Do we really respect each other's beliefs?

[Nossa]

I stopped checking this part of the forum, for a while now. For many reasons that I don't think I should list. I also noticed that this is probably the part of the forum with the most 'locked' threads. And with the words "respect the beliefs of others' in bold, I had to wonder. Do we really respect each other's beliefs?! And when we 'claim' that we do, is that out of tolerance or because we 'have' to, cuz of the rules and all that?

Sometimes, actually many times, I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs. Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers. People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions, to the point that I feel we're in the middle of a war or something. It's furstrating to see how far we've come in religious intolerance.

We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing' and that everyone, eventually, is entitled to his/her opinion. Maybe if everyone took a moment and thought what are the effects of some words and discussions on the other we will come to a certain aagreement. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask and learn about each other, but we don't have to judge, and always try to shove our opinion down eveyone else's throats.

I'm not directing this towards anyone on the forum, I'm more of sending this thought out there, for anyone and everyong. I might be a dreamer or a utopian, or whatever you wanna call it, but I hope that someday people will finally learn, really learn, what it is like to respect those around you, and not set yourself higer than them and condemn them to being wrong, misled or whatever.

[PeterL]

I only came her for a short time, but it looks like a good section to avoid for the reasons that you enumerated.

[papayahed]

If I wasn't a mod I would hardly ever be in this part of the forum. It wasn't a whim that this section was restricted to discussing only Religious Text (since repealed) for a short time a few months ago.

[Morten]

I dislike the phrase. I see no reason why people's religious beliefs should in any way earn my respect. I tolerate them, of course, provided they remain tolerant of non-religious beliefs, but that is not the same as giving them my valuable respect.

[sprinks]

Personally I do respect each person and their beliefs. I do not believe in any religion myself, infact I don't like the idea of religion as a result of my own experiences with it, but I do believe in the possibility of a god type existence. I believe what I want to believe and think everyone should have the opportunity to do the same.

I think everyone should believe what they want, so long as it does not harm them or anyone else. If someone wants to seriously believe that a giant monkey created the universe and filled it with bananas and we have evolved from those ancient bananas, I'm cool with that, I respect their beliefs. If someone follows a religion like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam or Scientology or ANY religion then I respect their beliefs and their decision to believe that.

I think a lot of what I think about the topic is similar to what I've read on Buddhist teachings, but correct me if I'm completely wrong about it, I think I read once that they believe religion can be good if it helps someone through life, but the Buddhists themselves do not believe in God. Some people need to have that belief to get them through daily life, and it's like the situations where people get better from ilness when they think they're on a miracle drug, but in reality they're not, but its that thought that heals them; so sometimes people overcome obstacles by believing in their God or Gods etc, and I think that is great! If it helps them so what if they believe in a giant monkey that they think created the universe?!?!

[curlyqlink]

I don't post in this thread because I have no idea what is meant by "respecting" other people's beliefs. Seriously, I don't. Tolerating other people's beliefs-- that I can understand.


As you say:

Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers.
...and how can it be otherwise? If I post here that I'm an atheist, and make my best argument for that conviction, I'll likely offend people who believe in God. They'll think I'm wrong, and I think they're wrong, and if we're honest and sincere we'll do our best to point out the flaws in each other's arguments and defend the strengths of our own.

Is that being disrespectful? I don't know. I suspect some might find that disrespectful. My own thought is that as long as there's no name-calling or flaming, everything is fair. Attacking each other's logic, reductio ad absurdum, etc., etc... all fair. Honest argument can be bruising.

How can I argue my side fully without running the risk of hurting someone else's feelings?

Some people believe living a certain way or not believing a certain thing means eternal damnation. Some people think their highest calling in life is to praise their God. How am I, or they, going to reach a compromise?

I think there is value in a debate like this. If only to air our differences, to let people know there are many sides to the issue of religion. Unfortunately, it has to be done in an unrestricted forum. It's pointless to attempt such a discussion while walking on eggshells.

[Nossa]

I'm not sure why you see it as an impossible matter to discuss but still remain respectful. All I'm proposing here is the idea of everyone understanding that people differ in thinking, beliefs and life. We have so many cults, so many beliefs and so many religions these days. Hurting and being disrespectful shouldn't be a part of the process, IF you keep in mind that this is how how the other thinks.

'Attack' is exactly the word I'm commenting on. Why do you have to attack. I mean I'm a believer, and I strongly believe in God and my religion, if I'm arguing with you, and you're an atheist, should I just call everything you believe in crap and attack it harshly just cuz you happen to disagree with me? I know religions and beliefs are a sensitive matter, and once you believe in something, it's not really debatable for you whether it's right or wrong, but that won't mean that I don't respect the fact that you have your own belief. This is what I respect and that's why I'll not attempt to either attack you or shove my opinion down your throat.

Talking about religion is like talking to someone about something you wish they can quit. It's even like talking someone into not smoking, you make your argument, but you don't need to fight the person. I've come to a conclusion now that none of the people involved in any religious argument will come to a result they want. Neither will be convinced, and both will be pissed off and hurt. What will you gain by attacking?! The other person will attack, and then what? none of you will be persuaded with the other's opinion, and you're most probably bound to hate each other afterwards.

When you respect, and I mean 'respect', the idea that a person is entitled to his/her beliefs, you'll consequently respect all the outcomes of it. You don't have to agree, you have to respect. Cuz if you only tolerated (which isn't bad, giving to all the discussions I see) you'll snap at the very first sign of an argument.

I'll give you a word, it's from Qura'an but I don't want you to take it in a religious way, just think of it as a saying, it says "To you be your way, and to me mine". This is what I'm saying, you have your belief and I have mine, why can't we just treat each other on this basis?!

[Virgil]

I can't stand the religious forum. I thought they were to be about discussing religious texts, not trying to convert people or debate religions. I usually don't even bother with the discussions here. Yes I agree, respect is lacking at times by all sides.

[aabbcc]

Nossa, this is an interesting question you are posing here - let me disagree with one of your points, however.


I know religions and beliefs are a sensitive matter, and once you believe in something, it's not really debatable for you whether it's right or wrong, but that won't mean that I don't respect the fact that you have your own belief.
Herein lies the secret. Some believers, as well as some non-believers, are very attached to their beliefs to a point where, as you say, things cease to be debatable for them. Which is, after all, understandable - however, when one is so emotionally connected to something, one does not purposely come to the place where things that are not even debatable for him are debated, and then feels hurt as a result of his inability to emotionally 'detach' oneself from his beliefs to be able to view things from other perspectives in broader context. In that case, if one cannot make that 'leap' of making a distance, it is really pointless to come to religious forum at all, because one is going against themselves.

It does not affect only religion, but also other things that tend to be very important to people. I lived in former Yugoslavia, and I know a lot of people who would get very upset about the war even years after it had ended, and who were very emotionally attached to the religious and national issues brought up by the war. Which is alright, and understandable, but, as somebody once said when I was in a group of such people, if you cannot step back and focus only on rational side of the argument, without too much emotions involved, don't get into the debate in the first place. Speaking from emotions is for some other things and circumstances, not for debates.

Because, that's what debates are for. I agree with curlyqlink on this:

(...) if we're honest and sincere we'll do our best to point out the flaws in each other's arguments and defend the strengths of our own.
Is that being disrespectful? I don't know. I suspect some might find that disrespectful. My own thought is that as long as there's no name-calling or flaming, everything is fair. Attacking each other's logic, reductio ad absurdum, etc., etc... all fair. Honest argument can be bruising.
(...)
I think there is value in a debate like this. If only to air our differences, to let people know there are many sides to the issue of religion. Unfortunately, it has to be done in an unrestricted forum. It's pointless to attempt such a discussion while walking on eggshells.
Read once more carefully what he said. He did not advocate name-calling, violent discussions which are purpose for themselves, talking to others in disrespectful manner, nothing of the kind. He simply pointed that, as long as general rules of politeness when discussing are applied, he does not find religion to deserve any kind of 'special treatment' simply because it is a religion and, if put into debate, it can be debated as any other subject. Simply because we debate something, it does not mean that ipso facto we are being disrespectful - why should religion be that special to be given priviledge of not being debatable and why should I accept other people's inargumentated beliefs simply because they are of religious nature? Certainly, I will tolerate them, and that person, but I honestly cannot 'respect' somebody's belief in all-powerful G-d who watches us from the above any more than I can 'respect' somebody's sincere belief into solipsism, or somebody's equally sincere superstitiousness. Because, in the end, we are speaking of the same thing - a belief which cannot be proved right or wrong. However, if somebody willingly comes to debate, stating differences is not enough (if I want to know differences between judaism and islam, I can as well google it and don't need your help to learn about it), those beliefs need to be somehow 'argumentated', because that is how debate works. And, according to the rules of debate, everybody is free to point out your logical flaws or give you counter-arguments or justify their position. If you cannot accept that, then you spare yourself emotional trouble and don't debate - that's how it goes. You don't automatically conclude that everybody who debates is disrespectful ipso facto, and that debates per se are 'bad'. That is not 'attacking' nor pushing anything down your throat - you came by your own free will to discuss things, well face with different opinions. Of course, all of the above goes under the assumption that nobody will go against the basic politeness rules.

Of course, I do think that provocations of the kind "You Christ-murderers Jews with your belief in genocidic G-d who is all but good, don't know what you're talking about, omg convert to our religion or else you'll rot in hell" are disrespectful. However, I do not think that "You know, in Torah there are quite some places where G-d explicity commands you to attack certain peoples [follows the citation], how do you explain that from Jewish perspective if G-d is good and right?" is in any manner disrespectful and if I came to a religious forum with purpose to debate religion, I would not mind that kind of question. And if I minded, I would simply not come to religious forum ("G-d is ours and G-d is one, I don't want to debate it, end of story for me").

