jump to last post 1-41 of 41 discussions (348 posts)

Is it moral to tell another adult what he should believe?

  1. 0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    I have heard two primary analogies used to justify imposing beliefs onto others, one being a comparison to raising children and the other to a comparison with observing someone who is in great danger but who is not aware of the danger.  Neither of the analogies is proper, though, as adults are not children and a perceived threat based on personal belief is not the same as a real, objective threat.

    It then follows that if someone is trying to impose his belief system on another, is that really a moral act?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Morals are not written in stone. It used to be - now not so much. wink

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They are still written in stone, but now they are stored in a wooden crate buried deep inside a Washington D.C. holding facility where they will remain until the next sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark is filmed.

        1. Drake2774 profile image59
          Drake2774posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          LOL.......

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile

        3. hanging out profile image61
          hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          the ark of the covenant is in heaven.
          Revelation 11:19   And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK of his testament (covenant): and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

          another complete miss.

          as pertaining to morals as pertaining to whether belief should be told (not imposed) on others. Whether a belief is imposed is a matter of perception. I notice that most atheists think that whenever they hear the word of God being spoken (or written) they consider it 'imposing': this is another miss and not a hit.

          If anything should be perceived correctly i can be emailed.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I thought I smelled something in here.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present you with exhibit A.  A for....absolutist.  :-))

          2. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            hanging out - I can agree with you about the defensiveness of many who immediately assume any discussion, whether private or public, using the word God, is seen as an affront.

            But unless one is a millenialist, the Ark is not in heaven yet.  If one is a millenialist, then the Messiah has already had a second appearance.  What say you?

    2. Woman Of Courage profile image61
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Aka, No, everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

    3. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is it moral to tell another adult what he should believe?

      There is nothing wrong with informing someone that their belief is a belief without standing. How else are they suppose to learn?

      It is every person's responsibility, to ensure that those around them are not dangerous either to themselves or others. When beliefs are formed from irrationality and lies, then those beliefs or the action taken to form the belief is wrong, which can be dangerous to others. wink

    4. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As adults. It is a pointless exercise to try to impose ones regligious beliefs on another. No one that I know of has acquired their religious beliefs through someone forcing their beliefs on them. It is an exercise ending in futility.

      Whether it is moral or not, perhaps then is irrelevant? Since belief cannot be imposed the moral of it would not apply.

      If it did apply....

      Since morals differ greatly how can one judge whether or not is moralistic or not? We each have our own set of morals based on various different things.

    5. 68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Imposing something with force is immoral; but presenting something with arguments , reasons and politeness is very much moral.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is no reasoning in religion. wink

        1. 68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That could be just an opinion of yours.

          The same could be said about Atheists.

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's not an opinion of mine. It's been proven to be a false theology and ideology to follow.

            Being "religious" in one's life can apply without the necessary nonsense of mysticism.

            1. 68
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Who proved it and when?

              He must have given his opinion only; which you should have considered a proof.

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Paar, religion's ideology is false, just like it's doctrine.

                I've said it before and I'll say it again, just for you.

                Doctrine #1 - to be selfless(undefined "how") and if done so, will ultimately lead to a person being selfish. It's part of human nature.

                Doctrine #2 - to oppress desire(undefined "how") and if done so completely, then it will drive one insane.

                This proves that religion's doctrine is false. Since it is not specifically laid out as to "how", then it must be taken to the extreme and when viewed in the extreme, it isn't a livable life.

                A selfish person will do for themselves before they even consider doing for someone else.

                A person who suppress or oppress their own desires, will scientifically drive themselves insane. It's happened, documented and plenty in the "loony" bin to interview if you like.

                In this instance, this also proves that religious doctrine were never inspired by a god either. No Omnipresent God would be so fallible in it's own being, to create doctrines that specifically go against human nature.

                Thus, easy conclusion- No god.

                1. 68
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't agree with you.
                  A selfless person is a sincere person; he is not greedy.
                  One who oppresses desire will serve humanity better; he will not harm others.
                  But both these things have to be done on appropriate occasion to be morally better.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Cags, paars - define desire.  Are you talking about physical desire, as in sex? 

                    I agree there is nothing healthy about being selfless.  It often involves generally unnecessary sacrifice to the point of resentment and loss of personal identity.  We do not live in a world of monks, a society where selflessness may apply but it would be more in a spiritual sense since they have no real possessions.

                2. pennyofheaven profile image81
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If you consider "self" can be interpreted as the ego it might make more sense. Ego-less will work and wouldn't need an explanation of how, would it? With ego comes desire so without ego, desire wouldn't exist. Why would one go insane I wonder?

                  When we are not slaves to the ego then what is naturally inherent in us arises without being tainted or ruled by the ego.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, not splitting hairs here, just clarifying.  The ego is the mediator, the part of the mind which keeps the id in check.  We do not want to be ego-less.  If we were, the id, which is supposedly the pleasure center, the storer or libido, the source of instinct, would run rampant.  We would not be able to function in society as we know it.  The ego is a bit of a controlling device, allowing us to function and play well with others while the superego is more or less the conscience.

                    Too much or too little of any of the three would not be ideal.

                3. 60
                  LadyRiceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  @Cagsil.....the Bible does tell you how to be selfless and how to not give in to worldly desires...the question/issue is will you read it and try it? I can speak from personal experience, I have given up things that IMO are not pleasing to God and my life has gotten better, I have grown as a person.

                  I am not sure what or who you believe in or if you believe in the Bible but I hope the following Bible verses help smile

                  Philippians 2:4 "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."

                  Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil."

                  Hebrews 13:5 "Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”"

                  Philippians 4:8 "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things"

                  Thessalonians 5:15 "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone"

                  1 Corinthians 6:10 "Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

                  Romans 12:2 "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

                  Corinthian 6: 9-10"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

                  James 4:7 "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

                  James 1:12 "Happy is the man who doesn't give in and do wrong when he is tempted, for afterwards he will get as his reward the crown of life that God has promised those who love him."

                  James 1:13-14 "And remember, when someone wants to do wrong it is never God who is tempting him, for God never wants to do wrong and never tempts anyone else to do it. Temptation is the pull of man's own evil thoughts and wishes."

                  Romans 1 "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

                  Ephesians 6:11 "Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes."



                  I could go on and on but I think you get the picture and if you are REALLY interested in finding out more about being selfless and not giving in to all of your ungodly desires....then it's a good idea to look up more bible verses!

                  1. qwark profile image59
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lady:
                    I'm not answering for Cags.
                    I spent 2 1/2 years in seminary STUDYING not just reading biblical scripture.
                    I spent a lot of time in the the "concordance."
                    All I could come up with was that the history of all 3 major monotheisms has been so blighted by time, interpretation and human arrogance, that there is not one credible facet included in it.
                    This biblical "god thing" is s psychotic, murderous, egotistical, cruel and vengeful mythical entity!
                    If you've read your bible, you must have passed over the passages that prove my point...or, you have been brainwashed prior or during your reading to agree with the reasons for  this fictional "god" things, murderous rages.
                    Your comment leads me to believe that you are an uneducated, easily led follower.
                    You are typical of 99.99% of all believers in mythical "god things."
                    Qwark   smile:

                4. 60
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  According to YOU? That's funny.

    6. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Moral or not, it would appear that those who cry loudest for lobbying to have the right to believe whatever they want seem to the be ones embracing the most dangerous belief systems. smile

    7. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Further consideration of this intriguing question has sought to bring forth clarity of the action; imposing - Compel to behave in a certain way, Make (someone) do something unpleasant.

      In this case, it wouldn't really be moral to impose ones belief on another if those beliefs "compelled to behave in a certain way or make someone do something unpleasant" as that would infringe on the rights of the other.

      Anyone who imposed their beliefs on others would be lying to themselves if they willfully accepted the same imposition from others, hence morally unacceptable. smile

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, and one way to compel to behave a certain way would be to instilll fear of retribution if the instructions are not followed.  Hence, issuing a warning of a perceived subjective threat of eternal punishment would be an attempt to coerce a certain behavior, and coersion - regardless of motivations - cannot be considered a moral act.

    8. qwark profile image59
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      AKA:
      Whats "immoral" about telling anyone anything?
      Morality is relative.
      After I hear what someone says, I decide what to make of it and him.
      "Moral" has to do with "right or wrong." Both are relative concepts.
      Tell me what to believe and I'll consider it and let ya know what I think: bluntly and honestly.
      Qwark

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Shhh.  Don't wake anyone up.

        It is the absolutist who so frequently argues his right and duty to teach his absolute morality  to all - so I was curious as to what others thought of that argument.

