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?
Morals are not written in stone. It used to be - now not so much.
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.
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.
I thought I smelled something in here. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present you with exhibit A. A for....absolutist. :-))
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?
Aka, No, everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
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.
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.
Imposing something with force is immoral; but presenting something with arguments , reasons and politeness is very much moral.
That could be just an opinion of yours.
The same could be said about Atheists.
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.
Who proved it and when?
He must have given his opinion only; which you should have considered a proof.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
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!
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."
2 and 1/2 years in a seminary can screw ya up royally, eh?
If ya wan't to think of being freed from religious ignorance, intolerance and bigotry as being "screwed up," hey, NP! You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. :
i was talking more about the lack of female companionship
Huh? They have them bussed in on the Sabbath. You get more pussy in seminary school than a typical college. The whole "unavailable," thing.
Funny you should say that.. In my younger years I was at a nightclub with a friend. We meet this girl and for some reason my friend tells her that I was becoming a priest the next day...
5 minutes later she came back with her hot and very interested friend
Oh yes. Tell'em you think you ar gay, but were considering a switch. Never fails.
Hahaha...there was never a lack of religious activity in that sense....:
Thumbs up Mark...:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
So you feel it is "immoral" to teach your children your faith and religious traditions?
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.
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
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.
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.
It is irrational to cry "unfair" when your own exact words are quoted and responded to. If you want to craft your comments more carefully and with less hyperbole and venom I would encourage and applaud such a decision.
As to your most recent comments above, it is clear that YOU have decided which aspects of a person's faith are legitimate and which are "child abuse." You have to see that this extreme bias and subjectivity is not reasonable. What is ACTUALLY child abuse is set forth in law and not subject to some individual's religious intolerance. Your attitude presumes a purely secular point of view as standard which, given the topic, is not a reasonable expectation. Just because YOU might consider it reasonable to take away a child's Xbox in order to discipline him does not render another parent's reference to religious principle for the same purpose illegitimate. You don't have to agree or raise your own children that way, but deviation from YOUR values and beliefs does not constitute child abuse.
What is ACTUALLY set forth in law is soceities' opinion enacted by legislatures. Don't try to pretend that law is any more than opinion.
Oh, now YOU have decided that the law is also illegitimate? You are ambitious, but I'm afraid that if the only reality that you will accept as legitimate is one 100% reflective of YOUR subjective opinions you are doomed to lasting dissatisfaction.
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
This, your honor, would have to be exhibit B.
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.
Moral or not (my vote is NOT, but that itself is a moral judgment ) 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
interrupting the viewing of a sports game is universally accepted by all religions as an immoral act in itself
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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."
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, 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.
G'mornin' Pretty: :
"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.
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?
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! :
PS I respect YOU! Not your "beliefs." :
Qwark, I mean it, the invite, Wishing you the same too. I have lots of friends here who have different beliefs and we are just fine..Thanks and I will go to the store...
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
What exactly do you mean by "present it as a fact"?
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.
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.
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.
But great job derailing the thread once again.
I don't think that you think you know what you think I'm thinking.
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?
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?
Morality does not exist without God. Therefore it would be immoral.
"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.
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.
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.
Ah - the one that makes people black becoz they lost the war on the other planet? Hilarious.
Oh - that's right - you changed your doctrines.
Gosh - you don't even know the history of your belief system either? I see you carry a rifle though.
Still didn't see anything about black people loosing a war on another planet. Are you sure you reead it from that article?
Perhaps you found it on some other Anti-Mormon websight, maybe? Well in any case, you be sure to let me know when you find it, and I will refute it vehemently.
I only read a few of those articles....however....
Perhaps he is referring to the segregation of Negro people in those articles? That is, apparently, how God chose it to be? It also appears they believe Negro are out to absorb themselves into white races and are intending to intermarry to achieve this goal?
I didn't think that is what Mormon teaches?
I believe these are a few quotes from past dignitaries of the church who were finding a way to explain why the priesthood was banned for Black people. However there was not a single word from cannonized LDS doctrine mentioned, only opinions and speculations.
Even though some people want to use the constantly changing world of Mormonism as a tool to denounce it's foundations, it is important to denote that the church is based on a restoration movement, meaning continued prophecy, guidance, and revelation. If you compare this to the changing world of rules that the ancient Hebrews faced when Moses or Abraham came alog it is relatively small.
I like that it is continued, prophecy, guidance and revelation. Applying to the times without losing its essence is far more useful.
That's an excelent way of putting it. The most important thing is what's happening here and now.
Except where it comes to scientific facts. Hilarious.
It is cool too when scientific facts continue to have revelations! Don't you think?
Scientific facts do not "have" anything. The theories to explain those facts may change and adapt - if you wish to use the religious word "revelations" to support your irrational belief that black people are being punished with black skin because they are descended from cowards from a previous life on another planet - that is your business.