The problem is that too many things have become 'indebatable' and a priori tabu. Nowadays you can hardly debate anything normally because the moment you state you don't agree with somebody's argumentation for the existence of G-d, you're "intolerant", or the moment you speaking against Israel you are "antisemitic", if you are against positive discrimination then soon you are "racist", and so on in various topics. Forums are among rare places where you can still freely discuss even those emotionally tricky things, and I think that's great. Of course, I repeat, assuming there is politeness in discussion.
There doesn't have to be dawa or proselitising included, things can be debated without that. People are just too sensitive, that's what's the problem.

I will respect your religious beliefs and will not ask of you to 'justify' to me why you believe in what you believe.
However, if you by your own free will come to the place where those are discussed, I see no reason why I should not pose you questions and give you counter arguments.

That being said, on LitNet I avoid religion simply because it seems to me there is too much sensitivity involved; but if it weren't that way, I would participate in Religion forum too, because I find the topic very interesting for well-mannered discussions. :)

[El Viejo]

Sometimes, actually many times, I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs. Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers. People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions, to the point that I feel we're in the middle of a war or something.

I'm reading an interesting book right now: "A Guinea Pig's History of Biology." In it are described wars of the sort we see in this forum, wars of the sort that always occur on the frontiers of learning.

The battles are eventually settled as information is collected and verified. Religious conflict differs because it often stems from matters where no information may be collected, and so there is no prospect of solution.

The science/religion battle is old and familiar, but even in the area of literary discussion religion is different. This is not because people don't focus on the text, because other forums diverge from their texts as well. When we examine, for example, lesbian and feminist themes in the works of Virginia Woolf, we usually recognize two critical things: first, that on some points we are in agreement, and second, that on some level it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because we know that an author's work becomes something different in the mind of each reader. Each perception adds something.

But when it comes to religion we are often in fundamental disagreement, and we believe it does matter. The texts are not mere literary works. They, and what we've derived from them, are immutable. For the irreligious, some of those points of disagreement matter because they are sticking points in the progress of civilization. For some of the religious the points matter because on them hinge eternal life or death.

Respect, in this forum, can't be the same as the polite gentility of a Victorian parlour discussion. But heated discussion is not a problem in itself. Irreconcilable differences on one another's eternal well-being are almost necessarily going to lead to heated discussions. In this forum respect can consist of not actually calling people names, of recognizing that minds change slowly, and people are largely, in this sense, respectful.

[curlyqlink]

I'm not sure why you see it as an impossible matter to discuss but still remain respectful.


We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing'

It seems impossible to me because there is no clear line between "discussion", which seems to be okay and not hurtful, and "debate" and "harsh conversation", which you seem to regard as disrespectful. Where does discussion end and debate begin? When does it become argument? I can't be absolutely sure where to draw the line between these things from even my own point of view; so how on earth am I supposed to know where you or some other poster might draw the line?


'Attack' is exactly the word I'm commenting on. Why do you have to attack.
Because that is how debate is carried on. Attacking the other person's argument (not attacking the other person... that's rude. More important, it's ineffectual.)


I'm arguing with you, and you're an atheist, should I just call everything you believe in crap and attack it harshly
If you like. Won't hurt my feelings in the least--I'd just figure you don't have much with which to back up your position. But of course that's just me. There are undoubtedly folks out there with much thinner skin. Which states the problem nicely: if respecting each other's opinions is defined as avoiding hurting each other's feelings, how are we supposed to know how delicate each other's feelings are? The only way to be sure of not hurting each other's feelings is to not talk about religion.

[Nossa]

I understand all what you said. What I'm saying here, and call me passive, is live and let live. You'll probably gain nothing from arguing about religions, at least you, in most cases, won't get the ultimate goal of the debate which is to convince the other that you're right and they're wrong. I understand that you all agree on a 'polite' discussion, and I also agree that only those who don't have evidence on their points of view are those who seek harsh replies and even insulting discussions. But the thing is, sometimes it seems to me that either parites (believers and non-believers that is) both are waiting for any chance whatsoever to jump on each other's backs and start a debate based wholly on the idea that they both still wanna convince the other they're right. That is basically what I'm against. Maybe it's cuz I've seen it way too much in my life, personally and through media, that I've become quite irritated by it, but yeah I think all I'm proposing here is a simple 'live and let live' idea. That is all. Hope you all get my point of view now.

[Wintermute]

As I said in another thread a while back: Sometimes it seems like we're trying to convince ourselves rather than others. That is why, as an agnostic, I come here once in a while. Reading all the different views reinforces my belief that no one really knows whats going on in the universe!

[Morten]

I don't believe anything can come from a discussion in which no one is offended. If we all dance around each other's beliefs politely and respectfully then nothing will come of it. I'm not saying be offensive and rude, but there's got to be some bite to a good discussion.

[dzebra]

I think much can come from discussions where no one is offended. I don't think that "dancing around" things is related to being respectful. Being direct, but without insults or any derogatory tone, is the best way to communicate.

You say one must be offended for the conversation to be good, yet you say to not be offensive. This would require someone to get offended about something that's not offensive, which generally comes from a miscommunication. A discussion with miscommunications seems like a bad discussion to me.

[Etienne]

Depends what you call being offended. Someone can be offended by the simple fact that you have a different opinion on a certain question, and many other analogous reasons. I think it doesn't come so much as to "do we respect each other?" as to "what do people consider a lack of respect?"

Many people often cannot cope with different opinions or honesty.

[El Viejo]

I think much can come from discussions where no one is offended. I don't think that "dancing around" things is related to being respectful. Being direct, but without insults or any derogatory tone, is the best way to communicate.

You're absolutely right, and the best discussions are the ones in which we try not to offend, and try to not be offended. It's easy to misbehave though, seeing that we are all wearing masks.

[Dori]

Sometimes, actually many times, I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs. Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers. People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions, to the point that I feel we're in the middle of a war or something. It's furstrating to see how far we've come in religious intolerance.

We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing' and that everyone, eventually, is entitled to his/her opinion. Maybe if everyone took a moment and thought what are the effects of some words and discussions on the other we will come to a certain aagreement. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask and learn about each other, but we don't have to judge, and always try to shove our opinion down eveyone else's throats.

But not everyone, I suspect, is a believer or non-believer. I understand what you're getting at; a few of my good friends are either resolute atheists or devote Christians. It is my experience that the theist is more often offended than the atheist. Just a thought.


I think everyone should believe what they want, so long as it does not harm them or anyone else. If someone wants to seriously believe that a giant monkey created the universe and filled it with bananas and we have evolved from those ancient bananas, I'm cool with that, I respect their beliefs. If someone follows a religion like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam or Scientology or ANY religion then I respect their beliefs and their decision to believe that.

And what if someone's beliefs entail the harm of others? And if someone seriously believed that a giant monkey created the universe and filled it with bananas, etc. (or if someone believed the FSM created the universe, for that matter), I would be just a little skeptical. Not because his/her beliefs aren't consistent with mine (which are still nebulous at best), but because I am a very curious and skeptical being.


'Attack' is exactly the word I'm commenting on. Why do you have to attack. I mean I'm a believer, and I strongly believe in God and my religion, if I'm arguing with you, and you're an atheist, should I just call everything you believe in crap and attack it harshly just cuz you happen to disagree with me? I know religions and beliefs are a sensitive matter, and once you believe in something, it's not really debatable for you whether it's right or wrong, but that won't mean that I don't respect the fact that you have your own belief. This is what I respect and that's why I'll not attempt to either attack you or shove my opinion down your throat.

Talking about religion is like talking to someone about something you wish they can quit. It's even like talking someone into not smoking, you make your argument, but you don't need to fight the person. I've come to a conclusion now that none of the people involved in any religious argument will come to a result they want. Neither will be convinced, and both will be pissed off and hurt. What will you gain by attacking?! The other person will attack, and then what? none of you will be persuaded with the other's opinion, and you're most probably bound to hate each other afterwards.

Perhaps no one involved will benefit, but those observing will surely benefit. And must everything be for the benefit of the self rather than the rest?


I understand all what you said. What I'm saying here, and call me passive, is live and let live. You'll probably gain nothing from arguing about religions, at least you, in most cases, won't get the ultimate goal of the debate which is to convince the other that you're right and they're wrong. I understand that you all agree on a 'polite' discussion, and I also agree that only those who don't have evidence on their points of view are those who seek harsh replies and even insulting discussions. But the thing is, sometimes it seems to me that either parites (believers and non-believers that is) both are waiting for any chance whatsoever to jump on each other's backs and start a debate based wholly on the idea that they both still wanna convince the other they're right. That is basically what I'm against. Maybe it's cuz I've seen it way too much in my life, personally and through media, that I've become quite irritated by it, but yeah I think all I'm proposing here is a simple 'live and let live' idea. That is all. Hope you all get my point of view now.

Argumentation is more of a good thing than a bad thing. Personally, I take pleasure in listening/reading debates. It is unreasonable to think that one gains nothing from argumentation. Besides, arguing is good sport. :D

[Etienne]

"Simply remember this, between men, there is only two possible relations : logic or war. Always ask for proofs, proof is the elementary politeness between each other. If it's refused, remember that you are attacked, and that they will try to make you obey by all means." - Paul Valery, Monsieur Teste

I think there is some value here for the point at hand, that is, as long as we keep to real arguments, logical arguments, there is no reason for anyone to be offended, while on the other hand...

[Morten]

I think much can come from discussions where no one is offended. I don't think that "dancing around" things is related to being respectful. Being direct, but without insults or any derogatory tone, is the best way to communicate.

You say one must be offended for the conversation to be good, yet you say to not be offensive. This would require someone to get offended about something that's not offensive, which generally comes from a miscommunication. A discussion with miscommunications seems like a bad discussion to me.