        1. qwark profile image59
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          AKA:
          "It is the absolutist who so frequently argues his right and duty to teach his absolute morality  to all"
          I make that judgement very quickly and tell him very quickly what to do (has sumthin' to do with 'where the sun don't shine) and where to go (rhymes with 'well')....lol
          Qwark  smile:

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The idea of imposing beliefs under duress could fall under 'unconscionable acts' when imposing them on anyone who does not have 'contractual capacity'.  If a person, say a child, does not have the capacity to make decisions and fully understand the terms of the 'contract', you believe and sign up or you go to hell, then this could be considered immoral.

            In adults, the same holds true.  If they do not have contractual capacity, the suggestion of everlasting hellfire is immoral.

            1. 60
              ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So you feel it is "immoral" to teach your children your faith and religious traditions?

              1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                To rephrase, I thinks it's best to let them learn by example.  If they have questions, it indicates they may be ready to learn from speech or text and they will be able to learn at their own level.  I guess it's a fine line between teaching and letting learn.

              2. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                In the case of some types of beliefs and some ages and mental capacities of the children involved, and the children's reliance on the views taught, that teaching kids faith and religious beliefs is more than immoral and should be considered a criminal act of abuse

                1. qwark profile image59
                  qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  2 thumbs up AKA!
                  Qwark

                2. 60
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Raising your children in your faith traditions and instilling in them your values and beliefs is "a criminal act of abuse"? This kind of silly hyperbole is why it is so hard to have a reasonable discussion on such topics. There are too many on both sides more interested in mocking and dismissing than in exchanging views in a reasonable and mutually respectful manner.

                  It's a shame.

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You paint with too broad of brush - or you don't comprehend well.  I didn't say anything at all like you suggest.  But I can make it more clear.

                    To repeat endlesslly to toddlers, preschool, and early school-age children that they are bad, unworthy, miserable sinners who need to repent and can only be saved by obedience from eternal punishment of burning forever in a fiery pit is child abuse and should be punished as such - a felony.

                    That is not the same as teaching a child not to steal or lie.   It makes me wonder who does or does not want to hold an intelligent exchange.

    9. 60
      exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      if you see some one who you believe is headed for an accident at a train crossing, it would be moral to tell the person, if they do not want to believe you, then it is their problem and you have done what is right

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This, your honor, would have to be exhibit B.

        exorter,

        Are you reading skills so low you did not understand this:  " I have heard two primary analogies used to justify imposing beliefs onto others, one being a comparison to raising children and the other to a comparison with observing someone who is in great danger but who is not aware of the danger."

        But objective danger (a train) is not the same as subjective belief in a danger (hellfire and damnation).   

        You cannot use your analogy to justify the imposing of subjective beliefs as if they were real.

    10. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Moral or not (my vote is NOT, but that itself is a moral judgment wink )  it is futile ... the most anyone can do is force someone to SAY they believe something ... what we really truly believe or don't believe cannot be forced.

      Imposed agreement isn't agreement it's simply an illusion of victory and most frequently a sign of exhaustion. Essentially they are saying "OK, If I pray this prayer and sign your stupid card, will you PLEASE just walk away from my door and let me finish my football game?  Yes, I promise to be there on Sunday. Now go away."

      That's not exactly a statement of faith.

      All that having been said ... not a thing wrong with explaining what you believe (or don't) , why or  why you don't believe it is right. 

      And if you don't believe that ... well expect the Spanish Inquisition  wink

      1. Greek One profile image81
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        interrupting the viewing of a sports game is universally accepted by all religions as an immoral act in itself

        1. BDazzler profile image83
          BDazzlerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          wink

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Very   true, this is something that everyone on either side of any fence should understand.
           Most people are where they are because they have chosen to be there.
           This doesn't mean that we should not keep our eyes open to the possibility of there being someplace else that we would be much happier being.

          But after we say no; we do not want to buy into your (figuratively) proposition, that salesman should cease their sales pitch.

          But just because I do not want to buy it does not give me the right to picket your sales office.

    11. prettydarkhorse profile image61
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      its wrong, a good example is good, then they might also follow what you are doing if they see that it is good.

      I am a Catholic, my grandparents were Catholic, my ancestors were Catholic up to the time that Spain colonized us for 300 years to share the religion Catholicism. Before that my ancestors were nature worshippers. I was baptized a Catholic, but once you're a grown up you will decide on your own. There are conflicts, but understanding one's belief goes a long way. Even though family is overrated at times -- family is still the best! I go with the traditions of my family.

      1. qwark profile image59
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Pretty:
        Why would ya go with "tradition" if tradition is regressive?
        Why do you think the catholic church switched from masses in latin to masses in English?
        Why do you think that the catholic church was involved with 21 ecumenical councils?
        All monotheistic belief is concerned about power and control.
        It has been thus since it was engendered.
        Have you studied the history of catholicism?
        Family involvement should not be the reason for a belief in a supernatural divinity!
        Unfortunately it is!
        A devoutly religious family will inculcate into the mind of a child, during the formative yrs (birth to about 7) their beliefs and traditions. To me that is a CRIMINAL act of child abuse!
        Islam, christianity, judaism? All are guilty of frustrating the natural ability of children to seek, out of curiosity, for "truths," without having to fight the influence of preconceived, ingrained beliefs!"
        Qwark







        Qwark

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image61
          prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          hi qwark, There are no regressive tradition. It continues to change incorporating some influences from other traditions, until and unless there is a major or drastic change then it will just change slightly.

          And yes my minor is in Philosophy and my major is in Sociology so I pretty know the Philosophy of Religion and the Sociology of Religion. I can debate pretty well about the existence of GOD using philosophy - logic. There are no perfect system of religion because we are just humans, the trick is don't imitate the wrong things.

          Like in life evolution, social beliefs also evolve, once the people are tired of a system, they will revolt against it and a new system  will emerge. Long way to go before the non believers will surpass the numbers of believers. That is how the society is because we tend to be socially influenced by the family in which we belong. It works that way that is why a unit such as family is cohesive and what type of home you have is still a major factor in what kind of person you become.

          Many things can be felt what your brain can't fathom.

          1. qwark profile image59
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Pretty:
            I respect your education Pretty.

            I find it confusing to read this comment by you: " I can debate pretty well about the existence of GOD using philosophy - logic."

            There are 2 facets of that sentence that puzzle me:

            1.Why would anyone who is "educated," debate religion/god?
            Debate requires argument. To win an argument one must produce "proofs." There are no proofs available to be able to argue. One cannot win.
            To debate the subjects: god/religion would be foolish.

            2.Logic and religion are the antithesis of each other.
            There is nothing to base "deductive" reasoning upon to make "religion a " reasoned fact." You can use "inductive" reasoning to make your point about religion but since "inductive" reasoning is based soley upon opinion, it can't be taken seriously. 
            There is nothing "logical" about religion.

            You say there is no regressive tradition in the practice of catholicism?
            Have you studied the 21 ecumenical councils of roman catholicism? From the council of nicea (325 AD) forward? If you haven't, I can understand why you make such a decision.
            If you have and haven't realized the totality of purpose of those councils, then you haven't studied the rise of catholicism seriously.

            You are quite correct when you say: "...what type of home you have is still a major factor in what kind of person you become."

            Bishop Sheen said: (paraphrase) give me a child from birth to 7 and I'll give you a catholic for life.

            All 3 of the major monotheisms  (islam, judaism and christianity) practice the same kind of mind control (brain washing) and have done this since their inception.
            I consider this practice to be heinous child abuse.

            "Like in life evolution, social beliefs also evolve, once the people are tired of a system, they will revolt against it and a new system  will emerge."

            Very true!
            The 2000 yr reign of  monotheism may prove your point when a hate filled facet of that obomination decide to perpetrate the self fulfilling, religious  prophecy of armageddon.

            This response is not personally aimed at you Pretty, it is just the result of my education, understanding and experience.

            Qwark   smile:

            1. prettydarkhorse profile image61
              prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Qwark, what I am saying is that I can debate pretty well about the existence of GOD etc., but I wont do it for the reasons you stated. I just stated that I have educations for the mentioned topics bec you said I need to read more.

              I know that the Catholic church is in constant struggle and they have many probs as time goes by.

              I am not a devoted Catholic so to speak, but I respect my family's tradition, still I am a believer.

              1. qwark profile image59
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                G'mornin' Pretty:   smile:
                "Qwark, what I am saying is that I can debate pretty well about the existence of GOD...."
                Why would you even CONSIDER "debating" the "...existence of GOD etc.,"?
                If we BELIEVE in something, Pretty, it behooves us to be well educated in that belief.
                I don't believe I said: ya had to read more. I usually say "study," but if I did so be it.
                You seem to be an educated woman. I respect that.
                Regardless of how "educated" we are, we are ignorant children in so many other facets of life. I'm sure that fact is obvious to you.
                You love your parents and are devoted to them and their traditions. They, as I, live in the past.
                Traditions, once inculcated into the mind, are not easy to ignore, but in too many instances they pass on to progeny ignorance, bigotry and superstition.
                I'm sure you know, that as a "believer," you will be challenged in ref. to those beliefs. If you want to be a "credible" believer (there are none) and accept those challenges, ya gotta be "forearmed."
                I respect you Pretty. I don't respect your "beliefs" in the paranormal.
                QWark   smile:

                1. prettydarkhorse profile image61
                  prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Its ok qwark, as long as we remain friends here and there, and we respect each others belief then its ok. If for example I will cook because it is Christmas and if I invite you, will you come then?

