fact that Christians, individually or corporately, have been guilty of corrupting society.


Redzeppelin: "If I took only the bad things you've done in your life and focused on them, you'd look pretty bad too."

Since you know nothing about my life, that is a totally gratuitous insult, at which point I have nothing further to say in this discussion.