Wrong. There is a difference in being offensive and getting offended. I might offend someone without being deliberately offensive.

And it is a dance, a succession of careful steps. I'm sick of people having to preface their arguments with "I respect what you say, but...", or "Well, I respect all religions, but..." Cut the crap. Let's be honest, no? We're all subjective and endlessly flawed human beings, after all.

[Morten]

Depends what you call being offended. Someone can be offended by the simple fact that you have a different opinion on a certain question, and many other analogous reasons. I think it doesn't come so much as to "do we respect each other?" as to "what do people consider a lack of respect?"

Many people often cannot cope with different opinions or honesty.

Exactly.

[sprinks]

And what if someone's beliefs entail the harm of others? And if someone seriously believed that a giant monkey created the universe and filled it with bananas, etc. (or if someone believed the FSM created the universe, for that matter), I would be just a little skeptical. Not because his/her beliefs aren't consistent with mine (which are still nebulous at best), but because I am a very curious and skeptical being.

Well if someone's beliefs result in the harm of others then it really probably isn't the best thing for them to believe in.
And I'm not saying I wouldn't be skeptical of someone believing in a giant universe creating monkey, that wasn't the point, because I admit I'd find it a little weird, but the point is I would RESPECT their desicion to believe it and the fact that they do believe it, even if I think it's the stupidest thing I've heard. I'm happy to let them believe it, I'll ask them questions about their faith and beliefs, but I'm not going to tell them that they are wrong and try to convince them of believing something else. If they want to believe something I find completely absurd it's not going to bother me and I'll respect their belief and their choice to believe it.

I once had a person try to convince me that the world was a giant eskimo, and the eskimo was wearing a top hat with a penguin on top of it that was wearing a top hat with a penguin on it wearing a top hat... etc etc.

[Nossa]

Well but the point is I would RESPECT their desicion to believe it and the fact that they do believe it, even if I think it's the stupidest thing I've heard. I'm happy to let them believe it, I'll ask them questions about their faith and beliefs, but I'm not going to tell them that they are wrong and try to convince them of believing something else.


Thank you! This is exactly my point. I'm pro discussion, but when people know when to stop. It's not much about the discussion itself, than the people invovled.

[Morten]

but the point is I would RESPECT their desicion to believe it and the fact that they do believe it, even if I think it's the stupidest thing I've heard. I'm happy to let them believe it, I'll ask them questions about their faith and beliefs, but I'm not going to tell them that they are wrong and try to convince them of believing something else. If they want to believe something I find completely absurd it's not going to bother me and I'll respect their belief and their choice to believe it.


I think you need to sit down and think about the word respect, because you seem to be throwing it about rather lightly. It is completely absurd that I should respect everyone's beliefs, no matter how crazy they sound. I can accept them, tolerate them, yes, but never respect them.

[Nossa]

I think you need to sit down and think about the word respect, because you seem to be throwing it about rather lightly. It is completely absurd that I should respect everyone's beliefs, no matter how crazy they sound. I can accept them, tolerate them, yes, but never respect them.

I don't think you understood what was said. All it means that you respect their decision and their right to have a belief even if it was different from yours. You don't have to respect the idea or the belief itself. You respect the decision not the belief.

[Dori]

I don't think you understood what was said. All it means that you respect their decision and their right to have a belief even if it was different from yours. You don't have to respect the idea or the belief itself. You respect the decision not the belief.

So, in other words, you always show consideration for a person's right to hold a belief that is different from your own, but not necessarily the belief itself? Shouldn't the title of the topic then be switched to "Do we really respet each other's right to hold beliefs different from our own?"

[Lote-Tree]

Do we really respect each other's beliefs?!


Probably not. On the whole we tolerate it.

Respect is earned not given.



And when we 'claim' that we do, is that o
but of tolerance or because we 'have' to, cuz of the rules and all that?


Yes. Rules says it.

But you can be highly critical without using the f word.



I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs.


Sometimes it's hard.



Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers.


non believers also have agnostics and dont careless types.



People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions


There are religions which don't.



We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing' and that everyone, eventually, is entitled to his/her opinion.


I think one's ideology can be challenged without being beastly to the person.

and in the end only the idealogy should be debated.



Maybe if everyone took a moment and thought what are the effects of some words and discussions on the other we will come to a certain aagreement.


True Debates should unsettle you. If it does not then your views have not been challenged enough.



I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask and learn about each other, but we don't have to judge, and always try to shove our opinion down eveyone else's throats.


I don't think we can't escape judging it's part of our nature.

end of the day...if don't want your views to be challenged then don't put them on a public forum...

[Dori]

end of the day...if don't want your views to be challenged then don't put them on a public forum...

:thumbs_up

[stlukesguild]

"Simply remember this, between men, there is only two possible relations : logic or war. Always ask for proofs, proof is the elementary politeness between each other. If it's refused, remember that you are attacked, and that they will try to make you obey by all means." - Paul Valery, Monsieur Teste

I think there is some value here for the point at hand, that is, as long as we keep to real arguments, logical arguments, there is no reason for anyone to be offended, while on the other hand...

Ackkk! I'm not the only one to have not only heard of Paul Valery but actually read him as well! Proof positive...There is a God!

[Nossa]

end of the day...if don't want your views to be challenged then don't put them on a public forum...

Well, I'm not sure if you were directing this to me, but I was generaly speaking when I started this thread.


There are religions which don't.

I think the problems are not with religions, they are with people following them.

[Nossa]

So, in other words, you always show consideration for a person's right to hold a belief that is different from your own, but not necessarily the belief itself? Shouldn't the title of the topic then be switched to "Do we really respet each other's right to hold beliefs different from our own?"

Well, I don't think this can be made undone now. But that was my point all along, maybe I didn't express it correctly.

[islandclimber]

Well, I don't think this can be made undone now. But that was my point all along, maybe I didn't express it correctly.

Nossa.. I think some people just like to argue semantics, which you are studying at the moment, right? :D this arguing avoids answering relevant questions!:D

but I agree we have to respect others rights to have opinions and beliefs, but the actual belief we don't have to respect... I love a good argument, but one doesn't have to be offensive... or make personal attacks that have no relevancy to what is being discussed.. we had a very interesting discussion recently on "Why It's so hard to believe in God".. Very heated I do believe, though never too personal or offensive, and I had a lot of fun with it, and whether I ultimately changed my mind in the slightest, it is still always interesting and quite fun!

but as stated before, if one is so sure of their beliefs that any argument against them is deemed offensive and a personal attack, then they should keep them to themself, and not post them on an online forum to discuss, for not everyone is going to agree...

but respect is essential, I agree... respecting everyone else's right to have beliefs...

cheers

[Lote-Tree]

Well, I'm not sure if you were directing this to me, but I was generaly speaking when I started this thread.


No. It was not directed against you in particular.

Perhaps there is a need to be a section in this forum here where you can air your beliefs only and is not challenged.

Perhaps people could start threads like

"Please don't challenge my beliefs"...


But those threads will die out in an instant...I guess...but worth a try.




I think the problems are not with religions, they are with people following them.

There are problems with religions itself. But no believer will accept that and thus...you can blame it on people....

and to large extend you can do this..

[Dori]

Nossa.. I think some people just like to argue semantics, which you are studying at the moment, right? :D this arguing avoids answering relevant questions!:D

I was just trying to get a more clear understanding of what he was trying to say. :p

[Nossa]

Perhaps people could start threads like

"Please don't challenge my beliefs"...


But those threads will die out in an instant...I guess...but worth a try.



lol...yup I can imagine that. Again, I'm really not against discussion, and opposing opinions is not wrong, just being agressive is the thing I hate about some people. As I said, I've seen it way too much in my life, and it WAS bad.


There are problems with religions itself. But no believer will accept that and thus...you can blame it on people....

and to large extend you can do this

Well, that is your opinion..and since we're in THIS thread..I'm gonna respect it :p lol
But I do think that sometimes, and in certain aspects of religion, people take things in a wrong way, and act accordingly. I won't talk about my religion cuz this is not about Islam, but I know first hand how some people, who know nothing about Islam, can make horrible mistakes in its name, and claim that the religion made it. It's the same as certain philosophies, when people over the ages stray from the original principle, and then blame the philosopher for it. It's just an opinion I have...you don't have to agree with me.

[Nossa]

Nossa.. I think some people just like to argue semantics, which you are studying at the moment, right?

Yeah, and I was trying SO hard to forget this face :bawling:





but respect is essential, I agree... respecting everyone else's right to have beliefs...

Glad you understood what I meant :D


I was just trying to get a more clear understanding of what he was trying to say. :p

*points to her signature* No worries :D

[Virgil]

but I know first hand how some people, who nothing about Islam, can make horrible mistakes in its names, and claim that the religion made it.

I've seen the same with Christianity, and by some Christians themselves. ;)

[Nossa]

I've seen the same with Christianity, and by some Christians themselves. ;)

Yeah I know. The people I was talking about claim to be Muslims too. If it wasn't for the 'no politics' rule of the forum, I'd have named some of them.

[Lote-Tree]

lol...yup I can imagine that. Again, I'm really not against discussion, and opposing opinions is not wrong, just being agressive is the thing I hate about some people.


What about passionate?

I believe if you want to debate something then you need to be passionate about it?



Well, that is your opinion..and since we're in THIS thread..I'm gonna respect it :p lol


As I said no believer would accept anything wrong with their religion. If they did then they would not be following it.



But I do think that sometimes, and in certain aspects of religion, people take things in a wrong way, and act accordingly.


Yes. As always. But people will always do this because each individual sees the world slightly differently.



