Respecting Religion

[King Koopa I]

I find it rather amusing how intolerant atheists on here are of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, especially considering their primary argument is "they're intolerant." The hate that hate made?

[Terraius]

I find it rather amusing how intolerant atheists on here are of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, especially considering their primary argument is "they're intolerant." The hate that hate made?

Yes, however that same double standard can be applied to 99% of arguments on NS, religious based or not.

[Conserative Morality]

I find it rather amusing how intolerant atheists on here are of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, especially considering their primary argument is "they're intolerant." The hate that hate made?

Is that really 'our' primary argument?

Here I thought it was "God doesn't exist, these people are following a lie, and a rather useless one at that".

[The Realm of God]

Ok me being pro the things in my sig means that I support people being able to do it in a secular society not through the church. In short they do not agree with my religious beliefs but I agree that my beliefs should not influence politics and laws, make sense. On the Old Testament I agree that the teachings are sound and the miracles certainly possible but the Jewish law has been overturned when Jesus died on the cross meaning that we do not have to stone people.

In short I keep my religious beliefs and own political views separate from what I think people should be able to do. I had a long TG conversation yesterday on this with somebody else, but thank you for voicing your concerns.

I understand your beliefs, but you must realize the Orthodox (And Catholic for that matter) Church sees things very differently, and by their very existence are political as they were born out of political matters (3rd century AD to around the 9th century AD you see the Church become both a religious and political body after the Edict of Milan by Saint-Emperor Constantine.); so while you may believe that secular and religious marriages are separate, the church does not agree. Once again I do not agree nor disagree, I merely am trying to rectify this for you.

Per Orthodox and Catholic teaching, Jewish law was not overturned. In lamen terms they teach it was in a way aggregated or modified, but both churches maintain that the law is still very much in place. Case in point: The Ten Commandmants, which even your most anti-OT Protestant Evangelicals call back on, which are Commandmants from the Torah.

Also, Jesus if I recall did not command people not to be stoned, I dont remember that teaching or story anywhere. He did teach to have mercy and love which would remove the need for stoning in most situations I suppose but he never spoke against it. If you are referring to Jesus saving the woman from being stoned who was accused of Adultery, historical church teaching falls back on the following:

A) She was accused of adultery but no proof was submitted,
B) Jewish culture was biased towards men and was often very hypocritical in that they would put women to death for adultery but not men who committed the same act, when Jewish law does not discriminate between the sexes and requires both male and female to be executed if either are caught in adulterous affairs.

Once Again I disagree

Hebrews 1:1-2

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Galatians 3:23–25

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

I might be a heretic

[The Truth and Light]

Judging based on a title such as "Christian" is like passing judgement on someone because their name is "John". First, judge yourself, and see if you and others would respect you, before you look objectively at any other person's actions and do any sort of criticism.

[Phing Phong]

Often times I hear from people that if someone holds a belief, then you have to respect it. But why?
Why must I respect a belief for no other reason then because someone holds that belief?
Shouldn't a belief be respected based on its truthfulness and morality?

Note that I think there is a BIG difference between not showing respect towards a belief, and not showing respect towards the person who holds said belief.
There is an unfortunate habit among the religious of identifying their religion with themselves, so that if someone questions or criticizes their belief, they take it as a personal insult.
Anyways. NS, do you believe that people's religion, beliefs, or opinion should be respected just because someone holds that belief?

No, I do not think an individual's religion, beliefs or opinion should necessarily be respected, nor should the individual themselves, though the individual's right to hold them should.

People's right to hold a belief should be accorded to them unconditionally. However, the beliefs themselves can be criticised on a moral or intellectual level and, holding a belief is not the same as expressing it - society would not be bound to tolerate open virulent racism. Where someone's freedom of religion, expression or speech begins to encroach upon someone else's freedom from fear and persecution, then the first freedoms have gone too far. An example could be marriage. People should be free to have a state marriage, though they should not be able to force a religion to perform a religious marriage for them.

[Bottle]

I have not been detailed enough. Your point is quite valid. Allow me to present a more specific example, though. Consider an individual with, say, cri-du-chat syndrome. Such an individual is severely mentally retarded, to such a point as to render it impossible for them to perform virtually any task which could be considered useful to the survival of the human species. Such an individual thus represents an almost 100% net drain on society's resources.

