Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

[tracyradtke]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Do you realize that with that comment you have opened the door to pathological and desturtive behavior? You are saying that anyone has the right to do whatever act they feel is right (with no harm done) in spite of what that action is.

To do no harm means, in my own opinion, to DO NO HARM. (The phrase, for the record, is "And Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will") Period. Therefore, the definition of harm becomes the issue.

What you think harms another person may not be what someone else believes.

Having an intimate knowledge of my own mind, I know what harming another means. A reasonable person, no matter their faiths or beliefs, knows what it means to harm another. Therefore it is the punishment that becomes the issue. This is where religious law and the law of man tend to bifurcate.

Some pedophile may feel that they are doing that child a favor by helping that child "explore" their sexuality at an early age. There are people who believe that.

Those who believe that, are exactly the people the laws of man deal with. Those are the people I deal with. Removing them from society so people of all faiths can feel free to argue about who's right and wrong.


tol·er·ance (tlr-ns)
n.
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. (from dictionary.com)

Using the above definition alone as a guide, the bottom line is not whether one persons beliefs are right and another persons wrong, but rather are we, as humans, absent of both nascent and ancient hyperbole, able to recognize and respect the role other humans play in the world, no matter their beliefs? This is not to say that one must ACCEPT for themselves anothers' religion, this is only to say that you are willing to leave others humans in peace to practice as THEY see fit. Dealing with those who would use religion as a weapon, I say only this; when any given practicioner of any given religion, while in the practice of said religion, violates the laws of man to the satisfaction of a jury of like minded people, that person shall be punished by the law of the land while he or she exists in the temporal, and then by whatever spiritual law exists on the next plane. It can't be made any less confusing.

My personal statement on religious tolerance is to declare myself tolerant of ALL religions, regardless of their conflict with my own beliefs, however should anothers actions, based on their beliefs cause harm to me, sufficient to involve the laws of man, then I will be tolerant of that, as well.

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Dyoll]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Originally posted by Angelfire:
I believe Christianity is true and intellectually tenable and I (maybe some others too) am prepared to defend my belief if you're interested.

I'm sure you can ably defend your belief in Christianity. I'm not sure, though, if that's neccesary since we are all entitled to our opinions: freedom of opinion/belief is absolute. Not even the iron fist of the state can prohibit such, even if it wanted.

I don't ask reasonable persons to defend their religious beliefs. Religion, unlike science, is about faith, and even rational persons like Sir Isaac Newton, Voltaire, Jefferson, etc, left a 'mental' space for belief in God. And that's the crucial thing, you see. Everyone should be allowed that 'space' for faith to inhabit.

When you say you believe that Christianity is true, that's a different thing than making an absolute claim based on evidence. Belief and fact may not be the same thing. Christianity is built on an 'internal system of evidence' - it makes sense only to Christians.

There are two ways of looking at the Bible: (1)the theological approach; you use the Bible to make your case, and (2)the historical/critical approach. Here, Christianity (based on the Bible) becomes more vulnerable.

The claims of Islam regarding the infallibility of the Koran and the ascension of Mohahmed into Heaven don't stand up to serious intellectual scrutiny. Certain Jewish claims based on the Old Testament also don't stand up to historical analysis either.

It seems to me, though, that Christianity gained the 'upper hand' not because of the inerrancy of its claims, but because it was eventually alligned with the Roman superpower of its day with the 'conversion' of Emperor Constantine from paganism to 'christianity,' Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It spread to existing imperial territories - Asia minor, North Africa and Europe, and even after the dismantling of the Empire and later with the Reformation, Christianity spread through colonialism to Africa, Asia and the New World.

Since Jews, Christians and Muslims (and any other religion for that matter) cannot claim infallibility intellectually, this is all the reason why tolerance is so important. I dare say that religion does not have to be rational (oh well, that's redundant) for people to embrace it because it offers an explanation of life, and it provides them with something on which to hold. That's their right as humand beings. Claiming a superiority above another religious tradition may cause persons/organizations to seek political power and to employ the state in the enforcement of their dogmas. Their notions of morality will become public policy.