I won't talk about my religion cuz this is not about Islam, but I know first hand how some people, who know nothing about Islam, can make horrible mistakes in its name, and claim that the religion made it. It's the same as certain philosophies, when people over the ages stray from the original principle, and then blame the philosopher for it. It's just an opinion I have...you don't have to agree with me.

Sometimes you need to question the idealogy. If you don't then you are prisoned by it. Yes. even your most cherished ideals needs to be questioned.

If humanity did not do this it would be still living in caves...and be at the mercy of the elements...

[Nossa]

Yes. As always. But people will always do this because each individual sees the world slightly differently.

Sometimes you need to question the idealogy. If you don't then you are prisoned by it. Yes. even your most cherished ideals needs to be questioned.

If humanity did not do this it would be still living in caves...and be at the mercy of the elements...

Well, there certain things, that even by common sense are agreed upon and can only be thought of differently if someone has some hidden motives. I mean as far as killing people goes for instance, you can't get it 'slightly different' from the reality of it. Killing innocent people is wrong. Period.
Hope you get what I mean.

As for questioning your ideals,well, how can they be ideals and values if they're questionable (either they were good or bad, cuz that's relative). Now I think that the only reason why someone questions his/her ideals is when they don't have a proof, don't understand what they're talking about or just following a trend or something. Questioning and doubting is good, but if you take for granted and idea, and you have a certain proof (logical that is) that it's true, why can't you just...well take it for granted then? You know what I mean?
I know, and even if I might not agree entirely, that beliefs and religions now are relative. I do believe that you don't need to be religious to be a good person, but sometimes this bounces back on the religious ones and some wonder, then why do you need to have a religion at all? I think it's always gonna stay debatable.

One last thing, being passionate is a must in a discussion or else you're NOT gonna get anything out of it, plus if someone discusses something he believes in without passion, I'd die of boredom. Passion doesn't mean being aggresive though, at least this is how I preceive it.

[Lote-Tree]

Killing innocent people is wrong. Period.


Then you have in the scriptures "war is proscribed for you"...

Your view of the world is shaped by how you understand this world, your experiences and your surroundings.



As for questioning your ideals,well, how can they be ideals and values if they're questionable (either they were good or bad, cuz that's relative).


Ideals is constantly being shaped and reformed. It is the nature of humanity. When ideals fails us we just abandon them and find new ones...



One last thing, being passionate is a must in a discussion or else you're NOT gonna get anything out of it, plus if someone discusses something he believes in without passion, I'd die of boredom. Passion doesn't mean being aggresive though, at least this is how I preceive it.

Mistake not passion for agression?.

And no you don't have to be agressive to be highly critical.

[aabbcc]

I've seen the same with Christianity, and by some Christians themselves. ;)
And I encounter the same ill-perceived version of judaism which would have been comic had it historically not proved to have been rather tragic. (I am not a believer so not that it 'religiously' gets me, but once I discussed with my mother how amazing are the misconceptions people have about our... I cannot say 'our religion' given that I come from very atheist home, being probably the third or fourth atheist generation - and I myself have purely academic and cultural interest in that part of my heritage - but you get what I mean.)

The concept of 'chosen nation' is entirely misinterpreted outside of judaism and it never had anything to do with any superiority or BS of the kind "Protocoles of the Elders of Zion"-ish opinions around.
The concept of 'salvation', 'heaven' and 'hell' are all misinterpreted and in such forms do not exist in judaism. No, you won't rot in hell if you aren't Jewish, and it's significantly easier for you to get to "heaven" than for a Jewish person, believe it or not.
The concept of 'Messiah' is totally misunderstood, to a point where it is laughable, just as Jews are totally misunderstood about why they don't accept Jesus Christ to have been Messiah.
Tanakh has been poorly translated into other languages, with numerous errors ("virgin" which was supposed to give birth to Messiah in original is not "virgin", and such stuff :D) which have been repeating constantly.
Numerous religions have emerged practically based on and built upon those bad translations who now accuse Jews of being inconsistent and of not accepting their 'manipulated' versions of the original dogma.
And so on, and so on...

Every religion, on a popular level, gets to be totally misinterpreted, especially outside of areas where it is dominant religion. It is normal. Getting offended and upset over that will get you nowhere.

But, if you - as I elaborated in my lenghty post on the page above - willingly come to a place where religion is debated, then you 'detach' yourself emotionally from your firm belief that your religion is one and only, and debate things based on arguments and logic, and you realise that you are likely to meet people with many misconceptions about your religion.
Unless they aren't your fear, but you actually fear those without misconceptions, but with counter-arguments... :D THAT is, from my experience, what most people have problem with, not the fact that somebody is infamiliar with something. People don't have half as much problem clearing the misconceptions as debating with knowledgeable individuals who know, but don't agree and wish to present their different views.

Well, if one has problem with that - one stays off places where that is discussed, and cheerfully sings their favourite song unburdened with such discussions. :D

[dzebra]

"virgin" which was supposed to give birth to Messiah in original is not "virgin", and such stuff

I haven't heard that from anyone except for you. Where did you hear it?

[mercy_mankind]

Do we really respect each other's beliefs?

Asslamu Alikum ,
look Nossa this forum is considered to be a small world .Everything that happens in the world happens here in the Forum.
I mean that we read & hear everyday a lot of accidents show how people disrespect religions, disrespect other's beliefs .So you must see here some of disrespect, it is ordinary ,and some people don't know how to respect !
since we have to discuss about religions and to know each other there is a certain way of asking and talking
you can ask and discuss without this bad way , and people will get your points very well.
Finally i think that everyone want to post here "Religious Forum" should read this thread , so as to avoid these problems.:)
Thank you

[Nossa]

Then you have in the scriptures "war is proscribed for you"...


I'm sorry, I'm not following here. War isn't the same as killing people for kicks. Could you elaborate more, please?


Mistake not passion for agression?
And no you don't have to be agressive to be highly critical .

Yes, that's what I mean. You already said it, one doesn't have to be agressive to be passionate. I highly respect anyone who's passionate about a belief, even if it was opposing my own.

[aabbcc]

I haven't heard that from anyone except for you. Where did you hear it?
The Hebrew word found in OT is almah ("young woman"), not "virgin" (that would be have been bethulah), which was translated into Septuagint as parthenos, which means both "virgin" and "young woman". However, as most other translations are based on Septuagint, they adopted the former meaning of parthenos when translating it, thus translated it as "virgin".

This is only one example, there are probably hundreds of them, where if the 'mistake' is not the cause of Septuagint translation, it is a cause of 'translation from the translation', which was widespread practice. A lot of translations, even modern ones, are actually derived from other translations rather than original (e.g. many Bibles in use are still Vulgata-based).
Another example are "prophecies"; in the original OT there are different expressions for them, yet they all end up being "prophecies"; similarly the myth of 'heaven' and 'hell' happened to be, etc.

EDIT: I forgot to answer where I heard that - I was shown and explained that controvery by somebody who studied the materia rather intensively. If you google it, however, I am sure you will find plenty of information on it, from both sides. :D

[Dori]

*points to her signature* No worries :D

Ahem. His...

[Virgil]

I've seen the same with Christianity, and by some Christians themselves. ;)


Yeah I know. The people I was talking about claim to be Muslims too. If it wasn't for the 'no politics' rule of the forum, I'd have named some of them.


And I encounter the same ill-perceived version of judaism which would have been comic had it historically not proved to have been rather tragic.

Hey i was actually thinking about this further while I was off wandering on my lunch hour and we three who made this point need to keep something in mind with respect to others. There isn't just one Christianity, there are Christianities, plural. Obviously there are different branches and orders who disagree on things, so it's not so simple to say that someone doesn't understand a particualr point or have an incorrect notion. And even within branches/orders of Christianity there are controversies, issues that are debated and have various view points, but perhaps not enough separte and form their own order. While i'm no expert on islam, I would imagine that the same occurs. The differences between Shia (sp?) and Sunni. But i would anticipate that even within each branch there are areas of disagreement. I would imagine the same for Judaism (orthodox verses Hasidic and so on). So we should keep in mind that someone may have a subtle distinction from ourselves.

[Nossa]

Ahem. His...

:lol: I know you're a 'he' Dori. I meant at MY signature...just speaking in the third person..never mind..lol...I had Hakuna Matata in my signature...ya know what...never mind. All I wanted to tell you No worries :D

[Nossa]

While i'm no expert on islam, I would imagine that the same occurs. The differences between Shia (sp?) and Sunni. But i would anticipate that even within each branch there are areas of disagreement.

The areas of disagreement between Shai and Sunni is in minor things, not major or essential things. These differences cannot, by any means, justify something, that's considered a sin to the Sunnis, as an allowed thing to the Shait and vice versa. We're all Muslims, and we have the same essentials, and most of the minors, but it's only normal that even within the same religion there different views, and one can't deny or even refuse that they exist.

[aabbcc]

(...) There isn't just one Christianity, there are Christianities, plural. (...) While i'm no expert on islam, I would imagine that the same occurs. The differences between Shia (sp?) and Sunni. But i would anticipate that even within each branch there are areas of disagreement. I would imagine the same for Judaism (orthodox verses Hasidic and so on). So we should keep in mind that someone may have a subtle distinction from ourselves.

I am going to have to disagree with you this time. :)
I agree with the idea of multiple Christianities, given the numerous and often grave and fundamental differences between the 'variants' of Christianity you can find nowadays.