                  1. qwark profile image59
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course! Friends for sure!
                    What a wonderful invite! xmas dinner sounds scrumptuous!
                    Thanks for the invite! (I know it's tongue-in-cheek)
                    I'd love to be there but there are loved ones here who would get mad at grampa for skipping dinner with them to have dinner with a "Pretty" lady.
                    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you! I wish you many, many more!  smile:
                    Qwark

                    PS I respect YOU! Not your "beliefs."   smile:

    12. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know, prolly different in different cultures, but certainly seems to be the case in the USA. Just look around these forums, everybody and their dog want you to believe either in Jesus Christ or Global Worming or both and curse you if you don't big_smile

    13. Abbasangel profile image81
      Abbasangelposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Dear Everybody,

      At the moment this is a very concern to me. I want to tell them how to believe, well I want to but I won't. Because I do believe that we need to come to our own conclusions and if we all believe like Abbasangel, this world would be very crazy and on the other hand incredibly boring. I like the tapestry of thought that makes each person up and due to life experiences, learnings, and interests -  we all come to different conclusions which is fantastic.

      I would however like any advice or thoughts that anyone is kind enough to share on my question in the forum - "What do you do when somebody you love is in a bad situation"  The link is provided below.

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/62598

    14. Jack Gresham profile image61
      Jack Greshamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Any attempt to impose one's beliefs on another if frought with the danger of alienation - no future hope for relationship. It is however just as wrong for one to deny the opportunity for witness of personao beliefs, not in any attempt to sway the feelings of another but in the attempt to solidify one's own convictions.

      jgresh

  2. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    No, we shouldn't force our beliefs on others. When you mention rearing children, however, are you including providing the children with adequate food, clothing, love, etc? Or you talking more along the lines of religious beliefs?

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I mentioned children only in the context that an analogy using action taken with children is not a valid comparison with action taken with adults.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay. Gotcha!

  3. Don Simkovich profile image61
    Don Simkovichposted 5 years ago

    Certainly imposing beliefs on another may not be considered moral but clearly stating one's beliefs and discussing them when asked is appropriate. I can only imagine the types of posts that will follow from all sides of the spectrum. smile

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with this. I just draw the line at people who try to force their beliefs into the schools, and present it as a fact to the kids.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What exactly do you mean by "present it as a fact"?

      2. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Fortunately, Christians have been legally prevented from doing that in public schools. The fact that you reject proven scientific facts (except when it comes to electrical appliances) in favor of ridiculous beliefs is neither here nor there. Thankfully you are only allowed to indoctrinate your own children. I hope they forgive you when the time comes. wink

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately they fail to keep out all of the "rediculous beliefs" after all, they still get to hear about evolutionism. And they get to present it as factual rather than the baseless theory that it is.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It must be very upsetting knowing that you know more than the entire scientific community and they just will not let you tell that bible story in school. I can see why you are so angry. I would be as well. lol

            But great job derailing the thread once again. wink

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think that you think you know what you think I'm thinking.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I knew you wouldn't. wink

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That I didn't. wink

              2. Woman Of Courage profile image61
                Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That's a good one! big_smile

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Don't look now, but you are trying to impose your beliefs. Would you say that protecting school children from being taught evolution is your moral obligation?

            1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
              Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I rather you answer this question. Would you say that teaching school children evolution is moral? everything came into existence on it's own without a creator?

              1. Onusonus profile image86
                Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Morality does not exist without God. Therefore it would be immoral.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Morality does not exist without God."
                  The above is a great example of a subjective belief based on no solid empirical proof.

                  "Would you say that teaching school children evolution is moral?"
                  Seeing that evolution is the current scientific theory, to teach them that any other theory holds currency in the scientific community would be an immoral disservice to the student of science: it would be setting him up to fail as a scientist, or at least to be discredited.

                  "everything came into existence on it's own without a creator?"
                  The above quote has no relationship to the theory of evolution other than the one you are trying to fabricate.

                  1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
                    Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Onusonus, Agreed. I was awaiting AKA's yes or no response.

                2. Cagsil profile image82
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe you should try listening to your conscience. That is all morals relate to in the first place. It is humanity's explanation of what our(collectively) conscience determines.

                  1. Onusonus profile image86
                    Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Concience!? That sounds like a man made concept. If I'm gonna listen to any kind of voice from the unknown reaches of inner intelligence, I'll listen to the only one which exists independently from my mind and speaks from thereabouts; the Holy Spirit.

                3. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But, according the concept of omnipotence, God is everywhere, so morality must be everywhere as well, including with the atheist, as God cannot very well exclude a certain group of people and still be said to be everywhere.

                  ("Mormon doctrine: 1) The book states that it is solely the responsibility of the author: it is not offered as authoritative for LDS doctrine)

                  This is confusing.  It says that Momon doctrine may be bullshit, but even saying it is bullshit may also be bullshit, so just take your best guess?  Is that about it?

                  1. Onusonus profile image86
                    Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Potty mouth.

              2. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What have proven scientific facts got to do with morality? Sorry you are unable to understand evolution - is that why you are so angry? Because we are actually talking monkeys (not a personal attack - simply a fact!) instead of humans created in god's image? lol

              3. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Teaching school children the theory of evolution would fall under the blanket of science education.  It is only the biased who conflate secular education with religious concepts of morality.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think if all religions were taught in primary grades, there wouldn't be so much confusion.  Teach them right along with evolution.  Since there is such a prevalence of belief in this world, it is something which shouldn't be shoved aside.  Teach the basic doctrines of Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, etc.  Even throw in a few hours of Atheism and Agnosticism.  Whatever.  What's the big deal.  It's all part of history.  The big problem, IMO, is that people get caught up in being right instead of being kind.

                  1. qwark profile image59
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Naw! I disagree Couture:
                    Religion has to do with
                    "abstract" concepts.
                    Much too difficult for "children" to comprehend.
                    "OFFER" courses in metaphysics in the last 2 yrs of hi school.
                    The study of religion should be an educated, personal choice made by an adult.
                    Qwark

          3. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Does anyone else see the delicious irony of someone who believes in the story of Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni complaining about the teaching of ridiculous beliefs?.

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I actually put that part of the statement in quotes because I would never directly refer to somone elses beliefs as ridiculous,  or BS, or Hogwash.

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You have convinced me that P.T. Barnum must have indeed been a prophet.

                1. 60
                  ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Is insulting him conducive to a serious discussion, in your opinion?

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    After discerning belief system, there are some for whom it is evident that any attempted serious discussion would be more like enabling an alcoholic than holding a reasonable discussion about fine wines with a vineyard owner. 

                    I really don't care if the Scientologist is insulted, either.  Or those guys who died waiting for the comet's tail.

                2. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Unless he bore testimony of the divinity of Christ i wouldn't take him for one.

        2. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Too bad you are not able to experience the solid joy that comes from knowing God. I hope your children are able to forgive you for NOT giving them a choice at all. Because, if they ever discover God through the haze that you applaud, they will be sore mad atchat wink I know i have regretted wasting some of my years not knowing wink

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey there Cousin. Not getting a sense of joy from you. Quite the opposite actually. Merry X-mas.  wink

      3. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You should consider yourselves lucky, The Christian Church has been ramming their ideology down our throats for centuries.

        It has always amazed me how today's religious zealots manage to whitewash the sheer amount of torture, death and destruction that has been carried out in the name of God and Christianity.

        And you moan about real facts and truth which you cannnot accept..

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This whole question came to mind after seeing a number of posters (throughout hubpages) make the assertion that morality is God-given and absolute, then these same people would attempt to impose their personal beliefs on non-believers. 

      So it then must follow that these people believe it moral to impose their beliefs on others, or they are acting immorally.  I see no middle ground.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I've seen those assertions as well, but different believers usually disagree with each other about what their 'absolute, God-given' morality requires of them. Sometimes, the disputes are very bitter.

        But there's middle ground.

        The middle ground involves doing one's best to set a good example, explaining one's faith when asked, and leaving the subscription to said faith up to the person who you've witnessed to. In my view, a conversion based on fear of damnation (or of worldly bullying and/or ostracism), rather than on a personal conviction that the conversion is the right thing to do, is no conversion at all.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff,

          I agree that there can be and should be be middle ground, but my statement was that those about whom I was speaking attempted to impose their beliefs because of their faith in the absolute infallability of those beliefs - and absolutists have no middle ground.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I see. And agree.