Of course, not because religious tolerance is a good thing means that every religious practice must be tolerated. I think we can agree on what practices no society can condone: pedophilia, incest, suicide bombings, to name a few. If there are no human rights violations, people must be left alone to practice their religion and to expect that their rights be respected.

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Dyoll ]

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Fascinating topic so far, everyone.

Here is something from McDowell more than a comment by a reader.


I still see no research to support his contention that this is "the new tolerance", except for the example of his son - one child that he seems to extrapolate into "all of society".

I did see this rather prominently featured on his home page: If we don't raise $745,000 in the next four weeks will need to cut ministry projects here in the United States, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the world.

See the other thread on designer religion....

BTW: Are you in favor of people breaking the law, i.e., entering this country illegally? Is that what it means to be tolerant? What laws should we tolerate being broken and which should be enforced?

I think we were discussing tolerance in terms of religion, not law. But since you ask...

The law is not always moral, and what is immoral is often not against the law. So I absolutely do not look to legislators (who make the laws) for moral guidance, no.

Some laws match our morality closely - killing people for any reason but self-defense - we value our lives and with only a few exceptions think we shouldn't be able to take someone elses.

We also value property highly in this society, and have laws against taking someone else's. Of course at one time, setting a PERSON free from slavery was considered taking property and was very much against the law. Thank God some people chose to ignore the law and do what was right! Eventually the law caught up with the majority's morality and those who were once criminals are now heroes.

It's legal to dink alcohol if you are an adult (hey, it's your liver), but illegal to drink and drive (your actions could harm others). In this case, the law follows my sense of morality.

It's illegal to smoke ganja (for some reason "hey it's your lungs" doesn't apply here as it does to cigarettes and alcohol), but it's legal (even encouraged and gov't sponsored - "Got Milk"?) to eat all the fat and chemicals and unhealthy foods you like - even though there is an effect on society (obese/unhealthy eaters wind up getting sick more often so cost taxpayers money in terms of medicare, etc), that effect is seen as small enough to not outweight the right of a person to have butter on their toast or guzzle hormone, chemical filled commercial cow's milk.

Liz responded:
Yes, I think so, as long as what we choose does not harm others.

Do you realize that with that comment you have opened the door to pathological and desturtive behavior?

No, I don't believe I did. I think if you look at any action you'd consider taking, and evaluate whether it harms another, that is a very good guide as to whether or not that thing is a good thing to do.

Some pedophile may feel that they are doing that child a favor by helping that child "explore" their sexuality at an early age.

This really doesn't apply. A child is not old enough to consent to such a thing, we cannot know whether they would be hurt by it or not (my personal feeling is they would, and in this case the law agrees). We as a society recognize children are young and need the protection of adults until a certain age, so any one adult does not have the right to decide a child is ready for sexual exploration.

If the person seeking sex is dealing with another adult, they can simply ask that adult and there is their "harm" answer. This is echoed in law as well - if the second adult says yes, it's consensual sex and not illegal. If no, we call it rape and that is a crime.

[EdisonShi]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

I appologize for jumping in like this. I haven't read anyone's comments except JM1's initial dialogue and beside's it's obviously well thought out course, what struck me is that, JM1, you believe that Muslim's have exlusivity. The Qua-ran specificly mentions that Jews, Christians and Sabians can be (as can Muslims) on the true path to Allah's paradise. (Allah's paradise being my phrasing). This tolerance and quite frankly the diversity of Nationalities and Ethnicities at Mas-Jid is one of the reason's Islam fit into the life Allah had already given me. I don't think seeking to find similarities instead of differences is an unaccaptable approach to dialogue. We do it with our friends and families every day. I don't agree with everything anyone I know does, but because I love them, I don't throw it in there face. If we show that level of respect to strangers and neighbors, we wouldn't be sitting here waiting for Nirvana or Heaven or Paradise or Eden or Whatever, we'd be there. Sorry for the length.