One could argue that there generally is no need to 'establish' Orthodoxy, to declare something as Orthodox [perhaps it is useful to remind ourselves of the meaning of the word, ortho-doxia, literally "the right belief"] if there are no alternative streams emerged which threat to become the 'mainstream'. Which is, in a way, what happened with Christianity before schism - not long ago after Christianity emerged there came to be two ways of practising it, the so-called "Eastern" and "Western". However, the "Western" Christianity began to significantly change dogma (and I am not referring only to filioque, or celibate, or limb, or the issue of Pope as supreme and only true authority on Christianity...), which resulted in the need of establishing of 'Orthodoxy' in Christianity. So from that point on, you had two similar, but essentially (take 'essentially' in the literal sense of the word!) different variants of the same dogma, which existed for a couple of centuries before Luther and the 'reformed church', from which pretty much all 'reform' churches, commonly called protestant, emerged with time (calvinism, lutheranism, you name it). So the variants spread in their multiple forms, some of them going rather far away from the dogma (Mormons being my first association... the concept of physical G-d, plurality of G-ds, etc). In the case of Christianity, really, you can speak of multiple practices and multiple variants of the central dogma, regardless of which practice you take as the one from which they all differ (e.g. assuming Orthodoxy is not "the" Christianity, it doesn't change anything).

Judaism... Not really. There is one judaism, the Orthodox one (and it is so considered a 'fact' amongst the Orthodox that amongst themselves they usually do not refer to themselves as 'Orthodox', only to distinguish themselves from non-Orthodoxy), and no matter whom you ask in which 'branch' of judaism, nobody will tell you that Orthodoxy is, dogmatically or by its practices, 'wrong' (which is NOT the case in Christianity!). Or nobody who knows anything of judaism, at least. :D
The most 'problematic' thing about judaism - and precisely that which kept it living - is that it never went through a period of secularisation as Jews did not have their homeland and were spread in the parts of the world. Therefore, judaism remained pretty much intact, add or remove a couple of mystic movements or stuff of the kind which exist in any religion (but they never threatened to become mainstream!). Theology was not changed, nor were 'laws' being removed due to secularisation of the country, nor were practices abandoned due to 'modernisation' (which was 'made easier' by the fact Jews lived in ghettos and were generally isolated from the rest of the people from their countries)... Judaism existed in its Orthodox form. There were more and less religious Jews, there were even different views on some Biblical episodes, but despite that, the only 'judaism' in existence, dogmatically, was the Orthodox one.
From the Jewish point of view, there is no other judaism than the Orthodox one; all those fabulous modern Reform or Conservative stuff are not even recognised by the Orthodoxy, people who convert to them are not accepted by the Orthodoxy, etc. Also, usually the 'differences' are about practices, not the actual dogma. The authentic judaism cannot be much debated about, (un)fortunately, so there was never a group of people who claimed G-d not to be one, who denied shabbath, anything of the kind, and none of the different groups that appeared denied judaism in its essence - it was more about 'adapting' judaism to modern life, or quitting religious component but remaining culturally Jewish (humanist judaism or whatever it's called, I probably 'belong' to that :D no wait I don't if I consider myself Italian by my father, but oh well, you get my point - there are Jews who are Jews by halakha - i.e. born by Jewish mother - but who don't practice religion and are just culturally Jews), things of the kind, and a couple of eccentric/mystic streams.

Similar thing goes for islam, though I don't know enough about it to fully explain - the difference shia/sunni is a political one, not a dogmatic one, and emerged with the question of "who comes after Muhammad to guide us", and two different answers on that question. In the modern times, there have emerged some different answers on modern-life questions, naturally, but only when the streams of islam existed separately for primarily social / political reasons. Still, in islam there are no true 'variants' to speak of, there is one islam in even more 'stable' sense than that there is one judaism. ;)

Or to make long thing short:
Plural Christianities, certainly.
Plural judaisms, not really.
Plural islams, no way.
:D

EDIT: Again I have to add things, I'm so bad with wording my thoughts today. :(
The bottomline is, the 'differences' between various 'branches' of judaism and islam are mainly in 'adaptation' of religion to everyday life in our modern times, and on how conservative some 'branches' want to be.
The 'differences' between various branches of Christianity are actual, dogmatic, grave differences which cannot be overcome without changing of dogma on one side of the dialogue.
Again I cannot guarantee anything for islam, Nossa will know it better than me, but there definitely is one judaism, one 'correct' form of it, laws of whom are rather accurately derived from rather accurate sources of it, so there are no real misunderstandings, whilst Christians can't and won't agree on waay to many things in the dogma itself to start with.

[Virgil]

Ok, I yield to you two ladies. :) Let me say I'm incredibly impressed by both your intellects. :thumbs_up Given that I certainly don't know enough about Islam and I can't think of any distinction between different sects of Judaism that cannot be characterized as varations of orthodoxy, I have to acknowledge you two are correct. There certainly are different philosophic distictions between Christianities, now and throughout history. And perhaps I'm projecting my knowledge of Christianity and assuming it applies your religions.

But a question for each of you:

Ana: So the distinctions between geographically different Jews has nothing to do with any philosophic distinctions, such as Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews?

Nossa: So the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims are relatively superficial? In Iraq they are fighting what may not technically be a civil war, but certainly serious enough that they are trying to kill each other. Oh and another question: the difference between people like the Taliban in Afgahistan and more mainstream Muslims is a level of orthodoxy and not philosophy/theology? It seems to me that a decision to wear a burka or not goes beyond a small difference.

[Etienne]

So the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims are relatively superficial? In Iraq they are fighting what may not technically be a civil war, but certainly serious enough that they are trying to kill each other.

Would you honestly be surprised? But of course, religion is not the only point at hand in the conflict. Actually religions are more often used as a tool or catalyst for political (in the very broad sense of the term) purposes.

[Virgil]

Would you honestly be surprised? But of course, religion is not the only point at hand in the conflict. Actually religions are more often used as a tool or catalyst for political (in the very broad sense of the term) purposes.

Of course, but the political operatives were able to push the religious button succesfuoly because there are historical hatreds there. Whether those differences are cultural (as I think Nossa is implying) or theological (as I believed) is my question.

[islandclimber]

It's always funny how threads that start on very general topics like this one, especially in the religious forum, always progress into talking of something completely different :D I love it!

but the shia and sunni difference, at least to the best of my knowledge, began with the majority of islamic people at the time accepting the legitimacy of the first three caliphs, and they became the Sunnis, and the minority did not accept the legitimacy of the first three, and only believed the fourth Caliph, Ali, was the only rightful successor.. and there is a long line of political and religious leaders or infallible Imams from his progeny.. these are the Shia's... and then there are the mystics... The Sufis... Or I guess they could be said to have begun as devout islamic ascetics...

I think the only other difference between Sunni's and Shia's is the disagreement over importance and value and validity of certain collections of hadith which i believe from my religion courses in school, are oral traditions of the words and deeds of the Prophet, that were later written down as kind of supplements to the Qu'ran on how to live, and behave... The disputes are caused here, alot by the fact the sources were obscure, and many flat out contradict one another, some even appear at variance with parts of the qu'ran and are therefore thrown out, some seem to be political propaganda, so they are an issue of constant study it seems...

and lastly.. Sikhism, is a melding of the two religions Hinduism and Islam, and has huge differences from each... I don't think any religion can seriously be said to have no offshoots or offspring, or sects, etc... even the new Bahai faith takes alot from many religions, including islam, judaism, christianity, etc...

[aabbcc]

Ana: So the distinctions between geographically different Jews has nothing to do with any philosophic distinctions, such as Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews?

Right.
'Sephardic' and 'Ashkenazi' as words primarily mean geographical and cultural distinction. After 70 AD, when the Jewish diaspora started spreading around, in Europe they went in two different major directions - "west" (Spain, Portugal, ...) and "east" (Russia, Poland, ...). With time and over the centuries there emerged two cultures of European Jews, with their respective traditions and folklore, languages (Ladino in the west and Yiddish in the east), but no altering of dogma.

As I was yesterday somewhat imprecise and my mind failed to cooperate in English, I searched online for a better wording than mine of what I wanted to say about judaism; I found it here (http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=8330953&postcount=1528), I have no idea who is the guy that posted it, but he definitely knows what he is talking about. I'm a terrible translator so please bear with me.

Being that the "Jewish-ness" defines the phenomenology of the Jews, including all categories from culture to history, from demography to economic philosophy to religion, of course that there cannot be one form of "Jewish-ness".

In contrast to that, "judaism" is a term which defines a religious matrix, the system of ideas, values and practices that make it. Each phenomenon is defined by a couple of categories, from which the one important for us is a continuity. Tendency to 'relativise' the contents and the point of judaism, giving ad hoc definitions, emerges from the chronocentricness of the one who defines by that method being that it starts from the current historical point, neglecting historical totality, i.e. continuity. If in the other hand we take continuity as a relevant factor in defining, then we see one very simple thing, and that is that from 100% of the total time of the Jewish history, 97% of that time "Jewish-ness" was judaistically Orthodox (and the sole term - orthodoxia - entered the practice with haskala movement, to separate traditional judaism from the 'modern' one). If we take time-line from 3500 years, only 200 years ago a small part of Jews became reform/liberal to nevertheless become the majority in "Jewish-ness" today, but at the same time went through its colapse due to diffusion, which is shown by all relevant studies of Jewish demography, as well as that in addition to that there is an increasing number of more or completely secular Jews, as a reaction to the vain content [of non-Orth. judaism], but, thank G-d, the number of the Orthodox is increasing rapidly.

That is from historical and demographic position.
From the religious perspective, there are a couple of reasons why reform/liberal "Jewish-ness" is not "judaism" (...)

The guy was discussing with some girl who wanted to convert to liberal judaism why that isn't "judaism"; but you can technically apply that to anything other than Orthodox judaism.

[Virgil]

Continuity is a wonderful term and is something I very much appreciate and respect. Thanks Ana. :)

[Dori]

:lol: I know you're a 'he' Dori. I meant at MY signature...just speaking in the third person..never mind..lol...I had Hakuna Matata in my signature...ya know what...never mind. All I wanted to tell you No worries :D

:lol: Now I understand. :D

[Nossa]

Of course, but the political operatives were able to push the religious button succesfuoly because there are historical hatreds there. Whether those differences are cultural (as I think Nossa is implying) or theological (as I believed) is my question.