  4. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 5 years ago

    Imposing is wrong, witnessing is dubious at best, but just being a decent person is always acceptable.

    Imposing to me means left choiceless. Such as I am left choiceless as to whether or not I may purchase alcohol on Sunday. That's an imposition. Going to the store and hearing some christian wino standing outside the shop telling everybody it's a sin to purchase alcohol on a sunday is not an imposition. I can go around him.

    However, I am left choiceless in the fact that every time my children and I drive into town we have to pass several churches all of them proclaiming to my children their hellish fate and the evilness of their mother.

    I see that as immoral and hateful and inconsiderate and disrespectful of your fellow humans. Much of the time the messages are more or less benign, but every few weeks one or the other of them is insisting to everyone else that they're hellbound. roll

    And oddly enough, and I'm still trying to decide how to deal with this, both my 5th grader and my 8th grader brought home red letter bibles from school last week. Isn't that special?

    No, they're not studying hebrew literature or comparative religions.

    Do I ignore this? The truth is that it has no effect on us. My children know what the bible is, and what it's for, and how to use it. I am still considering pitching a fit about it anyways, because I just feel our society NEEDS to be past these petty games these silly christian women play.

    What would they do if the schools handed out qurans to their children?

    Boy would they pitch a royal fit!

    It's an imposition upon my rights as a parent to have the local schools lending credence to a book of fairytales.

    I have to feel the schools condoned the act because as I said it happened at both the elementary school and the middle school.

    I need to start a new thread.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      (However, I am left choiceless in the fact that every time my children and I drive into town we have to pass several churches all of them proclaiming to my children their hellish fate and the evilness of their mother.)

      I have made note of this myself and wondered if it might not be considered unlawful.  Although the first amendment protects freedom of speech, the courts have also said there is a limit to that right, that one cannot falsely yell, "fire!" in a crowded theatre.  My contention had been that on a psychological level, posting a public threat of hellfire and damnation might not be considered the equivilent of yelling, "fire!".

      It could also be argued that your right to religious belief does not extend into a violation of my privacy rights.

      Either way, I sympathize with your sign phobia.  :-))

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But, there's no way to tell for sure whether there is or isn't a (hell)fire, so how can you argue that they're falsely yelling "Fire" without imposing your own beliefs on them? I mean, it's not like you can go check.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say it was a strong argument.  At the same time, can you prove that the person who yelled "fire" didn't really think he smelled smoke and saw flames?

          Maybe he had a vision.  :-))

  5. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    at a public school??  I didn't look to see where you live, but in the US, no, you can't hand out religious books to kids in a public school.


    in answer to OP, no, it's not moral to tell another adult what he should believe.

  6. raisingme profile image90
    raisingmeposted 5 years ago

    A belief, at best, is a less than true explanation of why something is the way it has become. A precept is an instruction or direction regarding a given course of action, especially a maxim in morals.  Precepts are the basis and source of belief systems.

    A precept is a substitute for you.  You do not perceive accurately, you perceive only through the precept.  When a precept is there....you are not!  What we end up with then is one person's belief system fighting with another person's belief system or attempting to impose a belief system over top of an existing one. If an operating system is already in place, you cannot "install" another one over top of it! 

    It won't even be you telling another adult what he or she should believe - you are not even there - just some blathering precepts that have amassed and congealed into a belief system.  One which most likely has the authentic you pretty much buried!

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think what Winston is talking about is the defense that believers tend to use when arguing with people that what they are doing is wrong in god's eyes.

      They claim to be doing this for 2 main reasons.

      1. Like a parent, they are instructing you as one would a child.

      2. They see a danger that you cannot perceive and they are warning against it because they want you to go to the party with Jesus.

      Neither of which I find to be moral. I think - in the past - when there was no decent education, and not believing it was actually dangerous - perhaps it was the moral thing to do.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        (I think what Winston is talking about is the defense that believers tend to use when arguing with people that what they are doing is wrong in god's eyes)

        You are correct, Mark.

        But as far as imposing beliefs, I think this also includes attempts to include ID in school curriculums, which is a more overt method.

      2. raisingme profile image90
        raisingmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well the dude they are arguing about is the one that is reported to have said 'the truth will set you free'....however, mankind has instead taken 'beliefs' to a whole other level of "blathered precepts amassed and congealed into a belief system" surrounding that particular party!

  7. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    This thread reminds me: Should we teach morals and values in public schools?

    When I was teaching, we had to teach a list of values to our students. It was required instruction. This bothered me, and I was pretty vocal about my opposition. Who decided the values? What if these "values" were not "valued" by the student's parents?

    I admit that most were universal values like honesty, tolerance, forgiveness, etc. But what if a family doesn't believe in forgiveness or tolerance? Should we still force these values on those students? Should we be teaching values at all in public schools? What do you guys think?

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think this a valuable question.  My opinion is that mores, not morals, should be taught, as mores encompass societal norms over individual quirks.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's an important distinction, and you've outlined it well and succinctly.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think we should teach them how to arrive at moral values, but not teach absolutes.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That would be reasonable.

      2. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. teachers facilitate learning by asking the students to think and arrive at solutions, their own conclusions.

        it's the teachers responsibility to have a safe learning environment which many of these values would already be incorporated into how she/he manages the classroom. I had 3 classroom rules, Listen, Be Nice, Work Hard. it covered the bases, they understood what it meant.

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But what method would you teach them? The "Does-it-hurt-anybody" method? Or the "What-does-Pat-Robertson-say-about-it?" method?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How about the "is it for the greater good," method?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Perfect. That one has never backfired. smile

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Foolproof. Nothing could possibly go wrong. lol

    3. Joy56 profile image61
      Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately a lot of schools take it upon themselves to teach a lot of things that parents maybe should be teaching...... unfortunately parents cant be bothered.  We even have breakfast clubs here now where food is free, and not only children but parents also come along.  I would be ashamed if school had to feed my children, or teach them morals etc.  They say at the school, they cannot teach hungry children, so this is a difficult subject to generalise on.  Communication between Parents and school should be good, so things can be sorted out on the spot.

  8. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I don't think we should tell others what to do as long as no victim is involved. Obviously, murder is wrong, as are rape, stealing, physical abuse, etc. If no one is hurt by someone's actions, are they any of our business?

  9. Drake2774 profile image59
    Drake2774posted 5 years ago

    I believe that trying to impose your belief on another is wrong. I am of the opinion that everyone has the right to choose what to believe as far as religion is concerned. I have not heard of one religion to which I totally accept or believe in 100%.
         I don't believe that there is an "Invisible Man" up in the sky watching everything we do and everything we say every minute of every day. I don't buy into the concept that there are ten things that this "Invisible Man" in the sky doesn't want you to do and if you do just one of them "He" has a "special" place for you, full of fire and smoke and pain and torture, where you will suffer and cry for all of eternity until the end of time.....but he "Loves" you. I'm sorry, I just don't buy into that. If that's what you believe, great.
         So, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

  10. raisingme profile image90
    raisingmeposted 5 years ago

    Wherein I repeat - "A belief, at best, is a less than true explanation of why something is the way it has become. A precept is an instruction or direction regarding a given course of action, especially a maxim in morals.  Precepts are the basis and source of belief systems.

    A precept is a substitute for you.  You do not perceive accurately, you perceive only through the precept.  When a precept is there....you are not!  What we end up with then is one person's belief system fighting with another person's belief system or attempting to impose a belief system over top of an existing one. If an operating system is already in place, you cannot "install" another one over top of it!

    It won't even be you telling another adult what he or she should believe - you are not even there - just some blathering precepts that have amassed and congealed into a belief system.  One which most likely has the authentic you pretty much buried!"

  11. princess g profile image59
    princess gposted 5 years ago

    I wouldn't say immoral, just kind of pointless. people believe what they believe

  12. DzyMsLizzy profile image92
    DzyMsLizzyposted 5 years ago

    Provided that someone's beliefs do no harm to others, then it is really none of anyone else's business what the others believe.

    So, no, I do not believe it is moral or right to try and force anyone to believe a different point of view.  Remember:

    "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

  13. 61
    argdrawposted 5 years ago

    Tricky to answer, but moral to whom?
    if someone has a strong belief, their own morals, would be broken if they did not tell of their beliefs.

    If you already believe in something else, it would appear immoral to you for someone to try and convert you.

    if you are a non believe, being told the options, cant really be immoral to you can it?

    So for a believer it is moral to them to tell another adult what he should believe. For the adult being told the morality may well be diferent.