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Ohliz

You pulled a review from someone who allegedly read McDowell's book. That person mentioned illegal aliens in their review of the book and you used that in an attempt to cast the book in a negative light. I then brought up an example of the legality of illegal aliens entering this country and you wrote:

The law is not always moral, and what is immoral is often not against the law. So I absolutely do not look to legislators (who make the laws) for moral guidance, no.

So, the laws that YOU or anyone else feels are "immoral" can be broken? For example, if someone wanted to enter this country illegally, receive benefits that only citizens/taxpayers have a right to (in effect, stealing the property of others), you would have no problem with that? We get to pick and choose the laws that we will obey and those that we will not obey? Do you get many traffic tickets?

We are discussing tolerance but the above is another example of the "New Tolerance" that McDowell writes about in his book.

I still see no research to support his contention

As I've said, his book lists numerous studies to support his view. If you're truly interested, check the library for the book.

In an attempt to indirectly discredit him, you pull a comment from an alleged reader of his book and when I provide a link that gives a summary of "The New Tolerance" you find it essential to the discussion to quote the following:

You write:

"I did see this rather prominently featured on his home page: If we don't raise $745,000 in the next four weeks will need to cut ministry projects here in the United States, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the world."

Why in the world do you feel the need to mention a totally irrelevant fact to the current discussion? Evidently, you have a problem with Christian organizations trying to raise money to fund and maintain their charitable works. He needs to raise money to support his ministry and he says so on his web page. Gasp…the nerve of that Christian!

Not satisfied, you follow by writing:

See the other thread on designer religion....

Why would you then make that comment unless you were implying that -- with absolutely no direct knowledge of him -- McDowell is a hustler and a charlatan?

You have just demonstrated the logical fallacy called "guilt by association." It means in part that when certain members of a group of people (insert any group- religious or ethnic etc.) are guilty of a negative behavior pattern, then all members of that group are either guilty of that negative behavior or are to be held as possibly being guilty.

Recently this has been called "ethnic profiling" and it is illegal. (Not that legality would matter)

Muslims correctly point out that because fanatic murderers in their group are hell bent on killing innocent Westerners, they all are not guilty of wanting to do so. I am sure you would have no problem accepting that line of thinking from Muslims, so why have you decided to paint McDowell in the same negative light as a few Christians ministers who are in it "for the money"?

I am afraid that this is exactly the kind of blatant bias and bigotry that I have seen repeatedly leveled at Christians on these boards and I'm tired of it. Why not show the same respect you would show to non Christians to Christians? This is a classic example of "The New Tolerance;" tolerance for everything, except for Christians and Christianity.

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Dyoll wrote:

The trouble is that other religious traditions view Christianity as being based on intellectual quicksands. For many people, the idea of religion is anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly.

When I see a statement like that (a sentence mentioning Christianity and "intellectual quicksand followed by a sentence with the insults "anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly"), I ask myself, why is this person saying this? If the person does not believe it themselves, they would not say it…would they? Or, at the very least, if they did not believe it themselves and wanted to say it in reference to some other person/persons, then they would add a qualifier to indicate that they themselves didn't believe it. For example:

Although many people believe that the idea of religion is anti-intellectual etc…..
I personally do not agree with them.

When you made that comment originally, it simply appeared as another example of subtle Christian bashing that I and other Christians have witnessed many times before. I don't believe that Christianity is anti-intellectual and I am prepared to prove it when Christianity is challenged.


When you say you believe that Christianity is true, that's a different thing than making an absolute claim based on evidence. Belief and fact may not be the same thing. Christianity is built on an 'internal system of evidence' - it makes sense only to Christians.

Religious faith in the reasonable and Christian sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which we all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible. This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man run over by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others. If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say. We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth's surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our walk through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

I am basing my belief concerning the truth of Christianity upon the evidence. Testimony of eyewitnesses (along with internal and external documents) is powerful evidence and is enough to convict or acquit defendants accused of crimes.