I think I need to state here a historical fact, that the Shia to begin with was essentially a political philosophy, that turned religious through ages. For starters, the idea of being a Shia started by a certain political election (in the year 657), that was between two main figures back then in the Islamic world. One of these two main figures, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, was the one who lost back then, and the ones who believed that he deserved it more than his opponent, were the founder of the Shia cult, which is basically about staying true and loyal to Ali who was wronged in those elections of choosing a Muslim Imam, and through time Ali became a holy figure to them, alomost as holy as Prophet Muhammed. And as usual, some people took it a bit too far . The thing is, the Shia themselves are divided to many cults already, some of them do disagree with Sunnis on principles (like how some of them put Ali Ibn Abi Taleb in the status of a God, and that he had the same revelations of Prophet Muhammed. But these cults do not represent the majority of the Shias) but most of them are more like Sunnis if it wasn't for the 'minor' things they disagree with us about.

I disagree, highly disagree, that our differences are that of theology, but they're rather cultural or out of certain historical contexts. What's happening in Iraq now, for me , is mere politics. The main reason why the Sunnis and Shais disagree is the elections that took place 2005, and that it was mainly about the persentage of each party's representatives in the government. I don't wanna go into politics, but even the conflicts now between them in Iraq are out of the circumstances they're in. If you remember, in 2006, the war of Lebanon and Israel (whether you're pro Hizbullah or not) the ones who fought there were Shias, yet the people who celebrated the victory were both Sunnis and Shias. The differences between both parties are being exaggerated for political causes, that is all.

[islandclimber]

I think I need to state here a historical fact, that the Shia to begin with was essentially a political philosophy, that turned religious through ages. For starters, the idea of being a Shia started by a certain political election (in the year 657), that was between two main figures back then in the Islamic world. One of these two main figures, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, was the one who lost back then, and the ones who believed that he deserved it more than his opponent, were the founder of the Shia cult, which is basically about staying true and loyal to Ali who was wronged in those elections of choosing a Muslim Imam, and through time Ali became a holy figure to them, alomost as holy as Prophet Muhammed. And as usual, some people took it a bit too far . The thing is, the Shia themselves are divided to many cults already, some of them do disagree with Sunnis on principles (like how some of them put Ali Ibn Abi Taleb in the status of a God, and that he had the same revelations of Prophet Muhammed. But these cults do not represent the majority of the Shias) but most of them are more like Sunnis if it wasn't for the 'minor' things they disagree with us about.

I disagree, highly disagree, that our differences are that of theology, but they're rather cultural or out of certain historical contexts. What's happening in Iraq now, for me , is mere politics. The main reason why the Sunnis and Shais disagree is the elections that took place 2005, and that it was mainly about the persentage of each party's representatives in the government. I don't wanna go into politics, but even the conflicts now between them in Iraq are out of the circumstances they're in. If you remember, in 2006, the war of Lebanon and Israel (whether you're pro Hizbullah or not) the ones who fought there were Shias, yet the people who celebrated the victory were both Sunnis and Shias. The differences between both parties are being exaggerated for political causes, that is all.

Nossa, I don't know if you directed this at me and my post about the differences between Shias and Sunnis, but I was only trying to say what you just said, you just put it more succinctly, made it clearer... I was trying to say it was a political difference as well, with minor differences over the hadith, which are just as common within the branches of both it seems from what I learned in school...

Sorry if I came across as implying something totally different, that was not at all my intention, my post was meant to agree completely with you.... the only place I would have any contention is in the fact that all religion is invariably linked to others... I mean the Sikhs, are almost a denomination of Islam and Hinduism combined... which I guess makes something completely new, but all religion is a progression... Not to go too far back, but Judaism came out of Sumerian and Assyrian tradition and even slight Zoroastrian, Christianity developed out of Judaism, Islam was the further revelations of truth and took the Abrahamic religions, or is supposed to take them, to the pinnacle of truth... and on the other side Hinduism came out of early vedic and zoroastrian religion, buddhism developed out of Siddhartha's attempt to free the people Brahmin rule and the caste system... and Jainism developed as a side avenue of both in a sense.. and Sikhism brought Hinduism and Islam together.. and the new Bahai faith attempts to reconcile a plethora of religions... all I was trying to say is that classifying religions as totally separate from others and external influence and differences is, I don't know, silly in a sense..

[Nossa]

I think the only other difference between Sunni's and Shia's is the disagreement over importance and value and validity of certain collections of hadith which i believe from my religion courses in school, are oral traditions of the words and deeds of the Prophet, that were later written down as kind of supplements to the Qu'ran on how to live, and behave... The disputes are caused here, alot by the fact the sources were obscure, and many flat out contradict one another, some even appear at variance with parts of the qu'ran and are therefore thrown out, some seem to be political propaganda, so they are an issue of constant study it seems...


The Hadith is a very wide and complicated area of study, but one thing I know for sure is that the majority of Shias agree and accept the Hadith, as said by Propher Muhammed, they might disagree, however, on who narrates it (on behalf of Prophet Muhammed after his death). I think I need to mention here that they only take those said by Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and his family as the most reliablt source of all. One area of difference between the Sunnis and the Shias is that of marriage, and the laws of marriage, but not even marriage in general, certain aspects of it, and certain cases of it.

Other disagreements are drawn from the fact that, while Sunnis have Four different Imams (as in four different people with reliable interpretations of the Hadith and Qura'an) for the Shias these four are not as reliable, as the main principle of the Shia is that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb is the right, deserved Imam of Islam (they also believe in 12 different Imams whom are all from Ali Ibn Abi Taleb's family). Even with all this, Islam has five principles that we all as Muslims agree on, maybe some cults would 'perform' them differently (like certain cults in Shia, they differ in how they 'perform' their prayer, but not in the content of the prayer itself).

In general, I know it might sound that we disgaree on a whole lot of things, but if you read in Islam jursiprudence, you'll know that eventually, these are minor details, that weren't even looked upon or noticed before the war in Iraq in particular.

[Virgil]

I think I need to state here a historical fact, that the Shia to begin with was essentially a political philosophy, that turned religious through ages. For starters, the idea of being a Shia started by a certain political election (in the year 657), that was between two main figures back then in the Islamic world. One of these two main figures, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, was the one who lost back then, and the ones who believed that he deserved it more than his opponent, were the founder of the Shia cult, which is basically about staying true and loyal to Ali who was wronged in those elections of choosing a Muslim Imam, and through time Ali became a holy figure to them, alomost as holy as Prophet Muhammed. And as usual, some people took it a bit too far . The thing is, the Shia themselves are divided to many cults already, some of them do disagree with Sunnis on principles (like how some of them put Ali Ibn Abi Taleb in the status of a God, and that he had the same revelations of Prophet Muhammed. But these cults do not represent the majority of the Shias) but most of them are more like Sunnis if it wasn't for the 'minor' things they disagree with us about.

I disagree, highly disagree, that our differences are that of theology,


The Hadith is a very wide and complicated area of study, but one thing I know for sure is that the majority of Shias agree and accept the Hadith, as said by Propher Muhammed, they might disagree, however, on who narrates it (on behalf of Prophet Muhammed after his death). I think I need to mention here that they only take those said by Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and his family as the most reliablt source of all. One area of difference between the Sunnis and the Shias is that of marriage, and the laws of marriage, but not even marriage in general, certain aspects of it, and certain cases of it.

Other disagreements are drawn from the fact that, while Sunnis have Four different Imams (as in four different people with reliable interpretations of the Hadith and Qura'an) for the Shias these four are not as reliable, as the main principle of the Shia is that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb is the right, deserved Imam of Islam (they also believe in 12 different Imams whom are all from Ali Ibn Abi Taleb's family). Even with all this, Islam has five principles that we all as Muslims agree on, maybe some cults would 'perform' them differently (like certain cults in Shia, they differ in how they 'perform' their prayer, but not in the content of the prayer itself).

In general, I know it might sound that we disgaree on a whole lot of things, but if you read in Islam jursiprudence, you'll know that eventually, these are minor details, that weren't even looked upon or noticed before the war in Iraq in particular.

I'm not expert but those differences sound as different as when I say there are different Christianities. Let me give you an example from Christianity. All Christians believe Christ is the son of God and the Messiah, which essentially means that He reopened the gates of heaven through his Ressurection. But there have been several major splits in theological beliefs over time. Actually I found a really cool image that shows the different branches of Christianity:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

Actually the Christians you may be familiar with in your country (Egyptian Coptic) are part of the yellow line that split early in the 5th century. The central thoelogical distinction for them rests on Christ's humanity as to whether he was of two natures, God and man.

The major split occurs between the Western chrurch (red line) and the Eastern church (blue line) called the great schism of the 11th century. Now I can't find any major theological difference between the two, and frankly I would catagorize the split between them to be political and cultural. As you can see they a "union" line that kind of reunites them, and this was an agreement at some point that acknowledges their essential similarity. Given that between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches makes up a huge part of Christianity, I would say that there is a good deal of theological agreement within it. And the two Churches have for many years striven to once again heal and reintegrate.

Now it gets interesting on Protestant split from the Western church in the 16th century. Here the fundemental distinction [remember there are numerous Protestant beliefs so there are smaller distnctions as well} is Protestants do not believe in the need for an individual to need a religious institution as an intermediary with God while the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and even the Egyption Coptics believe that one needs consecrated priests to administer sacrements (religious rites) and an instituion to interpret theology. That's basically it. That's the distinction. There are more perhaps, but those are even more minor.

So when I say multiple Christianities, the distinctions are over a few theological intepretations that to an outsider must seem really small. The differences you sight between Shia and Sunni seem as small as these. So why not consider it separate branches?