If what you actually mean by "prophecy," and "guidance" is "changing social mores" - sadly this "guidance," seems to come after the fact - not before - which makes it worthless as guidance, prophecy or revelation - wouldn't you agree?
Segregation in the US was outlawed during the 60s and 70s.
The official Mormon doctrine was changed in 1978.
You do the math.
Wow! What gave you those ideas? You got all that out of a few sentences giving examples of indigenous history on this planet...and because I chose to use one word?
If you would like to tell me how you arrived at "to support your irrational belief that black people are being punished with black skin because they are descended from cowards from a previous life on another planet" I might know where your coming from? Break it down for me if you like?
Revelations might be a religious word, how it was used is no where near what you are implying? For me it means things that were not understood or not known, having being revealed. It is used quite often here in my country. Instead of... I have had an epiphany .. or Eureka...we say...I have had a revelation. Maybe our slang I don't know?
Anyways, a revelation gives one the ability to change and adapt yes, if they so choose. For me that is a good thing for religion and science.
We have come a long way in both areas. Looking at the past when it isn't relevant to now is pointless in my opinion, especially if it was changed. All we have is now to work with. So as long as the awareness of whomever is concerned has expanded and those ways of being are done with I don't see the problem?
The past is always relevant to the present. That is how we learn. Or not. Depending.
As I said - I think we need to agree on a dictionary. You were agreeing with the Mormon. Mormons believe that we all lived on another planet before we came here. There was a war on that planet and black people are black as a punishment because they were cowards during the war.
I even copied and pasted some quotes from official Mormon doctrine in 1966. The Mormon said what I had quoted was not official doctrine. I guess what he meant was - the doctrine has since been changed since segregation became illegal in the US.
You agreed with that. I assumed that meant you believed that too. Not the case?
Yes agree we learn from the past. When the present reflects that learning then there is no need to keep going back to what was in my opinion.
Perhaps we do need a dictionary. No not the case I wasn't agreeing with their history. I liked the continuance of gaining more awareness, in the manner that he described...seemed useful if that is not what they are doing today. And apparently they are not.
They are just doing something similar - they have not learned from or acknowledged their previous lies. They have been forced to change their doctrine - yes - nothing more or less - and certainly not as he described. They hope that enough people like yourself will ignore the past in order to pretend there was nothing wrong with their behavior. There seems no shortage of you, I must admit.
A dictionary would be good, as you seem only interested in semantic arguments to defend an irrational belief. Presumably that is why you have not actually addressed my comments, as usual.
Why do they have to be lies for you? Is it not simply a case of 'lack of awareness and understanding"? When the understanding came to the fore, as it has, is the point. I am not sure why you would think they were forced? No one said there was nothing wrong with their behavior nor do I ignore that, that is how it was.
I emphasized that it is irrelevant to today because that is not how they view it any more. So I think you are not understanding me correctly. How does past behavior that is changed apply to now except that someone might have an opinion about it? Whilst it applied then it doesn't apply now. That is like saying Americans are still slave traders and Europeans are still murderers and thieves.
Semantic arguments? Not sure what you mean by that?
Do you not understand that communication between different cultures who live in different Societys will always differ? Misunderstandings are sure to arise. Although I have tried to explain my understanding of different words in my post. To no avail it seems. The point of discussing I thought was to clarify those points the other is trying to make. Whether we agree or not.
What comments did I not address?
"Those who were LESS VALIANT IN PRE-EXISTENCE and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the NEGROES." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition.
"THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. IT IS THE LORD'S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence]." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition.
"Though he was a rebel and an ASSOCIATE OF LUCIFER IN PRE-EXISTENCE, ...Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.... [H]e came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel.... AS A RESULT OF HIS REBELLION, CAIN WAS CURSED WITH A DARK SKIN; HE BECAME THE FATHER OF THE NEGROES, and THOSE SPIRITS WHO ARE NOT WORTHY to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition.
It appears the canonized Mormon doctrine in 1966 was clear on the matter. Dear me.
Hence why there is a need to continue, prophecy, guidance and revelations; It is now 2010 soon to be 2011. Many things change just as it has for ones who wiped out the Tasmanian Aborigine race. Around the same time. Further back the black slaves in America.
Revelations...reveal the true nature of ones actions or beliefs. One can choose to adjust them according to what revelations they have or not. Most have including Australians and Americans. I think thats a wonderful thing.
I think we need to agree on a dictionary - other wise the alter being absolute farthing.
You clearly do not understand that the defellation of the tribes by mistakenaries led to loss of whoosh in the bedowning spaces - so they died out !
So we are both using the same meaning for words.