If you were a member of a jury, two things must be clear to you about the witness - 1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts and 2) that he is telling the truth.

The fact that I and other Christians have done gone through this process ourselves should make perfect sense to even those who are not Christian and don't want to be Christians. Therefore, comments such as "anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly" should not be made in reference to Christianity unless it is also pointed out that whoever believes this way is actually anti-intellectual and silly themselves.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I can't imagine making that kind of blanket negative comment about the beliefs of 2 billion worldwide and many at this very site, unless I included a qualifier to clearly show that I was not among those who feel that way.

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Accepted77:

I agree with a lot of what you wrote with a few exceptions.

The Isrealites were admonished by God to show "tolerance" to the strangers as they once were strangers in Egypt.

The Judeo Christian tradition calls on us NOT to tolerate the intolerable. When the ancient Jews entered the Promised Land under Joshua, they found a multicultural paradise, a beautiful values mosaic. And guess what happened? They proceeded to destroy it.

They could have been "tolerant." They could have said, "Those Canaanites, sure they sacrifice their children to idols, engage in ritual prostitution, sodomize little boys- but, hey, that's their lifestyle, their CHOICE. We may not understand them, but we must respect them."

They didn't. They smashed their temples, stopped their sacrifices, overturned their idols, and established a system with Jewish values. Those Jews faithful to the commandments of heaven have been fighting a culture war for the past 3300 years-ever since a group of nomadic shepherds stepped out of the desert and onto the stage of history and started something that came to be known as Western civilization.

The ancient Jews taught humanity about the value of life. They told the Canaanites not to "make their children pass through fire." The Greeks thought the Jews were barbarians because they didn't kill their children with birth defects. Obviously, the Jews didn't appreciate quality of life issues like the Greeks did.

Prior to the advent of the Torah, to speak of sexual morality was a non sequitur- it didn't compute.

When it came to satisfying sexual urges, the ancient Near East was exceedingly nonjudgmental and tolerant, respectful of differing lifestyles. If a man wanted to have intercourse with a concubine, or a camel, or another man, or a child, that was inconsequential.

Of course, women were treated as breeding stock and children were routinely exploited. It took sexual exclusivity, restraint, and a commitment to heterosexual monogamy to make the family possible.

It was the ancient Jews who first proclaimed to the world that not all sexual acts are equal, that only relations between a man and a woman-bound to each other by commitment and tradition-are holy. Everything else is wrong, to one degree or another. In so doing, they sanctified the mundane (raising human intercourse from an animal to a spiritual plane) and contained sexuality within the framework of monogamy.

I take issue with the abortion moral majority crowd not because I believe their cause is wrong but because they want to impose a christian lifestyle on a non-christian society.

First, I disagree with your statement that this is a "non christian society" although it is starting to become that way. If we were in Saudi Arabia you would be correct but we're not.

The prohibition against murder is part of the "christian lifestyle", a commandment given at Sinai and affirmed by Christ. Yet, this prohibition is part of our "non-christian society." Would you also oppose the laws against murder (in other words be in favor of murder) simply because it is also part of the Christian lifestyle?

Of course, not. So is abortion any different simply because the Supreme Court has deemed it legal? Perhaps, because so many in society consider it to be a blob of tissue and not really a human life? When is the opposition to the taking of an innocent life an attempt to impose a "chitistian lifestyle" on anyone? (Incidentally, I am advocating a peaceful changing of the law, not simply breaking a law that I don't agree with).

I ask these questions rhetorically since they are not directly related to the subject of this thread.

IMHO we as christians sometimes believe we should become as militant as the Homosexual communities or the Muslims to combat the encroachment of sin. What about the real power - prayer.