[Nossa]

The differences you sight between Shia and Sunni seem as small as these. So why not consider it separate branches?

Well, if we're gonna put it in terms of them being separate branches, then I think I can agree. The idea is, we do not disagree on basics or fundementals, we disagree on mere interpretations and favoring certain Islamic figures. I still disagree that our differences are those of theology, cuz being different in interpretations doesn't mean that we don't essentially agree on the same thing. I need to stress that the division that led to the foundation of the Shia cult was NOT of theology, it was a mere political situation. As a matter of fact, the word Shia in Arabic means the group of someone, who was Ali Ibn Abil Taleb at that time (and still). There was no division in the time of Prophet Muhammed and the Four Imams of Islam (Prophet Muhammed successors). But yeah, it's only logically speaking that they ARE two branches, I won't argue about it.

And just an off point comment, isn't it funny how we turned from the original topic of the thread to a while different subject :lol:

Edit*
Just to make it more clear, the differences were/are merely based on the incident that I mentioned in a previous post. That political incident led to what happened next and the existence of Shia and Sunni. Just thought I'd say that, cuz after re-reading my post, I thought I didn't make it quite clear :D

[curlyqlink]

Nossa:

I'm really not against discussion, and opposing opinions is not wrong, just being agressive is the thing I hate about some people.

You hate about some people?! As follow-up to your post about respect and tolerance, you say you hate people who are "aggressive" in their arguments? Now I truly have no idea what you mean by "respect".

[Nossa]

Nossa:


You hate about some people?! As follow-up to your post about respect and tolerance, you say you hate people who are "aggressive" in their arguments? Now I truly have no idea what you mean by "respect".

I thought it was quite clear actually. I'm not against discussion, but I don't like it when people are either agressive, or just don't know when to stop and 'respect' the fact that other people do have other beliefs, just like him/herself. You argue about your own belief, fine, but others also have the right to have beliefs, and you're not supposed to always try to talk them out of it. Hope I made it clear. I think a part of the respect I'm talking about is partly respecting the persons themsleves, and our right to have different beliefs. Hope that cleared things up for ya.

[islandclimber]

Nossa:


You hate about some people?! As follow-up to your post about respect and tolerance, you say you hate people who are "aggressive" in their arguments? Now I truly have no idea what you mean by "respect".

are you serious??? She isn't saying she hates the people personally, she hates that type of behaviour.... which is something entirely different... I dislike the super aggressive, disrespectful behaviour as well... but how do you get that we dislike or hate the people from this?

[Sarasvati21]

I don't think it is my place to criticize, bash, or otherwise disrespect those who have beliefs that differ from mine. I don't appreciate it when ignorant people tell me I am wrong for what I believe, and I know for certain that it would be betraying my ignorance to tell them they are wrong. I have, rarely, found people with whom it is possible to have a civilized discussion without any party feeling like they have to aggressively defend their viewpoint. It's too bad those encounters are so rare.

[Virgil]

Well, if we're gonna put it in terms of them being separate branches, then I think I can agree. The idea is, we do not disagree on basics or fundementals, we disagree on mere interpretations and favoring certain Islamic figures. I still disagree that our differences are those of theology, cuz being different in interpretations doesn't mean that we don't essentially agree on the same thing. I need to stress that the division that led to the foundation of the Shia cult was NOT of theology, it was a mere political situation. As a matter of fact, the word Shia in Arabic means the group of someone, who was Ali Ibn Abil Taleb at that time (and still). There was no division in the time of Prophet Muhammed and the Four Imams of Islam (Prophet Muhammed successors). But yeah, it's only logically speaking that they ARE two branches, I won't argue about it.


I would think this statement from your previous post would classify as a theological difference.

Other disagreements are drawn from the fact that, while Sunnis have Four different Imams (as in four different people with reliable interpretations of the Hadith and Qura'an) for the Shias these four are not as reliable, as the main principle of the Shia is that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb is the right, deserved Imam of Islam (they also believe in 12 different Imams whom are all from Ali Ibn Abi Taleb's family).
But it would be hard for me to really know given my ignorance of the nuances of Islam. I am aware of the five principles, so perhaps I'm not that ignorant. ;) As a side note, I work with a few muslims. In fact my boss's boss is mulsim, and I've known him a long time. I'm not sure if he's Shia or Sunni. He's from India.


And just an off point comment, isn't it funny how we turned from the original topic of the thread to a while different subject :lol:
Yes, but this is a good example of how people should discuss topics in the religious forum. :) So it's not really off topic. We provided an example. :D


Edit*
Just to make it more clear, the differences were/are merely based on the incident that I mentioned in a previous post. That political incident led to what happened next and the existence of Shia and Sunni. Just thought I'd say that, cuz after re-reading my post, I thought I didn't make it quite clear :D
I understood. Thanks. Perhaps the split started as a political issue but over time one of the two may have evolved theologically? Again you would know better.

[Nossa]

I would think this statement from your previous post would classify as a theological difference.



You might be right, but it really depends on the way you see it. I don't regard having a certain preference for a certain Islamic figure, and having a different interpretations to a certain Hadith (which is normaly of minor things) I don't regard these as differences in theology, cuz I believe that people different in theology are those who disagree on principles. Maybe it's just me, I always hated the fact that we call each other Shia and Sunni, after all we're all Mulims, but that's just me
PS: Hating this idea doesn't mean that I deny having two branches in my religion of course.


But it would be hard for me to really know given my ignorance of the nuances of Islam. I am aware of the five principles, so perhaps I'm not that ignorant. ;) As a side note, I work with a few muslims. In fact my boss's boss is mulsim, and I've known him a long time. I'm not sure if he's Shia or Sunni. He's from India.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. He's just a Muslims. Whether he turns out to be a sunni or a shia is irrelevant. Plus, if you know the five principles if Islam (like the prayers and fasting for instance) you'll find him doing the same thing as any Muslum you'd see anywhere.


Yes, but this is a good example of how people should discuss topics in the religious forum. :) So it's not really off topic. We provided an example. :D

Yup, I agree :D, I'm really glad we all had this conversation. Maybe this thread wasn't a bad idea after all :p

[sonofaslan]

I am a little late in this thread. I apologize.

I agree that respect for people's belief's should be practiced. I am a mod on another Christian Forum that allows all religions (and atheists) to join and present their views. So practice in this regard is very prominent to me.

But I have found that many people regard mere disagreement as intolerance. I've never understand that. I can respect one's belief without being an adherent. But to so many, unless everyone breaks down and agrees with one's belief, they claim their beliefs isn't being respected.

Typical arguments go something like this...

"I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"I believe in Judaism. I have always rejected the idea of the FSM due to the fact that it is a caricature invented to parity Christianity. Good as an example, but not an objective entity."

"Well, my belief is as good as yours. Since you do believe in my god, in addition to your god, then you are being disrespectful and intolerant of my religion!!!"

And then admin's get e-mailed, and so on and so forth. Feelings get hurt, and then no one wants to take part in it anymore.

It is a never ending cycle.

[Nossa]

I am a little late in this thread. I apologize.

I agree that respect for people's belief's should be practiced. I am a mod on another Christian Forum that allows all religions (and atheists) to join and present their views. So practice in this regard is very prominent to me.

But I have found that many people regard mere disagreement as intolerance. I've never understand that. I can respect one's belief without being an adherent. But to so many, unless everyone breaks down and agrees with one's belief, they claim their beliefs isn't being respected.

Typical arguments go something like this...

"I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"I believe in Judaism. I have always rejected the idea of the FSM due to the fact that it is a caricature invented to parity Christianity. Good as an example, but not an objective entity."

"Well, my belief is as good as yours. Since you do believe in my god, in addition to your god, then you are being disrespectful and intolerant of my religion!!!"

And then admin's get e-mailed, and so on and so forth. Feelings get hurt, and then no one wants to take part in it anymore.

It is a never ending cycle.

I understand your confusion, and I'm sorry to have caused it, cuz I didn't express myself clearly from the start. I agree on the same point you mentioned, I'm not against discussion and even argument, as long as it's not out of line, as in being disrespectful or agressive from one person towards the other just cuz they happen to differ in belief. I hope that made things clear for you.

[sonofaslan]

Nossa, I wasn't responding to anything you posted specifically. I was just contributing my $.02 on the situation, hoping my insight would bring clarity to the potentially volatile discussion that is associated with religion.

[Nossa]

Nossa, I was responding to anything you posted specifically. I was just contributing my $.02 on the situation, hoping my insight would bring clarity to the potentially volatile discussion that is associated with religion.

Yeah, I know. No worries :)

[aabbcc]

Beautiful, what a lovely off-topic we made. :)

Well, while we are still off-topic, I've a question for Nossa, or whoever else can respond to me from the Muslim perspective. As far as I know, islam remains faithful to the idea of one G-d (no Trinity or similar ways of 'masquing' politheism). Yet, Muhammad is claimed to have been the last prophet, and Jesus (=Issa) is considered a prophet too (correct me if I am wrong).
Yet, the teachings of Issa go directly against the idea of G-d as one. How is that viewed?

[Nossa]

Beautiful, what a lovely off-topic we made. :)

Well, while we are still off-topic, I've a question for Nossa, or whoever else can respond to me from the Muslim perspective. As far as I know, islam remains faithful to the idea of one G-d (no Trinity or similar ways of 'masquing' politheism). Yet, Muhammad is claimed to have been the last prophet, and Jesus (=Issa) is considered a prophet too (correct me if I am wrong).
Yet, the teachings of Issa go directly against the idea of G-d as one. How is that viewed?