From the point of view of species survival, then, isn't the logical course of action to kill this individual so as to use to use society's resources for purposes that increase the odds of species survival, rather than to provide for the individual in question?

It's still a red herring, I'm afraid. Yes, there is a small minority of individuals with severe genetic illnesses or handicaps, who will most likely never contribute genetically to the next generation...so? If you want to go around murdering people's children because you find them a "drain," all you will accomplish is to undermine the solidity of your society, and THAT is the fastest and surest way to make sure a human population will fail. We're social primates, and we thrive with strong social settings.

Many humans will not, themselves, reproduce biologically. They still contribute to the survival of their kin, of their society, and of their species in a variety of ways. You'll waste more time trying to suss out whether a person is a "net gain" than it is worth to bother with those calculations, especially since you'd further weaken your society if you wasted time trying to weed out all such "net drains."

But is this also the moral course of action?

It's impractical, that's for sure. Whether or not it is moral is subjective.

Alternatively, imagine that we were back at the "club-a-saber-tooth-tiger stage of survival;" under those circumstances, when a severely physically or mentally handicapped person was a huge net drain on the resources of a tribe which could be better used in order to ensure species survival, would it not be logical to kill this individual? Would it be moral?

Again, the "logic" of it would be situational, since there are countless reasons why a handicapped individual could be just as beneficial to the group (if not more so) than an able-bodied individual. There are many serious handicaps which would not have any particular impact on an individual's ability to contribute. And, of course, all the issues with social cohesion still remain; if you tell parents that you're going to force them to kill their child because it is sickly, the parents are just as likely to leave your society in order to save their offspring, so then you lose any of the contributions the parents might have made.

Long story short, don't believe anybody who tells you that "evolution" or "natural selection" lead to the conclusion that we should murder the disabled. That's anti-scientific horseshit.

[Terraius]

Neither Galatians or Hebrews pursuant to shared Catholic-Orthodox teaching are grounds for tossing out the Old Testament nor would any person well versed in the original Greek context say that was what those verses were advocating.

[Conserative Morality]

Judging based on a title such a "Christian" is like passing judgement on someone because their name is "John". First, judge yourself, and see if you and others would respect you, before you look objectively at any other person's actions and do any sort of criticism.

Not even close. "Christian" entails certain beliefs regarding Christ. If you put yourself in a religious or political grouping, expect to be judged WITH that group. If you don't want to be judged with that group, find a different label. It's not even close to comparable to a person's name. The very association is ridiculous.

[The Realm of God]

I have not been detailed enough. Your point is quite valid. Allow me to present a more specific example, though. Consider an individual with, say, cri-du-chat syndrome. Such an individual is severely mentally retarded, to such a point as to render it impossible for them to perform virtually any task which could be considered useful to the survival of the human species. Such an individual thus represents an almost 100% net drain on society's resources.

From the point of view of species survival, then, isn't the logical course of action to kill this individual so as to use to use society's resources for purposes that increase the odds of species survival, rather than to provide for the individual in question?

It's still a red herring, I'm afraid. Yes, there is a small minority of individuals with severe genetic illnesses or handicaps, who will most likely never contribute genetically to the next generation...so? If you want to go around murdering people's children because you find them a "drain," all you will accomplish is to undermine the solidity of your society, and THAT is the fastest and surest way to make sure a human population will fail. We're social primates, and we thrive with strong social settings.

Many humans will not, themselves, reproduce biologically. They still contribute to the survival of their kin, of their society, and of their species in a variety of ways. You'll waste more time trying to suss out whether a person is a "net gain" than it is worth to bother with those calculations, especially since you'd further weaken your society if you wasted time trying to weed out all such "net drains."

But is this also the moral course of action?

It's impractical, that's for sure. Whether or not it is moral is subjective.

Alternatively, imagine that we were back at the "club-a-saber-tooth-tiger stage of survival;" under those circumstances, when a severely physically or mentally handicapped person was a huge net drain on the resources of a tribe which could be better used in order to ensure species survival, would it not be logical to kill this individual? Would it be moral?

Again, the "logic" of it would be situational, since there are countless reasons why a handicapped individual could be just as beneficial to the group (if not more so) than an able-bodied individual. There are many serious handicaps which would not have any particular impact on an individual's ability to contribute. And, of course, all the issues with social cohesion still remain; if you tell parents that you're going to force them to kill their child because it is sickly, the parents are just as likely to leave your society in order to save their offspring, so then you lose any of the contributions the parents might have made.