Canonized Mormon doctrine has always consisted of the old and new testament, the book of Mormon, the doctrine and covenants, and the pearl of great price.
When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, McConkie retracted what he had said previously:
"Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
Modern Church leaders teach that everyone who came to earth in this day was "valiant" in the premortal existence. Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today's youth, said in 2005:
as for the book "Mormon doctrine:
1) The book states that it is solely the responsibility of the author: it is not offered as authoritative for LDS doctrine
2) The author himself views the content as flexible, subject to changes.
3) It was not published by the Church nor by an entity controlled by the Church
The LDS Church's website describes doctrine so:
"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."
These being true, it never is appropriate to use “Mormon Doctrine” as an authoritative source about, well, Mormon doctrine.
Otherwise known as "back pedalling."
It was accepted Mormon doctrine in 1966 - no matter how mistaken and wrong your "Prophets" were. While they could get away with it. So you were not being entirely truthful when you said:
Because these were indeed Mormon doctrine and the words of the then-prophets. You lack moral guidance and do not have a moral compass. What a shame.
Atheists never lie - we do not believe it is right to do so.
And yet you claim that we believe that Black people lost a war on another planet. I'm still waiting for you to produce something that says that, otherwise I'm pretty sure you just lied to me.
No - I never claimed that. I merely reproduced published Mormon doctrine from 1966 which stated nothing of the sort - it states that they were cowards during that war.
So - does that mean you no longer believe this? Because you believe what the prophet tells you to believe today? And it does not matter that Mormons believed this in 1966?
What are you going to do when they finally tell you evolution is true?
I actually never believed this in the first place because i wasn't alive in 1966. I was born in 1978 when the very man who made those statements retracted them.
And perhaps the day will come when the theory of evolution evolves into something that is more agreeable with the precepts of creationism, then I would consider tyo meditatd on the possibility especially if the prophets condone it.
Yes! So I did understand you correctly! Thanks
My apologies. This was a mistake - I looked it up after saying this and discovered they were actually cowards - not that they lost. My error - I corrected it later when I found the actual doctrines - good for you finding a mistake on my part - you must feel vindicated now. I must admit I am not terribly au fait with the constantly changing perfect word of God according to this week's Mormon prophet.
What was the reason in that case? Did they lose the war or were they cowards?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Naw! I disagree Couture:
Religion has to do with
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.
All "abstract" concepts or just anything to do with faith or religions? Educating a child is more than just about science.
I know many adults who have difficulty with abstract concepts.
Children advance, intellectually, at different ages.
Abstract concepts of any ilk should only be presented when the student has gained the "maturity" in understanding to be able to assimilate and work with abstract concepts.
That, not always but "USUALLY," happens in the later teens.
Children develop the ability to conceive in the abstract by being exposed to ideas gradually over many years in a manner appropriate for their stage of development at a given time, not by having such things hidden from them and then 'sprung' all at once at a predetermined point. It is pretty obvious that some people's exposure to abstract notions stopped at an early, juvenile stage and that subsequently they never developed the ability to consider such things in any but a juvenile manner. They are then socialized into dismissing the 'juvenile' ideas that they were limited to and shut themselves off from potentially enriching considerations of the human condition itself.
"Children develop the ability to conceive in the abstract by being exposed to ideas gradually over many years in a manner appropriate for their stage of development at a given time, not by having such things hidden from them and then 'sprung' all at once at a predetermined point."
I don't think I proposed: "'sprung' all at once at a predetermined point."
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?.
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.
You have convinced me that P.T. Barnum must have indeed been a prophet.
Is insulting him conducive to a serious discussion, in your opinion?
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.
Unless he bore testimony of the divinity of Christ i wouldn't take him for one.
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 I know i have regretted wasting some of my years not knowing
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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. :-))
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.
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.
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!
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.
(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.
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!
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?
I think this a valuable question. My opinion is that mores, not morals, should be taught, as mores encompass societal norms over individual quirks.
I think we should teach them how to arrive at moral values, but not teach absolutes.
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.
But what method would you teach them? The "Does-it-hurt-anybody" method? Or the "What-does-Pat-Robertson-say-about-it?" method?
How about the "is it for the greater good," method?
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.
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?
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.
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!"
I wouldn't say immoral, just kind of pointless. people believe what they believe
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."
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
quite a good view from the top of this fence, which side should I jump.
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
(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?
Morals are tied to actions. Emotions are amoral. I think I remember writing a hub on 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.
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.
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.
Is it moral NOT to tell people you care about what you deeply believe to be true and good?
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?
A AKA you are able to think I see - how refreshing
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."
So - burning witches did not "cause damage" in that case? Good to know.
Mark, telling someone about my faith today doesn't necessarily mean I'll be burning witches next week, next month, or even next year.
But my faith tells me that witches should be burned. If you are not with me - you are against me.
