A Site for All Spirituality Forum Debaters

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Diplomacy is so weak. You know my arguments are superior to theirs, and I know you know it, so you don't have to say it.

...and I know you know it...

Best compliment I’ve had today (for several days actually).

I’ve stated my position on abrogating one’s own moral sense in the face of “divine command” before.

On the “tolerance” question, I have been frankly hypocritical in the past. I have fought the battles, but played the “apologetics” game. (You are one person that I trust to call me on that when you see it.)

I’m not sure that diplomacy is always weak. I have actually seen people come back and make the same arguments that I once made to them, apparently without realizing it.

Originally posted by Crita
So what would be a sufficient justification for exercising the use of force? Do you get to decide that?

One would be stabbing somebody who is raping your wife, since that person is using force to violate the right of your wife to not be raped.

Originally posted by vistesd


I’m not sure that diplomacy is always weak.

Maybe I'm just a weak diplomat.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
One would be stabbing somebody who is raping your wife, since that person is using force to violate the right of you wife to not be raped.

Fair enough.

Ok, I'm off to get some work done so thanks Dr Scribbles for engaging me in that very enlightening discourse.

Cheers,
Christian.
(that's my name, and funnily enough my religion too)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I've told you that I think you are a very bad person if you would have in fact stood by while Abraham took Isaac to be slain.

I've told you that I think your beliefs about religious tolerance are inconsistent with your acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the First in particular.

I've told you that if religious tolerance includes refraining from criticizing false beliefs, then religious tolerance ought not be exhibited.

1. I attempted to answer this in my last post.

2. Again, as I posted earlier, I will define what I mean by religious tolerance (and consequently religious freedom).

"...religious tolerance means: to extend religious freedom to people of all religious traditions, even though you may well disagree with their beliefs and/or practices."

and for the sake of clarity,

"Religious freedom means that you can: without oppression, believe, worship and witness (or practice freedom from belief, worship and witness), as you wish..."

I do not see how this infringes on the First Commandment.

3. I have never said anything about refraining from criticism.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Maybe I'm just a weak diplomat.

LOL! I used to be a negotiator in a very specific area; the negotiations were nearly always in an adversarial format. The trick was when to lead gently and when to confront.

(I was good at it, but it was not good for me, healthwise. You have more serenity in confrontation than I do. Even in surety that I was right, I tended to grip up inside: still do. That’s a fault I may someday overcome... That’s as “confessional” as I’m going to get tonight!)

Originally posted by wittywonka


I am now begging you to answer my question.

What if there were some religion that endorsed slaying and raping children. Would you extend your religious tolerance toward it?

And there's really no need to get hypothetical. Call the Abraham story a test if you will, but there are numerous other instances in the Old Testament in which God commands his people to conduct mass slayings of other peoples. Were those slayings religious practices? Would you have tolerated them, or perhaps even participated in them?

This gets to the very issue I have with tolerance. Until you can assure me that religious tolerance doesn't compel me to allow things that I believe are wrong, I can't endorse it.

Originally posted by Crita
Fair enough.

Ok, I'm off to get some work done so thanks Dr Scribbles for engaging me in that very enlightening discourse.

Cheers,
Christian.
(that's my name, and funnily enough my religion too)

Later.

Dr. S.
Armchair Epistemologist

I know there are extreme cases, Dr. S, and I am admittedly having difficulty diciding where I stand on them. I will concede that there is a fine line, and I will concede that I'm far from being able to stand on it. I'll even add on to that that you reminded me of that fact.

But I am certain, and I will not be swayed on this issue, that there is nothing wrong with having a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist friend(s), and there is nothing wrong with allowing them to practice their religion without oppression.

Originally posted by wittywonka
There is nothing wrong with allowing them to practice their religion peacefully and without oppression.

Was Tennessee v. Scopes an example of religious intolerance?

Originally posted by wittywonka


But I am certain, and I will not be swayed on this issue, that there is nothing wrong with having a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist friend(s)

Might there be something wrong with having a Mormon friend who is married to an eleven-year-old?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Was Tennessee v. Scopes an example of religious intolerance?

I'm not familiar with that case.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Might there be something wrong with having a Mormon friend who is married to an eleven-year-old?

"I know there are extreme cases, Dr. S, and I am admittedly having difficulty diciding where I stand on them."

In other words, I don't know, yet.

I'm trying to find a point at which we can agree before I go.

Is there anything on which you and I agree here?

Originally posted by wittywonka
I'm not familiar with that case.

It's one of the most famous cases in American jurisprudence. A high school teacher was arrested and charged with the crime of teaching the theory of evolution in a biology class in 1925.