Long story short, don't believe anybody who tells you that "evolution" or "natural selection" lead to the conclusion that we should murder the disabled. That's anti-scientific horseshit.

It's called Eugenics and yes it is anti-scientific horse shit.

[The Truth and Light]

Judging based on a title such a "Christian" is like passing judgement on someone because their name is "John". First, judge yourself, and see if you and others would respect you, before you look objectively at any other person's actions and do any sort of criticism.

Not even close. "Christian" entails certain beliefs regarding Christ. If you put yourself in a religious or political grouping, expect to be judged WITH that group. If you don't want to be judged with that group, find a different label. It's not even close to comparable to a person's name. The very association is ridiculous.

You know better. I'm sure you've met some people in whatever grouping you put yourself in that you thought, "Man, what a fucktard". Indivuals need to be judged on a case by case basis.

[The Realm of God]

Neither Galatians or Hebrews pursuant to shared Catholic-Orthodox teaching are grounds for tossing out the Old Testament nor would any person well versed in the original Greek context say that was what those verses were advocating.

So what were the verses advocating?

[The Murray Dynasty]

You know I find this topic very interesting. I personally have no formal religion, I do believe there may be a greater power, but do not see the need to worship one wholesome belief. My fiance is Roman Catholic and has been all her life, she is accepting of who I am, and we have a child together. We usually have the occasional discussion about the church, and how uptight some religions are, but how without religion sometimes its for the worse. In a way, I like the order of most religions, how there is a power setup for people. In some ways most religions say they are 'accepting', when all they have to say is spiteful things. (Being our child is born before marriage) I feel that religion as a whole needs to be respected, but there needs to be some serious compromise in religious beliefs. This is why I can never pick one devout religion, I would be ashamed of some of the beliefs of any of the religions. Though I do respect all religions, all gods, and most living beings. I feel that all aspects of religion should be forever respected, for some people it is past the fact of the belief, and more tradition in a way.

*On a side note: How can you be pro-abortion? Especially up to 24 weeks. When you kill that child up to 18 weeks that child can feel itself die. How can you kill a child?

[Astrolinium]

Just because they hold that belief? No.
If they're not hurting anyone with that belief and they have a valid* reason for the belief? Always.

Now, that doesn't mean I can't try to convince them that they're wrong - I just need to do it in a respectful manner.

*Valid defined here not as logically valid or scientifically valid or anything like that, but as being a bit deeper than "It was what my mom told me" or "Because it sounds cool" or "I like the way the little wafer thingies taste".

[Terraius]

Judging based on a title such a "Christian" is like passing judgement on someone because their name is "John". First, judge yourself, and see if you and others would respect you, before you look objectively at any other person's actions and do any sort of criticism.

Not even close. "Christian" entails certain beliefs regarding Christ. If you put yourself in a religious or political grouping, expect to be judged WITH that group. If you don't want to be judged with that group, find a different label. It's not even close to comparable to a person's name. The very association is ridiculous.

I believe he was trying to say simply that its pretty ignorant to judge someone so quickly off of a label or something internal or cosmetic, which makes sense and isnt such of a bad thing in my opinion.

Dont look so deep into it.

[Conserative Morality]

You know better. I'm sure you've met some people in whatever grouping you put yourself in that you thought, "Man, what a fucktard". Indivuals need judged on a case by case basis.

Yeah, so?

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be judged on their group association as well. If I think Jesus Christ was the stupidest fucker to ever walk or not walk the Earth, and someone claims to be a Christian, which means at the very least they follow some ideas of his or that are considered to be his, I'm going to judge them for being a Christian in addition to their other qualities and beliefs.

If someone calls themselves a Stalinist, I'm going to judge them for that, in addition to their other qualities and beliefs. Why is this such a problem?

[The Realm of God]

You know I find this topic very interesting. I personally have no formal religion, I do believe there may be a greater power, but do not see the need to worship one wholesome belief. My fiance is Roman Catholic and has been all her life, she is accepting of who I am, and we have a child together. We usually have the occasional discussion about the church, and how uptight some religions are, but how without religion sometimes its for the worse. In a way, I like the order of most religions, how there is a power setup for people. In some ways most religions say they are 'accepting', when all they have to say is spiteful things. (Being our child is born before marriage) I feel that religion as a whole needs to be respected, but there needs to be some serious compromise in religious beliefs. This is why I can never pick one devout religion, I would be ashamed of some of the beliefs of any of the religions. Though I do respect all religions, all gods, and most living beings. I feel that all aspects of religion should be forever respected, for some people it is past the fact of the belief, and more tradition in a way.

