Religious tolerance

Originally posted by reader1107
One say a market economy is good and everyone of a certain age of maturity should vote for their leaders and women get to make their own choices and decisions. Another says that both voting and a market economy are overrated and women should be beaten if you can see their face. There is a contradiction between the two and they can't both be right. So I ...[text shortened]... and eating leaves rather than forming an opinion about which is right and living accordingly?

Another way of looking at it;

"One say a market economy is good and everyone of a certain age of maturity should vote for their leaders and women get to make their own choices and decisions." [your text]

The other says that voting is to select a leader. There is only one leader, God. Thus, the craving of power by politicians is blasphemous, because they seek to reduce the power and influence of god. God's law is the only true law. Man's law is therefore null and void.

The other says that the market economy is often not in the best interests of your religious brothers and sisters, because it breeds social alienation. Some become rich, but only at the loss and suffering of others.

The other says that women should behave in a certain manner, that is both respectful to God, and that promotes a situation where man may also be respectful to God without any carnal temptations entering his mind. To break this law is extremely serious.


You'd think that as a fellow theist you'd see that these people are just practicing their religion. People should have the freedom to practice their religion without any meddling from you. Would you like it if people came in and told you that you are only able to worship a certain God in a certain way, according to their rules. Isn't that why Christians were thrown to the Lions in ancient Rome?

Originally posted by reader1107
One say a market economy is good and everyone of a certain age of maturity should vote for their leaders and women get to make their own choices and decisions. Another says that both voting and a market economy are overrated and women should be beaten if you can see their face. There is a contradiction between the two and they can't both be right. So I ...[text shortened]... and eating leaves rather than forming an opinion about which is right and living accordingly?

The problem with analogies is that they don't always agree in every respect to the actual problem. My argument did not suggest "moving to an island and eating leaves rather than forming an opinion about which is right and living accordingly."Only in this contradiction (between one religion and another) would i recommend such evasive actions.

With the contradition between Islam and Christianity how do you decide which is right?
You cannot. It requires faith, which in itself always implies uncertainty. You can never be certain that either is right.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
That's the problem with the skeptical approach. It doesn't ever seem to look at the whole picture, just a portion of it here and a portion there and then stands firmly on words like 'could' and 'might'.
Look at the life Jesus lived and answer the question. Was he actually God, a lunatic, or a demon?
Or is the answer scarrier to the skeptic than the question.

DF

DF we have had an inordinate number of discussions on this subject. When you say "look at the life of Jesus" I assume you mean "look at the life of Jesus depicted in the Mark, Matthew, Luke and John Gospels," in which case as i have demonstrated before, necessitates faith.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Another way of looking at it;

"One say a market economy is good and everyone of a certain age of maturity should vote for their leaders and women get to make their own choices and decisions." [your text]

The other says that voting is to select a leader. There is only one leader, God. Thus, the craving of power by politicians is blasphemous, bec ...[text shortened]... ding to their rules. Isn't that why Christians were thrown to the Lions in ancient Rome?

No, my point is that it's foolish to believe that since two points contradict each other, it's ignorant to believe in either. It's my contention that it's smarter to choose a belief than to throw out everything that has a contradiction.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The problem with analogies is that they don't always agree in every respect to the actual problem. My argument did not suggest "moving to an island and eating leaves rather than forming an opinion about which is right and living accordingly."Only in this contradiction (between one religion and another) would i recommend such evasive actions.

With the co ...[text shortened]... h, which in itself always implies uncertainty. You can never be certain that either is right.

I don't need to be certain which is true. I can have faith without believing that I am 100% true and everyone who disagrees with me is 100% false. I'm too old for that kind of absolutist thinking.

Originally posted by reader1107
I don't need to be certain which is true. I can have faith without believing that I am 100% true and everyone who disagrees with me is 100% false. I'm too old for that kind of absolutist thinking.

Well, perhaps you should try to be more childish. Think of what you are saying. Here is what i see as a monologue of your reflections:

There is a contradiction. Which is right? I dont know! I'll just choose one.

Let me remind you that faith is just fashionable word for belief. So this is what you just told me, "I can believe without believing that I am 100% true."

Don't dismiss absolutist thinking jst because you have acquired a few prejudices.

Secondly, because it is a contradiction, if you hold one as right, then by implication everyone else who diagrees with you must be wrong (from your perspective) or 100% false.

Originally posted by reader1107
No, my point is that it's foolish to believe that since two points contradict each other, it's ignorant to believe in either. It's my contention that it's smarter to choose a belief than to throw out everything that has a contradiction.

Perhaps you chould redefine smart.

so do you or don't belive in god if you don't messege me cause I can prove you wrong

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, perhaps you should try to be more childish. Think of what you are saying. Here is what i see as a monologue of your reflections:

There is a contradiction. Which is right? I dont know! I'll just choose one.

Let me remind you that faith is just fashionable word for belief. So this is what you just told me, "I can believe without believing that I ...[text shortened]... ion everyone else who diagrees with you must be wrong (from your perspective) or 100% false.

I believe that no religion is 100% accurate. Having studied some religions over the years, I do not know of any religion which I believe to be 100% false. Each religion has wisdom and many have common ground. I do not believe that one has to have absolute faith in everything taught by their religion, knowing that many people disagree with me and are equally entitled to their opinions. I don't agree with every decision made my the leaders of my religion; nor do I agree with every decision made by the leaders of my nation. I dismiss absolutist thinking because it is the absolutist thinking that is prejudiced. It is the absolutist who believes that others cannot be right if their beliefs and opinions differ from others.