I very rarely see Christians become militant about anything. Most if not all of the time, they are content to allow, "insert the depravity of the day here" to occur with little or no opposition. I would love to witness strong Christians speak out against the godless secular humanism that's being taught in public schools. I would love to witness Christians speak out against the decadence that's being portrayed as normal by Hollywood in movies and on TV. I would love to see Christians of all denominations speak in unison against the horror of abortion. But, with few exceptions, it just doesn't happen. However, today and every Sunday morning at Church, Christians will wring their hands about how wicked our society has become. These same Christians should have been the salt of the earth. Instead, they are partially responsible for allowing this cancer to grow by their complacency and silence.

What about the real power - prayer.

I would like to discuss prayer and faith on another thread, but faith without works is dead. We are urged to pray constantly, but why not pray for the grace to Know and to DO what needs to be done -- the Will of God.

The abiding mark of a christian is love for ones enemies…

Love would be a great subject for another thread. However, the Love of God always takes precedence over the love for myself and my love for neighbor (including enemies). That indispensable part of the equation -- the Love of God -- is often omitted today. The question is why?

This said there is a measure of truth we must share with the world, truths that most times will be an offense, we are instructed to make these truths not a stumbling block, make the world so jealous of our love for righteousnes that they want it. Let the spirit do the drawing through us, but we have our 'orders' and we do make the christian life a burden that many don't want.

Cut the last half of the last sentence and I agree with that statement. Christianity is not easy for a secular culture overtaken with materialism, self-glorification and pleasure.

In addition, we have plenty of touchy feely, new tolerant, half-baked Christians already and, as a result, we've become fat, lazy and slow. What is needed is the spirt of the early Christians -- the first century Christians -- who were willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for the love of Jesus Christ. It must have been a tremendous "burden" to realize that joining a small group of believers would mean persecution and perhaps death for you or your family. How many of us would be willing to do that today? His passion and cross was a burden for Him, why should I or anyone else object to our insignificant burdens?

There are too many hand wringers and to few Peters and Pauls. Christianity is a religion of action and we need go no further than Matt. 26 or the Book of Acts to know that.

[Mutty]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

I see Accepted's point AF and I see yours. My only question is, how did the Christians of the New Testament deal with the paganism of their day? Did they or were they instructed to deal with it like the ancient Jews in the days of the Canaanites? Were they instructed or did they pick up arms to wipe out the 'dark side' of pagan Rome?

You point to what the ancient Hebrews did to the Canaanites and THAT is one the very reasons some reject the Old Testament faith and susbsequently the whole bible because they see a God and a people who may have USED a God to take over another people's land in the NAME of wiping out evil. I am of the opinion the Canaanites were NOT your average people and may have been infected with a foreign strain (more than simply demon possesion per se. Please note Numbers 13:33 and its link to Genesis 6:4, but that is a whole other subject). In that respect, they may indeed have warranted such mammoth destruction just like the older Nephilims of Noah's day along WITH the human people they had corrupted.

The Moabites were just as wicked considering their major deity was Molech (I am sure you have seen picutres of his image) an idol in which children were placed upon his red hot extended arms as sacrifices. Yet despite this, there was NO divine command to exterminate THEM as a people. And if the Israelites had a grudge or God had one, the first people they/He should have (if God thought like us of course) turned on, should have been the Egyptians. Why did He not instruct them to destroy the Egyptians, take their land, and claim that mystical land as their own? Why send them across a desert to a people not bothering them and have them annhiliate them and claim their land as their own. I feel it was far MORE than meets the eye. After all, the Egyptians were no choir boys either.

Like I said, I see Accepted's point. The Christians saw their war as a spiritual war, not a physical one. Prayer, love, and preaching the Gospel were their weapons, not physical swords which was consistent with the way their leader 'conquered' people of His day. If we use the ancient Hebrews as our example, Christians might as well bomb all the abortion clinics, burn down all 'churches' that honor satan, kill all 'fornicators,' and establish THEIR belief as a mandated system that everyone else ought to follow.

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Hi Mutty,

Nice essay.