Recognizing Jesus as a prophet is a main principle of the Islamic faith, same as Moses and Ibraham and any other prophet. We respect and admire them as much as Prophet Muhammed, and anyone who insults or disrespects any of the prophets is considered a sinner, if not, in some cases, directly out of the right Islamic path. The thing is, our view of Jesus is different from that of Christianity. While some Christian cults believe that Jesus was a god/ son of God, we believe he was only a prophet. Same as Prophet Muhammed. There are no prophets, according to the Islamic faith, who are highered to the status of a God, cuz there's only one God. In this case, for any Muslim, what we do is basically respect the fact that some people think of Jesus as a God or a son of God, but we don't have to accept or admit this fact.

I must stress here that Islam highly respects Jesus and the Virgin Mary. As a matter of fact we have a whole Surah in Qura'an entitled 'Mariam' (the Arabic name for Mary) and it tells of the life story of Virgin Mary, praising her and telling of the miracles of Jesus. I, as a Muslim, don't have a problem with anyone who believes Jesus to be a God, and this of course, again, has to do with the idea of respect I've been talking about in the thread.

I hope I got your question right and answered it thoroughly :)

[aabbcc]

I hope I got your question right and answered it thoroughly :)
Yes, thanks. :)

[Virgil]

Beautiful, what a lovely off-topic we made. :)

Well, while we are still off-topic, I've a question for Nossa, or whoever else can respond to me from the Muslim perspective. As far as I know, islam remains faithful to the idea of one G-d (no Trinity or similar ways of 'masquing' politheism).

It's not polytheism. You confuse the word person, as in three persons, as separate beings. It's the same Being manifesting Himself as God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.


The Trinity is a Christian doctrine, stating that God is one Being Who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons (not to be confused by "person"[1]): the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as " three persons[2] in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union. Support of the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. Most denominations within Christianity are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a mark of Christian orthodoxy.[3][4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[SirRaustusBear]

As long as we're on the subject of the trinity, I have a question. How do you define a seperate being?

When I think of the trinity I think of 3 seperate bodies unified in mind. God's consciousness is within God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. But this raises a problem, because when Christ prays in the garden on the night before his crucifiction, he asks God to spare him if possible. This suggests two seperate consciousnesses, both on a superficial level, because Jesus is speaking to God, but also on a deeper level, because God and Jesus clearly disagree about the upcoming crucifiction. Even though he recognizes the inevitability of his death, Christ asks God to spare him, and God says no. This, to me, suggests that the trinity must contain at least two seperate beings.

[Virgil]

Good question SirR. I'm not knowledgable enough to know the answer to that.

[ballb]

I stopped checking this part of the forum, for a while now. For many reasons that I don't think I should list. I also noticed that this is probably the part of the forum with the most 'locked' threads. And with the words "respect the beliefs of others' in bold, I had to wonder. Do we really respect each other's beliefs?! And when we 'claim' that we do, is that out of tolerance or because we 'have' to, cuz of the rules and all that?

Sometimes, actually many times, I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs. Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers. People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions, to the point that I feel we're in the middle of a war or something. It's furstrating to see how far we've come in religious intolerance.

We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing' and that everyone, eventually, is entitled to his/her opinion. Maybe if everyone took a moment and thought what are the effects of some words and discussions on the other we will come to a certain aagreement. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask and learn about each other, but we don't have to judge, and always try to shove our opinion down eveyone else's throats.

I'm not directing this towards anyone on the forum, I'm more of sending this thought out there, for anyone and everyong. I might be a dreamer or a utopian, or whatever you wanna call it, but I hope that someday people will finally learn, really learn, what it is like to respect those around you, and not set yourself higer than them and condemn them to being wrong, misled or whatever.

I take your point. But we all believe that we are right when we express an opinion. Otherwise, why express it at all? I would not however agree that the expression of such opinions is synonomous with intolerance or a lack of respect for other people`s beliefs. I prefer to think of it as the dialectic in action.

[El Viejo]

As long as we're on the subject of the trinity, I have a question. How do you define a seperate being?

When I think of the trinity I think of 3 seperate bodies unified in mind. God's consciousness is within God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. But this raises a problem, because when Christ prays in the garden on the night before his crucifiction, he asks God to spare him if possible. This suggests two seperate consciousnesses, both on a superficial level, because Jesus is speaking to God, but also on a deeper level, because God and Jesus clearly disagree about the upcoming crucifiction. Even though he recognizes the inevitability of his death, Christ asks God to spare him, and God says no. This, to me, suggests that the trinity must contain at least two seperate beings.

Excuse me for being so presumptuous as to answer, but speaking as a former Catholic, no, there is only one being, not two, not three.

St. Patrick is famously alleged to have explained the Trinity with a three-leaf clover: three leaves, one plant. Someone else likened the Trinity to three candles with their wicks twisted together: three candles, one flame. I remember the illustrations, perhaps from my catechism.

Speaking as me, the Church had a problem. If Christ and the Holy Spirit were regarded as lesser beings it weakened Their influence and utility, but to present them as equals with God created conflict with the first commandment. They solved the problem with doublethink. Three distinct persons, one being. "Triune Godhead be adored."

By the way, I like your spelling 'crucifixion' as 'crucifiction.' Very cute. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that the crucifixion never occurred. Are you then referring to the apocryphal bits of the story, like His falling three times on the way to Calvary, or leaving his faceprint in Veronica's veil?

[SirRaustusBear]

Wow, it's cool that it worked out to spell fiction, but alas no, I'm just a poor speller.

[aabbcc]

It's not polytheism. You confuse the word person, as in three persons, as separate beings. It's the same Being manifesting Himself as God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
I am aware of how Catholic Church addresses the problem of trinity, and how it explains it, I just speak here from the Jewish perspective. And from that perspective, any 'splitting' of G-d, in any way, is polytheism - even if 'masqued' nicely this way. [The same goes for saints, praying to saints, etc.]

The major principle of Jewish faith is that G-d is one. To 'alterate' that just a little bit (like with trinity) is from Jewish perspective no longer with accordance with that principle.

Of course, Catholic Church and Christians in general have got argumentation for their beliefs why that's not it, and I'm aware of that argumentation, I just wanted to present Jewish perspective here.

[sonofaslan]

No message... Apologies.

[blazeofglory]

I am indifferent to others' beliefs at all. Everyone reserves the right to hold a particular belief and has the right to critique as well.

[jgweed]

There is a significant difference between respecting the RIGHT to hold any religious opinion or belief, and respecting the particular opinion or belief ITSELF. It is far easier to do the former than to do the latter.

[AARONDISNEY]

Here's the thing. If it's very important to you then you won't care about someone's belief - if your belief tells you that they are in trouble. If I saw someone about to get steamrolled by an 18 wheeler, I wouldn't care if they believed there was really an 18 wheeler coming or not, I'd be shoving them out of the way. Who cares if they are offended that I don't respect their right to believe that they are not in trouble, I see them in trouble and want to do something.

If I believe that if a person doesn't give their heart to the Lord and live for Him, they will be consigned to hell, it isn't disrespect I am offering them by telling them about Jesus, but it's love I'm showing them, by pointing out what I believe to be the way to heaven and to avoid the destructive justice they deserve from God.

The person has the right to disagree with me that they are in trouble without God, but my telling them the good news is not disrespect...quite the opposite actually. I won't tell them they are a moron if they don't believe the way that I do. But for me to be silent, and to believe what I believe...that would be disrespectful.

[jaywalker]

When you ask me to 'Respect others beliefs' what do you mean?
Must I respect their right to believe ? Their Religion ? {The Giant Pommegranat for example}. Just want to get it right, please.

[Virgil]

When you ask me to 'Respect others beliefs' what do you mean?
Must I respect their right to believe ? Their Religion ? {The Giant Pommegranat for example}. Just want to get it right, please.

I would expect it would be both. But I'm not a moderator here.

[jaywalker]

I suspect it's one of those Language things. I'm not able to respect most religions. It's not a choice.

[Pendragon]

I would say respect the right to have a particular belief and don't use disparaging words or call names. It is certain that one cannot respect all beliefs, you are going to find some hard to swallow. But give them their right to believe, or not believe, and try to just present your case without being rude. The Bible says

1Cor.14
[38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

That seems to be a good point. If others will not see the way you see, you got to let them see whatever they do see...

God Bless

Pen

:wave:

[jaywalker]

Should I respect their right to indoctrinate the children of my country?

[Virgil]

I would say respect the right to have a particular belief and don't use disparaging words or call names. It is certain that one cannot respect all beliefs, you are going to find some hard to swallow. But give them their right to believe, or not believe, and try to just present your case without being rude. The Bible says

1Cor.14
[38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

That seems to be a good point. If others will not see the way you see, you got to let them see whatever they do see...

God Bless

Pen

:wave:
Very well said Pen.


Should I respect their right to indoctrinate the children of my country?
What are you talking about? You don't list your location, so how can anyone know what you are referring to.

[sofia82]

In my opinion, Most of we never bother ourselves to repsect other's beliefs and ideas as we think the only truth is ours. This is especially evident in religious ones. As Pen said "If others will not see the way you see, you got to let them see whatever they do see..."

[jaywalker]

Virgil, Why so hostile ? I'm located {as you call it} in Belgium, my country is England.

[Trystan]

I respect people, not their beliefs. It's like Schopenhauer said of religious beliefs "I should respect a pack oflies?". Beliefs are to be criticized and evaluated appropriately in the realm of philosophical argument, while left alone in everyday life. It's far more important to respect people, as our beliefs may differ quite a bit . . .

[Virgil]

Virgil, Why so hostile ? I'm located {as you call it} in Belgium, my country is England.

Who's being hostile? I asked a question based on your ambiguity. You must be reading hostility into my words. ;)

First of all I get a kick at all the people who come right out and say they will not respect other's beliefs. It's like you admit up front you are a snob and self rightous and bigoted. Nice.