    It is actually impossible to force a belief on someone, they believe for themselves or not, brainwashing is imoral smile

    quite a good view from the top of this fence, which side should I jump.

    1. truebluewriter profile image75
      truebluewriterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with one person (person A) telling another (person B) what he believes in. There is something wrong with one person forcing his beliefs on another but if it is done in a manner which is respectful then it should be ok.

      If you look at it from a conscience perspective person A might feel morally compelled to try to "help" person B through advice or in the extreme, conversion. If this is what person A's conscience has dictated to him, after considering all factors and possibilities, there really is no other choice for person A except to follow his conscience or live his life thinking he could have done the "right thing" for person B but didn't. Of course I personally believe right is relative so there is a range on what this "thing" can be.

      On person B's side it might be a good idea to consider what person A is saying. Even if it tends to border on the extreme, there might still be something good he can pull out of it. Any important decision should be an informed one and even if the presentation of the information turns us off sometimes, we might later on regret failing to consider something merely because we didn't like how it was conveyed.

      Just my opinion though smile

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        (person A might feel morally compelled to try to "help" person B through advice or in the extreme, conversion)

        That is pretty mcuh the analogy I presented - but you failed to reach a conclusion.  Is morality a feeling or an action?   If you don't act on your feelings, have you violated morality?  Likewise, if you feel like raping a woman but do not act, are you still morally guilty of rape?

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Morals are tied to actions. Emotions are amoral. wink I think I remember writing a hub on this. lol

        2. truebluewriter profile image75
          truebluewriterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          hmm that is a difficult question, this discussion takes me back to my college days hehe..

          I wont claim to be an expert and I could very well be wrong so everyone feel free to correct me if i am but I wouldn't say that it is proper to consider morality as a feeling or an action. I think its much more related to choice. common everyday experience will tell us that our actions don't always reflect how we feel. i think acts or omissions are external manifestations of the decision we have arrived at after considering both how we feel and what is reasonable. I'd say the conflict is more between reason and feelings and it is through our action or inaction that people are able to assess the decision that we made. The external assessment will never be perfectly accurate though considering that our actions may not always be interpreted properly, and it will only be ourselves who know all the considerations that were included in arriving at a particular decision. But they will however be helpful in determining for ourselves if we want to conform to or adapt certain views that people have expressed as a result of our actions.

          That's why i consider right to be relative. If i don't act on my feelings then it means that I arrived at a conclusion that I consider acceptable/correct which requires me to place my feelings in the background. Not every decision will be like this of course and it will have to depend on the circumstance and the things I consider important at that moment I am presented with the choice.

  14. Beege215e profile image78
    Beege215eposted 5 years ago

    All too often I have been hearing “Christians” judging and condemning “non-christians” to eternal hell-fires simply because that person is not a Christian.  They stand up and tell me things I already know about God and then tell me what God wants, what God thinks, and what will happen to me if I don’t follow them on their righteous road to heaven. 
    It is kind of like when someone says to me “have a blessed day”. Are they ordering me to somehow do that, or are they ordering God to bless me?  That person has no right to Tell God to bless me, or watch over me.  No one can tell God what to do. No one knows what God wants or thinks.  But a “born-again” Christian will tell you he “knows” God better than I do.  Bunk!  Those are not Christians, those are fools. 
    It is wrong of them each and every time. Morally wrong?  Well, I think so. 
    Person A (from previous comment) has no right nor ability to "Save" Person B.

  15. Beege215e profile image78
    Beege215eposted 5 years ago

    It may be moral for you to tell me what you believe, to perhaps educate me on your beliefs, but it would be immoral for you to TELL me what I should believe, or that I am wrong in my beliefs.

  16. 60
    ShortStoryposted 5 years ago

    Is it moral NOT to tell people you care about what you deeply believe to be true and good?

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you miss a point - what you BELIEVE may be wrong.  So if you try to impose incorrect beliefs, you may be causing damage, even if you don't know it, or don't think you are.

      Why not just live and let live?

      1. raisingme profile image90
        raisingmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A AKA you are able to think I see - how refreshing big_smile

      2. 60
        ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, YOU are missing the point. Faith is not a matter of some kind of empirical 'right' or 'wrong.' Sharing faith is not going to "cause damage" and in no way excludes "live and let live."

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So - burning witches did not "cause damage" in that case? Good to know. lol

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mark, telling someone about my faith today doesn't necessarily mean I'll be burning witches next week, next month, or even next year.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But my faith tells me that witches should be burned. If you are not with me - you are against me. wink

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, maybe you sharing your faith will lead to Witch McNuggets...

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well - we can pretend it never happened if you like, but speaking for god (sharing your faith) invariably ends up here.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I have no wish to pretend it's never happened. If we start pretending it never happened, it might happen again. I'm also not interested in pretending that it couldn't happen again, and for the same reason.

                    But at the same time, it's entirely possible for people of different faiths to have a conversation about what each other believes, and nobody needs to get nailed to anything.

                    On a larger scale, when one group has not only an advantage in numbers but also in martial prowess and legal precedent, then yes, the bonfire becomes a more likely destination. That's one of the reasons the founders made sure to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. I think we're in agreement on this?

            2. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff,

              If I tell person B about my faith, and person B interprets my faith as meaning intolerance of non-believers and he then goes out and kills an atheist, who is to blame, person A or person B or both?

        2. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You have no right to attempt to impose on me your personal belief system.  My ideas are as valuable as yours

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You have no right to attempt to keep someone that wants to hear what I have to say from hearing it.

              My ideas are as valuable as yours

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              (You have no right to attempt to keep someone that wants to hear what I have to say from hearing it.)

              Jerami,

              What has that got to do with the question or with my statement?  No one here has, nor is currently suggesting censorship of requested or exchanged information.  This entire discussion is about imposition - the claimed moral right to attempt to explain "true belief" to anyone and everyone, regardless of their right of refusal.

              In other words, do the words in your holy book that tell you to spread the good word mean you have the moral obligation and right to intrude on others' beliefs and attempt to impose your beliefs on them?

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is the point.
                  You can ask yourself just as legidimaely ...  does your lack of such book give you the right to impose your belies on another.

                  The answer to both is  NO

                  I do not understand the book that I read to say any diferently;   But as a human being, I have as much right to express mine beliefs on an open forum as you do yours.

                  Why are you trying to make others feel guilty; or less entitled to do the same thing that you are doing ???

                1. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why is it that theists seem to always confuse rationality with a belief system?  If I point out that a statement conflicts with the Law of Non-Contradiction, how is that in any way displaying a "belief"?  When I show you that incremental changes in genes occur in bacteria and are then passed on to new generations, how is that possibly construed as "belief" in evolution?

                  The Dark Ages are over.  Mysticism can no longer compete on equal footing with enlightenment.  Best get over it and adapt or risk being left behind.

                  1. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    All scientific truthful laws discovered by science are to be accepted by Religion as they are derived from the nature- the Work of the Creator-God; it is not that nature is run by the science or scientific laws; but that the science has attuned with nature- the Work of the Creator-God.

                  2. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Seems that you are attempting to pull a magic rabbit outA your hat.

                      I wasn't talking about evolution.  But a BELIEF that energy did or did not cause the BBT.

                        You changed the subject.????

                2. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Because they have pushed us into what we both agree is now an unavoidable conflict.

                  I do actually think it could have been avoided - but people like yourself have decided not to listen to reason, making it unavoidable. I have tried to get you to listen to reason. Not because I think it is the moral thing to do - but to protect myself.

                  1. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think that 99% of the believers are doing no more to bring about whatever is coming than you are.

                       The extremists in any group are the ones that are meeting  center stage causing conflict.
                       ANY good thing can be, and has been , and will be in the future, used in a detrimental way.

                       So; should we do away with all things in an attempt to protect ourselves from ourselves?

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "My ideas are as valuable as yours"

              That's not quite right, is it? I mean, broadly speaking, where "my" and "yours" stand for anybody at all.

              I mean, if my idea is that a small swig of bleach once a day is good for you, and your idea is that drinking filtered water is good for you, then my idea is not as valuable as yours, is it?

              A lot of us (generic 'us') have taken the idea that people are or ought to be treated as equals, and turned it into an idea that each person's opinion is equally valid, regardless of what evidence one's opinion is based on.

              My example-opinion about bleach being good for you might be based on the knowledge that bleach kills germs, and the knowledge that germs make you sick. Alas, I seem not to have the knowledge that not all 'germs' are detrimental to human health, and more importantly, that bleach in sufficient quantities also kills non-germ life-forms (e.g. mammals, e.g. homo sapiens).

              All people may have equal rights, but not all opinions are equally valid. The only ones that are are ones that cannot be either proven or disproven.