What I believe about Jesus doesn't mean that I have to believe that the prophet Mohammed wasn't a prophet or didn't exist. I do not believe that God only picked one moment in time and one group of people and said *too bad* to the rest of humanity for their tough luck in being born before mass communication.

There is no contradiction in recognizing that we are all mere humans doing the best we can with information filtered by time and place and custom. Your implication is a fallacy. I choose to believe certain things and others choose to believe certain things but that doesn't mean they are by definition wrong and I am by definition right. Who was your philosophy teacher?

Originally posted by reader1107
I believe that no religion is 100% accurate. Having studied some religions over the years, I do not know of any religion which I believe to be 100% false. Each religion has wisdom and many have common ground. I do not believe that one has to have absolute faith in everything taught by their religion, knowing that many people disagree with me and are eq ...[text shortened]... hey are by definition wrong and I am by definition right. Who was your philosophy teacher?

Perhaps you should read what I said. There is a contradiction between two faiths. One (or more can/) has to be wrong. I dont care a bit if the other part of the faith is right or wrong. However in this contradiction if Islam is right, Christianity is wrong (because Jesus wouldn't be God). If Christianity is correct, then Islam is wrong (because according to Christianity there is only one God, so if christianity is right, Allah cannot exist). We have been using absolutism in a different way. I have been thinking of absolute truths. Apologies. i thought that if one assertion is 100% true, then the other is 100% wrong (whereas you thought i was saying that if one assertion is 100% the other religion is 100% wrong).

I dont care about the superfluous truths or wisdoms of religion, the fact remains there is a contradiction between two religions on a fundamental point (jesus as a prophet or JEsus as God). Now, it is completely stupid to choose either. There is not justifaction.

Originally posted by reader1107

There is no contradiction in recognizing that we are all mere humans doing the best we can with information filtered by time and place and custom. Your implication is a fallacy. I choose to believe certain things and others choose to believe certain things but that doesn't mean they are by definition wrong and I am by definition right. Who was your philosophy teacher?

If you believe in one assertion in the contradiction, then by implication you must believe the other assertion is wrong (not the religion though or its accompanying wisdom). If you believe in Islam, then
hence (because the two are mutually exclusive) you believe Christianity must be wrong about Jesus' divinity. If you can't see that, then i am compelled to conclude you have never entered a philosphy class room. Or indeed ever attended school.
Why do you ask of my philosopher teacher? Do you know him?

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you believe in one assertion in the contradiction, then by implication you must believe the other assertion is wrong (not the religion though or its accompanying wisdom). If you believe in Islam, then
hence (because the two are mutually exclusive) you believe Christianity must be wrong about Jesus' divinity. If you can't see that, then i am compelled ...[text shortened]... . Or indeed ever attended school.
Why do you ask of my philosopher teacher? Do you know him?

I think you sorted a whole lot out with those two posts (so, rec’d). I think there may be a few other elements to consider, though.

(1) From the point of view of perspectivism, none of us have a “God’s eye view” on any of it—no “view from nowhere,” I think one philosopher called it, or even really a view from “elsewhere.” I always have to admit that my perspective on, say, religious propositions, is at best incomplete.

(2) There is also the possibility that “God” or the Tao or the “divine ground” or whatever you want to call it is ultimately ineffable, in which case each of the religions is an imperfect attempt to “map the territory.” None of us may have a very good map, and all of those maps may be subject to the perspectivism I mentioned above.

(3) I might choose (assuming choice here 😉) based on, say, aesthetic considerations. For example, in my non-supernaturalist monism—well, think Zen or Taoism, but I also find that stream in the other religions as well (though not the “majority” stream). In my case, though I find great clarity in Zen, I find a certain richness in pursuing it in the symbolic and metaphorical and allegorical context of Judaism. But that is not a question of propositional truth (though my rejection of supernatural theism is).

I don’t think any of this contradicts what you wrote.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you believe in one assertion in the contradiction, then by implication you must believe the other assertion is wrong (not the religion though or its accompanying wisdom). If you believe in Islam, then
hence (because the two are mutually exclusive) you believe Christianity must be wrong about Jesus' divinity. If you can't see that, then i am compelled ...[text shortened]... . Or indeed ever attended school.
Why do you ask of my philosopher teacher? Do you know him?

When I went back to the original, number one post -- yes, on those two issues it is either/or. We agree on that point.

We disagree on the premise that since two points cannot be right, they must both be wrong and therefore it is folly to choose between them. My point is that to believe this in a religious debate means that you must also believe this in a political debate (hence the analogy on voting and rights).

Yes, I took 3 semesters of philosophy at a Jesuit university (as required of all students) and received an A/4.0 in each course. I asked because I don't know of any philosophy teacher that says you can hold one standard for a religion argument (since they have contradictions, you shouldn't believe in any) and a political argument (even though they have contradictions, it's OK to pick the one that meets your needs).

Originally posted by Conrau K
DF we have had an inordinate number of discussions on this subject. When you say "look at the life of Jesus" I assume you mean "look at the life of Jesus depicted in the Mark, Matthew, Luke and John Gospels," in which case as i have demonstrated before, necessitates faith.

I'm not asking you (or anybody else) to have faith. What I'm asking is that someone look at the life of Jesus and use some common sense and reason to conclude one of the 3 possible outcomes about Him. Think of Him as a fictional character if you wish and conclude if this fictional character was a liar, a lunatic, or was actually God (in his fictional world, of course).

DF