My only question is, how did the Christians of the New Testament deal with the paganism of their day? Did they or were they instructed to deal with it like the ancient Jews in the days of the Canaanites? Were they instructed or did they pick up arms to wipe out the 'dark side' of pagan Rome?

I gave an example from the Old Testament only because "Accepted" alluded to the ancient Jews.

Here's what the early Christians were told and there is no mention of "tolerance."

11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Matt: 10.

How many times do you hear anyone speak about the above scripture? I don't hear about it very much and there is a reason.

See you tomorrow.

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Liz: The law is not always moral, and what is immoral is often not against the law. So I absolutely do not look to legislators (who make the laws) for moral guidance, no.

So, the laws that YOU or anyone else feels are "immoral" can be broken? For example, if someone wanted to enter this country illegally, receive benefits that only citizens/taxpayers have a right to (in effect, stealing the property of others), you would have no problem with that? We get to pick and choose the laws that we will obey and those that we will not obey? Do you get many traffic tickets?

Never gotten a traffic ticket in my life, as a matter of fact. Traffic laws protect us all. To break them is reckless, IMO.

You completely ignored my quite lengthy response to your questions about laws and morals. Let me ask you this, if you put your moral faith in our laws:

Abortion is legal. So then it's OK, right? (if you can possibly agree or disagree without turning this into an abortion thread that will get locked down, that would be good). Harassing women entering women's health clinics is illegal - so it's wrong, right?

Liz: I still see no research to support his contention

As I've said, his book lists numerous studies to support his view. If you're truly interested, check the library for the book.

YOU brought up the book as if it contains research to support that view, not me. I'm definitely not interested enough in his work to buy it, no.

you find it essential to the discussion to quote the following:

You write:

"I did see this rather prominently featured on his home page: If we don't raise $745,000 in the next four weeks will need to cut ministry projects here in the United States, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the world."

You're right, that was petty and immaterial and I shouldn't have done it. It hit me because I had just read that other thread (plus the popup asking for money kept popping up everytime I returned to the home page there and it irked me). I'm sorry.

You have just demonstrated the logical fallacy called "guilt by association." It means in part that when certain members of a group of people (insert any group- religious or ethnic etc.) are guilty of a negative behavior pattern, then all members of that group are either guilty of that negative behavior or are to be held as possibly being guilty.

No, you are wrong. I support many Christian organizations, including my own church and some that run programs I feel are worthy. I did not say anything about OTHER Christian orgs, just that one.

Muslims correctly point out that because fanatic murderers in their group are hell bent on killing innocent Westerners, they all are not guilty of wanting to do so. I am sure you would have no problem accepting that line of thinking from Muslims, so why have you decided to paint McDowell in the same negative light as a few Christians ministers who are in it "for the money"?

You assume an awful lot. In any case, I apologized for my remark above.

I am afraid that this is exactly the kind of blatant bias and bigotry that I have seen repeatedly leveled at Christians on these boards and I'm tired of it. Why not show the same respect you would show to non Christians to Christians? This is a classic example of "The New Tolerance;" tolerance for everything, except for Christians and Christianity.

If that's what you get from what I wrote, then I see how you can think the "New Tolerance" is anti-Christian.

[Dyoll]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Originally posted by Angelfire:
When you made that comment originally, it simply appeared as another example of subtle Christian bashing that I and other Christians have witnessed many times before. I don't believe that Christianity is anti-intellectual and I am prepared to prove it when Christianity is challenged.

When one raises legitimate questions about Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, why is it always seen as "bashing?" This kind of mindset I find to be anti-intellectual.

Religious faith in the reasonable and Christian sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which we all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible. This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man run over by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others. If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say. We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth's surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our walk through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

I am basing my belief concerning the truth of Christianity upon the evidence. Testimony of eyewitnesses (along with internal and external documents) is powerful evidence and is enough to convict or acquit defendants accused of crimes.