              For example, the opinion that YWH/God created the universe is equally valid as the opinion that Shiva (re)created the universe after Khali destroyed the previous one, which in turn is as valid as the opinion that the universe was sneezed out of the nostrils of the Great Green Arklesiezure. None of the three can be proven or disproven, and so they are equally valid.

              Note that the opinions need not be equally true to be equally valid. We (not even scientists) have no idea why the universe began. But they're starting to get a picture of how. Perhaps someday we'll be able to observe evidence of the Original Sneeze, but until then, any opinion about the cause of the universe is just speculation, and one is no more valid than the next. The fist one to be backed by actual evidence will become the most valid one.

              1. 60
                exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with you about every one having their right to their opinion, if you believe my opinion is harmful to me, then by all rights tell me about it, I may not agree, but that is part of being human, no matter what we talk about, we may not agree, but that is not a reason to get mad,The word talks about us having all knowledge. The only way we can have that all knowledge is by talking about our different opinions, then we can give that some thought to see if our opinions will change.
                I have tried talking to churches about different opinions, sometimes I get hostile remarks back, sometimes we can have discussions to see why the differences.
                we never know til we try to speak to others as to how our opinions are taken.
                there is no law that we must agree, but what is wrong with discussions

                1. 68
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nothing wrong with discussions.

              2. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You are correct.
                  My statement above was a response to AKA Winston statement using his words.
                  I guess I should have said that my opinions are as valuable to .. ME ..  as his are to .. Him.

                  But yes, the degree of truth in a statement determines its value.
                  And it seems that each individual believes that their opinions are based upon truth.
                  And it seems that everyone carries a measure of delusion of which we can all see best that which another is carrying.

              3. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Funny, but when I first wrote that I chose 'my ideas are as valuable to me as your ideas are to you' but shortened it for brevity.  That was an error.  Well done in pointing it out.

  17. andromida profile image75
    andromidaposted 5 years ago

    Not at all, except the fact a person is not conscious and do not deny any law of physics or science.

  18. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    Have you notice on here that those would want us to accept their views on religion are not interested in ours ?

    For me I'm with Richard Dawkins when he said I'm againt religion because it teaches us to be with not understanding the world !

    1. 60
      ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No it doesn't.

  19. Joy56 profile image61
    Joy56posted 5 years ago

    Hi Mark, you tell them great  man

  20. Joy56 profile image61
    Joy56posted 5 years ago

    we can all disagree without being disagreeable....

  21. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    There is nothing wrong with people expressing their beliefs to one another.. discussing moral issues, etc..

    Freedom of speech and worship are fundamental human rights.. and the exchange of ideas is how a society develops

    It's when someone gets in your face (ie comes to your door or telephones you in a recruiting effort) that it becomes a problem...

    or when they burn you at the stake or otherwise coerce you to believe what they believe.

  22. Jane Bovary profile image87
    Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago

    haha Greek One. Yes that *burning at the stake* is just a bit too in your face.

  23. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Word salad  lol lol I like that defination.

    I walk away (mentally) from any conversation that has the word "should" or 'shouldnt' in it.

    Shoulda
    Woulda
    Coulda  smile


    Let people be free.

    Free to beleive what,when,who and how.

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We might as well let them because they/we are going to anyway.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well that is true freedom to me smile

    2. Woman Of Courage profile image61
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Eaglekiwi, You made a good point. I have not viewed one forum post from a believer, stating to a unbeliever what they should or not do. smile I have observed believers standing up for their faith after being attacked by some who don't believe in God.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The following is the initial comment this person made on one of my hubs.  Now you cannot say you have never seen a post where a believer tells a non-believer what he should or should not do. 

        (hanging out 7 weeks ago

        hahahahahaha. simple. You need to learn more and perhaps shut up more hahahaha.)

        Such a nice Pentacostal quality to that disdain.....

        1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
          Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          AKA, Thanks for your rudeness. hmm Did you even read my post? I stated I have not viewed a FORUM post. The word forum is totally different from HUB. I have not read any of your hubs. My response above stays the same. Good night.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I was being nice.  If you want rude, I can accomodate you.

  24. Woman Of Courage profile image61
    Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago

    Merry Christmas to all who celebrate this holiday. big_smile

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A Very Merry Christmas To You Too Woman Of Courage smile

      Thankyou for blessing me with kindness and taking the time to encourage.

      God is good.

      1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
        Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are welcome smile

  25. qwark profile image59
    qwarkposted 5 years ago

    This questions concerns "Adults," not children.
    I have to add my 2 cents.
    I consider teaching this god thing and this jesus person to children as being "real," is heinous child abuse!
    Qwark

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree, it's important to start teaching your children gospel principles from the time they exit the womb. It is part of who the parents are, and is a set of core values that will resinate in their souls for the rest of their lives.

      1. qwark profile image59
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Onusonus:
        Ludicrous!
        Historically, that BS has been proved to be deadly!
        I believed as you do at one time. Way back in my youth when I was "young-and-dumb."
        I've worn the mocassins of the fundie monotheist.
        My "savior" was education! I doubt that you will partake of it.
        Damned shame!
        Qwark

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not realy, I'm pretty sure that any form of thought; scientific, theological, or theoretical, can prove to be deadly. It just depends on whos hands the power falls into. Hence we have nuclear bombs, religious persicution, and genocide. And that's just the Communists.
          There's all kinds of trageties which have been commited by mankind in history, religious and secular.
          You can't say that words like, "Thou shalt not kill," cause wars.

          1. qwark profile image59
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Onusonus:
            "You can't say that words like, "Thou shalt not kill," cause wars."
            Oh yes I can!
            The mythical "god thing" of your bible is one which should pay attention to that "commandment." It, this "god thing," is a murderous, psychotic, imagined entity that at one time, "murdered"
            all life but a few.
            IF one hasn't realized this, then one must consider oneself as but a simple minded, unlearned follower. A sycophant to the max.
            The bible has all those fairy tale stories in it.
            Did you, when you were reading your bible, skip over those maniacal moves of your "god thing" and savior?
            Qwark   smile:

          2. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            http://s3.hubimg.com/u/3816970_177.jpg

            LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

            1. qwark profile image59
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Mark:
              Quite a paradox here eh?
              Thou shalt not kill...and a god fearing soldier with a killing tool being held in his hand.
              LMAO
              Qwark
              I'm off to the gym...tty'all later

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The self deception is astounding. Utterly astounding. sad

                Still - he is a Mormon - they have lots and lots of offspring because they do not care about the earth - and the military offer free health care. He is quite happy to go against God's word and kill people if it means free health care for his children.

                1. qwark profile image59
                  qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey Mark, thats practical and smart...gotta give the mormon credit....lol
                  QWark
                  off to the gym...

                2. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If you knew what health care means for the military you might feel more comfortable performing surgery on yourself.

                  1. goldenpath profile image81
                    goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They're still picking on the Mormons I see.  It's the curse of all us LDS to have the world disecting our every move.  Oh well...  It's refreshing to know that the Church teaches the highest integrity of loyalty and patriotism.  It's just as true now as it was when I was in the Gulf in '91. smile

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh dear quark.

      A good education has balance and it should be the vehicle of information ,not the dictator ,or final authority on life.

      Even though I made a decision long ago about how I felt about Jesus Christ ,I allowed my children to be educated in BOTH views,so long as their was a balance of information, so that they could be better informed to come to a decision by themselves. (I mean by that ,they were encouraged to ask and seek questions from both sides of the fence ,so to speak)

      They are young adults now ,in University and still openly debate every new theory.

      Interestingly enough ,one believes in Jesus Christ and ALL that he stands for and one son does not,he definately argues for Science and ALL things Intellectual.

      I love them both dearly.

  26. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    i brought my child into the world (with the help of the wife, of course)...

    he will learn what I want him to, when I want him to, because I want him to.

    damn it, someone in my house will listen to me!!!!

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, I needed that.  lol

  27. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    But even if you think someone else believes in BS qwark ,it is still their right to express it ,live it and believe it.

    The greatest gift is the freedom to choose.

    Nobody ,not even you, should disrespect another human for being free to do so.


    History proves mankind can be deadly, we hate ,we lie ,we steal , we war with each other?

    If you do not think that mankind needs a saviour, what would be your solution I wonder?

    1. qwark profile image59
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Eagle:
      I do respect a man's right to express his "idiocy."
      I don't think I'm being "disrespectful" in responding with my opinion, honestly but bluntly. Why would you think it is?
      I have said in many of my comments what man's savior is.
      I'll repeat for you.
      Solution # 1 is "time."
               # 2 is a reduction in population
               # 3 is a powerful 1 world govt dedicated to our survival
               # 4 is "universal education."
               # 5 is the total annihilation of religion
      Simple as that...but an impossibility.
      Qwark  smile:

  28. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    Reading you responses AKA Winston,

       I'm seem to me you've already made up your mind and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.