*On a side note: How can you be pro-abortion? Especially up to 24 weeks. When you kill that child up to 18 weeks that child can feel itself die. How can you kill a child?

I am not pro-abortion.

[Rynatia]

Often times I hear from people that if someone holds a belief, then you have to respect it. But why?
Why must I respect a belief for no other reason then because someone holds that belief?
Shouldn't a belief be respected based on its truthfulness and morality?

Note that I think there is a BIG difference between not showing respect towards a belief, and not showing respect towards the person who holds said belief.
There is an unfortunate habit among the religious of identifying their religion with themselves, so that if someone questions or criticizes their belief, they take it as a personal insult.
Anyways. NS, do you believe that people's religion, beliefs, or opinion should be respected just because someone holds that belief?

Respect my religion if you want, don't if you want.
Go around burning crosses or become a priest.Does it really effect my life or what I believe?
Nope.

[Terraius]

Neither Galatians or Hebrews pursuant to shared Catholic-Orthodox teaching are grounds for tossing out the Old Testament nor would any person well versed in the original Greek context say that was what those verses were advocating.

So what were the verses advocating?

I cannot speak with authority of the exact teaching of the Orthodox church on the Letters to the Hebrews or Galatians. I dont imagine its radically different then Catholic teaching but I dont want to tell you wrong information. Contact an Orthodox Priest.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not even close. "Christian" entails certain beliefs regarding Christ. If you put yourself in a religious or political grouping, expect to be judged WITH that group. If you don't want to be judged with that group, find a different label. It's not even close to comparable to a person's name. The very association is ridiculous.

You know better. I'm sure you've met some people in whatever grouping you put yourself in that you thought, "Man, what a fucktard". Indivuals need to be judged on a case by case basis.

Judging on a case by case basis would be ideal. Sadly, we always commit the mistake of grouping.

Many times, the more vocal elements of a group can harm the image of said group enough so that this 'group judging' becomes the usual way to deal.

[The Truth and Light]

You know better. I'm sure you've met some people in whatever grouping you put yourself in that you thought, "Man, what a fucktard". Indivuals need judged on a case by case basis.

Yeah, so?

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be judged on their group association as well. If I think Jesus Christ was the stupidest fucker to ever walk or not walk the Earth, and someone claims to be a Christian, which means at the very least they follow some ideas of his or that are considered to be his, I'm going to judge them for being a Christian in addition to their other qualities and beliefs.

If you judged Jesus that way, you better have a damned good reason, especially if it leads you to judging separate individuals.

[Conserative Morality]

I believe he was trying to say simply that its pretty ignorant to judge someone so quickly off of a label or something internal or cosmetic, which makes sense and isnt such of a bad thing in my opinion.

Dont look so deep into it.

I should think that an argument against shallowness being, in and of itself, shallow, would be rather ironic.

Irony aside, every argument made must stand up to scrutiny. If it cannot do so, it must be cast aside and replaced.

[Rynatia]

I find it rather amusing how intolerant atheists on here are of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, especially considering their primary argument is "they're intolerant." The hate that hate made?

Finally xD.


Your flag always distracts me...

[The Realm of God]

So what were the verses advocating?

I cannot speak with authority of the exact teaching of the Orthodox church on the Letters to the Hebrews or Galatians. I dont imagine its radically different then Catholic teaching but I dont want to tell you wrong information. Contact an Orthodox Priest.

I will talk to him on Sunday see if he can expunge the heresy from me

[King Koopa I]

I find it rather amusing how intolerant atheists on here are of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, especially considering their primary argument is "they're intolerant." The hate that hate made?

Is that really 'our' primary argument?

Here I thought it was "God doesn't exist, these people are following a lie, and a rather useless one at that".

Mhm.. And that's a good reason to get all militant about it and criticize theists every chance you get? Would it also be appropriate to insult children for looking forward to Santa Claus stopping by the house on Christmas? Theism gives some meaning to the lives of many people. I don't understand where anyone would get off on shattering that.