If you were a member of a jury, two things must be clear to you about the witness - 1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts and 2) that he is telling the truth.

And here's the problem. This 'evidence' for Christianity of which you speak, is the subject of severe scrutiny. As I wrote earlier, if the Bible is to be interpreted from a literary/historical approach, many of its claims simply don't hold up. Historical and archeological evidence is making a house-cleaning of these beliefs. So when you talk about "evidence" it depends on what you're talking about; this 'evidence' is merely his-story. And this is same in regard to Judaism (from which Christianity evolved), Islam, etc.

The fact that I and other Christians have done gone through this process ourselves should make perfect sense to even those who are not Christian and don't want to be Christians. Therefore, comments such as "anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly" should not be made in reference to Christianity unless it is also pointed out that whoever believes this way is actually anti-intellectual and silly themselves.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I can't imagine making that kind of blanket negative comment about the beliefs of 2 billion worldwide and many at this very site, unless I included a qualifier to clearly show that I was not among those who feel that way.

Non Sequitur. Because 2 billion people hold a deep conviction with regard to Christianity makes it true, or because many people are religious, that makes their religion true? Truth is determined by the number of people who hold the belief to be true? That's preposterous.

[JM1]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

"And here's the problem. This 'evidence' for Christianity of which you speak, is the subject of severe scrutiny."

So ?

"As I wrote earlier, if the Bible is to be interpreted from a literary/historical approach, many of its claims simply don't hold up"

Interpreted by whom ? What is a "literary/historical approach" ?

"Historical and archeological evidence is making a house-cleaning of these beliefs."

This is an absolute falsehood. Give us the basis for this statement.

"So when you talk about "evidence" it depends on what you're talking about; this 'evidence' is merely his-story"

And what evidence are you talking about ?

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Jumping in here...

"Dyoll: Historical and archeological evidence is making a house-cleaning of these beliefs."

JM1: This is an absolute falsehood. Give us the basis for this statement.

I would guess Dyoll refers to scientific evidence of dinosaurs and the like, things that don't fit in with the common interpretation of the Biblical story of creation which, as I understand it, makes the earth only several thousand years old.

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

You completely ignored my quite lengthy response to your questions about laws and morals. Let me ask you this, if you put your moral faith in our laws:

First you criticize me for bring law into this discussion (when you were the one who first brought it in with the comment about "illegal aliens') and now you accuse me of ignoring your lengthy response about laws including slavery, ganja, and liquor.

LOL

Sorry, Liz. Clearly, our discussion is not going to go anywhere. I believe the topic relates to religion and religious tolerance and I intend to focus on that topic.

Adios

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Dyoll writes:

When one raises legitimate questions about Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, why is it always seen as "bashing?" This kind of mindset I find to be anti-intellectual.

And could you kindly point out exactly what "legitimate questions about Christianity" have you yourself raised on this thread. If you raise them we might be able to have a discussion about it, but so far you merely have made the unsubstantiated and inflammatory claim For many people, the idea of religion is anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly.

And here's the problem. This 'evidence' for Christianity of which you speak, is the subject of severe scrutiny. As I wrote earlier, if the Bible is to be interpreted from a literary/historical approach, many of its claims simply don't hold up. Historical and archeological evidence is making a house-cleaning of these beliefs. So when you talk about "evidence" it depends on what you're talking about; this 'evidence' is merely his-story. And this is same in regard to Judaism (from which Christianity evolved), Islam, etc.

Not unlike many other written works of art, the Bible is part historical, part poetry, part narrative, part hyperbole, part parable, part allegory etc. But, nevertheless, bring on your criticism of Christianity and the scriptures. Write your essay showing how "anti-Intellectual" Christianity is. It's very easy to criticize my writing or anyone else's writing and make all kinds of claims when you offer no substantive rebuttal to their beliefs.

Let's see what you've got. Let's hear YOUR critque of that "silly" faith that 2 billion others and I hold to be true. You made the remark, back it up if you can.