    Your question, about is is wrong to impose one's views upon another?  My religious belief says Yes it is wrong.  There are those in the faith who I believe have the wrong idea about presenting the gospel to other for as I understand my faith it is to preach unto those who have an ear to hear so if one isn't interested in hearing my faith then don't look for me to be trailing after anyone not interested.

    We all have free will and that mean we all choose our own path be it good for some and evil for others.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you misunderstand the point of the original question - is it moral to impose your beliefs on another, meaning, not that you are explaining what you believe but telling someone else what he should believe (which usually happens to be what the one imposing also believes.).

      You are right that I had an opinion previous to the question, and that is that it is never a morally proper thing to do to tell someone else that they should believe what you believe.

      It's certainly O.K. to engage them, but it is not O.K. to take the absolutist's approach of infallible correctness of belief means everyone who disagrees is wrong and must be shown the errors of their ways - this is the stance of the fundamental Muslim terrorist and the fundamental evangelical Christian, as well.

      1. h.a.borcich profile image60
        h.a.borcichposted 5 years ago in reply to this




          "it is not O.K. to take the absolutist's approach of infallible correctness of belief means everyone who disagrees is wrong and must be shown the errors of their ways -"

          Be fair and across the board with this line of thought...Nor is it ok for those who have no faith to demand believers give up their faith. If I had s penny for every time a nonbeliever told me convinced of their absolute knowledge that I am the cause of wars and abominations against humanity, that the mere existence of faith is stifling the human potential of the planet, and that I am ignorant...I'd be one rich hubber smile

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          (Nor is it ok for those who have no faith to demand believers give up their faith)

          Sorry, but this doesn't happen. 

          You simply never hear an atheist say, "You will be miserable for all eternity if you don't deny your belief in God, just as it says in the Book of Atheisim, First Dawkins, Chapter 2, verse 10: 'There is no God.  Believe and grieve.'"

          1. h.a.borcich profile image60
            h.a.borcichposted 5 years ago in reply to this



            How funny!
            No  - the athiest tells us that after we cause and perpetuate all the woes of the world, we will simply die and find the joke is on us. I find that offensive. Apparently offensive and/or morally wrong cannot be applied to an athiest? LOL
            Whatever  - I haven't told  you to believe anything other than what you care to believe.

            1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
              Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL

            2. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You taking offense cannot in any fashion be construed as an atheist telling you what to do.  When I explain to you that the ontological argument for God boils down to this redundant logic, that if there is a god, there is a god, how you react to that data is not my concern.   If you are offended that logic can never remove the "if" from religious beliefs, that is your problem with your own reactions.

              You may find that factual information "offensive", but I have not said what you should or should not do or believe.  I have only furnished you with facts and left you to make your own determination - ignore fact or not.

              1. h.a.borcich profile image60
                h.a.borcichposted 5 years ago in reply to this



                I have plenty of times on these forums been told I am responsible for wars by admitted atheists. That is a fact. Stay on point - this thread was not debating "if there is god" but rather if it is moral to tell another what they should believe. I am fine with the "if", but apparently you feel it is ok for you to tell others what to believe. Those are the obvious facts.

                1. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I see your point, but it would only be valid if the information were not factually accurate, i.e., if someone said "Religions have been responsible for numerous deaths and wars," that cannot be construed as attempting to tell you what you should believe.  On the other hand, a statement like, "The vast majority of wars have been caused by religion," is an attempt to sway belief with an unsupported assertion.

                  Btw, I was on point by stressing that offering fact cannot be construed as an attempt of impose belief.  I am sorry that you don't like the fact that logic cannot produce a reality but that fact is not an opinion, which is all a belief is - an opinion - so imposition of belief is trying to impose your opinions on someone else.

  29. Davorunner profile image79
    Davorunnerposted 5 years ago

    My turn! First of all the original question "is it moral to..." isn't it more a question of is it right to or a good idea to?

    I believe some people can be a little too overt especially when it comes to things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Trying to force an opinion on someone is the fastest way to get them to block you out anyway.

    I believe discussing beliefs is very healthy to do especially if it is done right. I also believe that to be fully sure of what you believe you need to acquire knowledge of all other beliefs in the same category, and see which makes most sense to you.

    Questioning ones own belief isn't a sign of disrespect, but a sign that you want to know for sure WHY you believe it, and not just accept it blindly.

    Always question what you believe until you are fully happy believing it. Don't shut someone out because their ideas are different, try thinking outside the box from time to time, be open to learning new things but don't try to force them onto anyone.
    This is what I do at least.

    1. goldenpath profile image81
      goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point and very objective!  Thanks! smile smile smile

    2. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said!

  30. Jane@CM profile image60
    Jane@CMposted 5 years ago

    I don't believe that it is right to tell anyone what they should or should not believe.  We are all adults and are free to choose what we want to believe.  I get pissed off when others tell me my belief system is wrong because it doesn't align with theirs.

  31. eovery profile image60
    eoveryposted 5 years ago

    Do not impose on others.  Just share and let others know.  They are big boys and girls and can choose for themselves.  But share and not impose, should be the rule.

    Athiest are doing it to non-athiest through laws.  It has been happening for centuries.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Like that awful atheistic Sharia law in Iran, I suppose?

    2. 68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do the Atheists have history or historicity consisting on centuries? I don't think so.

  32. frogdropping profile image85
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    In the UK all children have religious instruction from primary age. This is irrespective of parental belief - as a rule. Some parents opt out, on their children's behalves.

    And guess which ones they would be?

    Yup - the one's that have faith in a religion of their choosing and don't wish their children to be subjected to the broad array of others.

    To my knowledge (and between having my own children and working with plenty of others) I can't remember a single instance of an atheist or agnostic parent pulling their children from the RE lessons.

    Religious education
    Under the Education Act 1996 schools must provide religious education for all registered pupils, although parents can choose to withdraw their children. Schools, other than voluntary aided schools and those of a religious character, must teach religious education according to the locally agreed syllabus. Each agreed syllabus should reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, while taking account of the teachings and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.
    - source: britishcouncil.org

  33. qwark profile image59
    qwarkposted 5 years ago

    Education should be "progressive."
    Teaching religion, it's gods and tenets, as "truth," is "regressive."
    Teaching religion, it's gods and tenets to children as "truth" is child abuse!!
    My opinion of course!
    Qwark

  34. kittythedreamer profile image95
    kittythedreamerposted 5 years ago

    absolutely not moral.  share your beliefs when questioned but never force them upon others! this is the main problem with fanatical christians and other religious fanatics.  maybe a gentler, subtle approach to sharing beliefs would influence those around us to look at our own beliefs more closely.

  35. qwark profile image59
    qwarkposted 5 years ago

    It would be an act of courtesy on the part of a "hubber" to begin a comment/response with the name of the recipient at the beginning of the comment. I read some comments and have no idea who they are meant for, if anyone.
    Qwark

    1. Davorunner profile image79
      Davorunnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Qwark you have an interesting point there. I didn't include the original posters name, but I mentioned the comment that I was replying to.
      I'm fairly new to the forums here, but I assumed that the 'reply' button on the comment that you're replying to would show a clear enough link to the person that you are commenting to.

      Does it not? Or are you more talking about the courtesy side of it?

      1. qwark profile image59
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Dave:
        "...courtesy side of it..."
        Qwark   smile:

        1. Davorunner profile image79
          Davorunnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Qwark! wink

  36. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    To my mind, absolutely the only time it is acceptable to tell someone what to do is if that person's life is in immediate danger, i.e. there's a gun pointed him or a rattlesnake is about to bite him in the bum. smile

    That's about it.

    I don't even like the notion that there's something special about influencing others. I think that the ony reason one influences others is to get something done for oneself.

    For myself, I think that everybody has the right to research their own information and make their own decisions. I think they also have the responsibility to do it.

    When they relegate that responsibility, then it becomes easy for other people to tell them what to believe.... )

    1. 60
      exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      so you are saying I am wrong to tell you that Jesus Loves You,
      I am such a bad person for telling people that,

  37. DoubleScorpion profile image87
    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago

    I must say that I don't get the "Jeus loves you" so much as I get the..."you are going to hell because you don't believe in "my" god" speech or the "you worship the devil"

    I have a few issues with this...
    1. You have no idea who I am or how I live so how can you judge me in anyway.
    2. I don't believe in the "christian devil" and I wouldn't worship anything that I don't believe in.

    I have had people ask me to explain how I believe so that they can "understand" my beliefs better...of course this always turns into an attempt to attack my beliefs...

    What I would like to know is if someone is attempting to "warn" me because they think I am in "danger" because I don't believe in their god. Who are they to tell me that their god is better than mine. All I ever get is "I have all the proof I need written in the bible". The problem is most of the people that I hear this from have no idea what is even written in the bible that they so strongly believe in. And not to mention they have no idea of the history of where the bible even came from or who was responsible for the current versions we have and use today. The bible used today is not even close to the sacred scriptures used in the days of Jesus. We are missing multiple books, it hasn't even been translated properly.

    So...is it morally right to attempt to force your believes on others?  No it is not morally right.

    Is it morally right to share your beliefs with others if they choose to listen? Don't know if morals would be an accurate word..but if someone asked me to explain my beliefs to them so that they can further their education...I would consider myself rude if I didn't attempt to explain.

    1. 60
      exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      sounds like you have ran into people that say they are Christian but do not even know how to be one.
      attacking someone will never get anyone to listen to Jesus' words, he never told anyone they were going to hell. His love for every one was the main point of His life.
      A true Christian will try to continue in His love and not be attacking anyone about their life or anything else

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Are you a "true Christian"?

        1. 60
          exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I fall short of being the person I should be, but I am trying to be the best I can, I also Have to ask the Lord to forgive my shortcomings about everyday,
          but I do try

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a yes or a no?

            1. 60
              exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am trying to be a true Christian, the Lord forgives me for my shortcomings,
              the word says to strive, the Lord knows none of us will ever be perfect.
              so thru His mercy he will let me say that I am a Christian

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Is that the same as being a "true" Christian?  Because we get so many on here who claim the same, but they can never quite agree on what it means or who exactly is one.  Except themselves, of course.

                Most "true" Christians inherit their beliefs from their parents or just live in the Bible Belt where there is not much choice of alternatives.  What about you?

                1. 60
                  exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I grew up Baptist, but about 20 years ago I started mostly going to penticostal churches. If I do not agree with something that is said in church, I go to the preacher and discuss my thoughts, I am not going to change my belief unless I am shown in the word where I am wrong, I have known people from all denominations, there are Christians in all of them, and of course you have people in all of them that are there for the wrong reasons,
                  I have attended church in about all denominations, as long as the are preaching or teaching the Word of God I feel at home.
                  It does not matter what the name on the sign outside is, they preach the word, then I feel I belong

                2. 60
                  exorterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  the word says to strive, if I were not trying to be the best I could be then I could say I am Christian, but that would be wrong.
                  I am striving to live according to the word.
                  It is hard for me to say that I am what I am suppose  to be,
                  but I am trying to be what I am suppose to be.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You are trying to be what you have been taught to believe.  You had no chance to have any other belief.  All religions teach their young this same message.  They were successful with you. 

                    I would wager you would not want to know the truth if it meant the proof of there being no god.  Some had rather live in ignorant bliss.

  38. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    This thread just doesn't want to die, does it? smile
    .
    .
    Is it moral to tell another adult what he should believe?

    Absolutely not.
    .
    .
    Is it moral to tell another adult what you yourself believe?

    Absolutely. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion and sharing ideas.
    .
    .

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is it not the same thing when we try to change some ones mind concerning who they are going to vote for in political elections?

        It may be futile ? but we have all (most of us) attempted to do so at some time or another.

        Is it moral to tell another adult what he should believe?

        Morality; I do not think has anything to do with it.??

      1. paradigmsearch profile image90
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not when they have made it quite clear that they don’t want to hear it. Sorry. smile

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And they accept that... 
          but ...  when you hear them voicing their opinion to another person as to who they think that person should vote for: 

            Is it morally correct (as it has been ask in OP) for you to enter into the conversation uninvited by either party; preventing those other people from voicing their opinion as to who to vote, or what to believe in?  ???

             So don't you see,  it becomes difficult to distinguish who is pushing their beliefs upon who?

              Just checking in for a minute,  gotta go out,  back later.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image90
            paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this



            That is what forums are for!smile

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly !!

  39. 60
    LadyRiceposted 5 years ago

    @Qwark ...you going to seminary means NOTHING, most seminaries believe EXACTLY what you do and professors usually try to dismiss anyone who is a believer (My husband also attended and graduated from a seminary institution; Drew Seminary in NJ).  If your seminary was different? please share your experience and what school.

    What is more, I am not going to try and convince you that there is a God and provide proof because I cant, just like you can not prove to me there is no God. Believing in God is not about believing in rules its about having a relationship with God, having faith. You have put your faith in mans knowledge and I have not. If you want to have a real discussion about your views, fears or concerns about believing in God, great! If you want to know more about my educational background or why I believe in God, great! Let me know so we can dialogue! 

    I'm glad that you are seeking knowledge, because those that seek shall find.

    Also, I would love to know why you are anti-religion? bad experiences? family? in the science field and strongly advocate for it?  school? and what is so psychotic, murderous, egotistical and cruel and vengeful about the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Thanks for sharing.

    1. qwark profile image59
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lady:
      Really? smile: going to seminary school meant nothing? I'm laughing but really, that is quite true! It was an educational and enlightening waste of time.
      I was a baptist seminarian who was finally asked "politely" to end my studies because I asked too many questions and wouldn't take "ya have to have faith" as an answer.
      In other words my studies outside the seminary piqued my curiosity in many ways and in many new and intriguing subjects.
      I asked questions my "teachers" couldn't/wouldn't answer.
      Quoting scripture and answering questions with a question, caused me to dig deeper into subjects, such as cosmology, evolution, anthropology etc., that intimidated my seminary "educators."   
      I NEVER ask for proofs of this "god thing." NEVER!
      Before I could do that, I'd first have to have a Literal definition of this "god thing." If that doesn't happen, , there is nothing to chat about but an imagined concept of a supernatural divinity. I wouldn't waste my time or yours doing that.
      So before we continue to "dialogue," pls provide me with a "literal" definition of this god thing you speak of  and I'd be happpy to chat with you about the possibility of its existence.
      Thanks for responding.
      Qwark

      1. 58
        passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        hello just want to share and see what you think.
        The Great apostasy has not happen yet.
        John  15:2, Every branch (believer, disciple, true Christian) that beareth fruit, He (God) shall prune it, that it may bring forth more fruit. (The true Word of God will continue forever.) The branches are the believers and/or teachers and the fruit are those who are taught. God will get those people ready (prune) and the cycle will continue forever.
        This is what God promised.

        The Great apostasy is talked about in 2 Thessalonians Ch 2. When the people thought that the day of the Lord had already began.
        2Thess 2:3
        Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first (The Great apostasy)  AND that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (Satan).
        The Great apostasy (the Great falling away) will happen when the anti christ (the son of perdition"damnable to die") comes and teaches his false doctrine (Rev 13). The people will be tricked into worshiping the beast (satan) and will be turned away from the true Christ. The great Apostasy.

        Jesus promised us that he would never leave us or forsake us. Hebrews 13:5, And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; John 14:16 we will always have the  Holy spirit we will always have Jesus

        1. qwark profile image59
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Passing:
          You know absolutely nothing about this jesus person you speak of.
          You read inane "heresay" and ya believe.
          Tsk tsk.
          Qwark

          1. 58
            passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            i didn't mean to email you. but man your an angry person. i think you might need a cigarette or something

            1. qwark profile image59
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Passing:
              lol not an angry bone in my body, none at all. I think you mistake my disgust in what you said for anger.
              I have no patience with self imposed ignorance. It disgusts me.
              You know nothing about this Jesus person. Nothing at all except that which you read in a silly book of fairy tales called the NT.
              I'm just telling you like it is.
              Qwark   smile:

      2. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What?! You don't know?! yikes

        Ok, it is a really old white bearded man in a toga that lives on a cloud and cooks sinners for eternal dinner. Didn't you see the pics in your seminary? God, what they teach people in seminaries! wink

      3. 60
        ShortStoryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I have to wonder what kind of expertise failing out of school is supposed to confer. If I failed out of medical school I don't think anyone would take me to be a medical expert, quite the contrary in fact.

  40. 60
    LadyRiceposted 5 years ago

    @AKA...I do not think this is a "moral" issue. I can tell another adult anything I want to just as you can. That person does not have to listen to me or accept anything I say. It's not like someone is saying believe in what I say or I'm going to kill you! Now that is a completely different story!!!

    I may be wrong, but it seems that you are annoyed with people who talk about their faith? Well, the same can be said for people who are atheist. Everyone has the right to talk about their beliefs regardless of what it is and regardless if you agree or disagree.

  41. illeagle profile image59
    illeagleposted 5 years ago

    I believe that I am an undefinable consciousness that only seeks to know the truth in all things.

    If I choose to believe this concept is also true about you, am I imposing a belief on you? Without doing anything other than believing? I suspect that I am.

    Is it a moral issue to believe that the word 'believe' should be spelled 'b-e-l-e-i-v-e' or is just a matter of accurate discernment.

    Conclusion: All 'moral' beliefs are delusional.

 
working