Okay, maybe you sharing your faith will lead to Witch McNuggets...
Well - we can pretend it never happened if you like, but speaking for god (sharing your faith) invariably ends up here.
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?
Yes to the latter. Not sure about the former - judging from my current need to move to the country to avoid what I see as an unavoidable conflict. In Europe at least.
unavoidable unavoidable unavoidable unavoidable
If something is unavoidable ,? what CAN YA do ?
Becides ask your self WHY is it unavoidable ?
Maybe it is just another Big Bang theory that just hppens from time to time? NOT !
And in a few thousand years we will just be a myth.
Can't prove we was even here.
It is unavoidable because of people like you, Jerami. Believers with the WORD who are lazy and inconsiderate. Innit. I cain't stop ya. Ya beleeb innit? Set yerselves agin tha other WORD innit. Kristian v Muzlims
But why would you care? Of course you do not - it is all written in prophecy - and you are going to make sure it comes true. Why would you care who you take with you? You wouldn't. You can't even be bothered to format the text for easy reading.
I am doing no more than you are to incourage the unavoidable.
I am doing no less than you are to discourage the unavoidable.
You are the one that said it ...unavoidable.
It is unfortunate how deeply committed to their intolerance some people are.
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?
You have no right to attempt to impose on me your personal belief system. My ideas are as valuable as yours
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
(You have no right to attempt to keep someone that wants to hear what I have to say from hearing it.)
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?
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 ???
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.
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.
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.????
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.
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?
Defend the faith Jerami. In doing so - you are doing what you need to do not to make any changes. Which is what makes me different to the 99% you identify with.
And you cannot even see it.
I do not see where you are making any changes.
Time keeps on keping on and you are Just stirring the pot like everyone else.
Of course you don't, but at least I am trying.
Maybe this is the greatest error.
Too many are protesting when we here something/everything that we do not agree with.
"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.
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
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.
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.
Not at all, except the fact a person is not conscious and do not deny any law of physics or science.
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 !
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.
haha Greek One. Yes that *burning at the stake* is just a bit too in your face.
Word salad lol I like that defination.
I walk away (mentally) from any conversation that has the word "should" or 'shouldnt' in it.
Let people be free.
Free to beleive what,when,who and how.
We might as well let them because they/we are going to anyway.
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. I have observed believers standing up for their faith after being attacked by some who don't believe in God.
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.....
AKA, Thanks for your rudeness. 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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?
Quite a paradox here eh?
Thou shalt not kill...and a god fearing soldier with a killing tool being held in his hand.
I'm off to the gym...tty'all later
The self deception is astounding. Utterly astounding.
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.
Hey Mark, thats practical and smart...gotta give the mormon credit....lol
off to the gym...
If you knew what health care means for the military you might feel more comfortable performing surgery on yourself.
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.
goldenpath, where did the name Mormon come from?
I suppose it was a tad ironic. No harm though I work for the Navy and you definitely have to be thick skined to survive around those guys.
Are you really gullible enough to accept as fact all that hogwash about Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni?
Whats the difference between believing in prophets who lived thousands of years ago, and believing in prophets who live in our day?
What's the difference between thousand year old BS and modern BS? Different bulls.
Yep! It's the restoration of all things as set forth in scripture. The prophets of old were just as rejected by those who see without a gospel lens. It's no different today. What gives you fulfillment is great. Equally great is what gives me fulfillment. Gullible is only in those who are unwilling to test what they are exposed to before they judge upon it.
I tested the Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni story against my BS meter - the BS meter said the story is a pile found in many barns and it stinks to high heaven. It is ludicrous. It is utterly shocking that adults who have not been brainwashed as children could possible accept as real such an inane, outlandish, obviously fake story from a man who had already been convicted of fraud before he came up with his Mormon con.
Well, sorry to hear it. I'd suggest checking the make and model of your meter. I'm not sure which country it was made in but it sounds like an obvious outdated and refurbished product.
Testing is application and not viewing all information as an enema. Fear drives adverse views.
IF there is a God and IF truth gets mutated over time as it has proven to be. Wouldn't it be POSSIBLE for said God to provide a way to bring truth full circle in order to manifest His full will upon the children of man? IF this is possible then why not have a prophet raised up and prepared in modern times to carry the banner of such an office? IF possible then why express ignorance by putting down those who believe in such possibility?
Yes, I believe the doctrines of Christ (in it's original purity) have been changed, mutated, omitted and even added to over time because of the influence upon mortality. Yes, I believe there is a God who has an immense destiny for us beyond comprehension. Yes, I believe we have a fallen nature but that Adam and Eve set forth the path whereby we may be reconciled with God. Of course, the pinnacle of the bridge was the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Yes, I believe that before the winding up scene a full restoration of all doctrines is to be restored to the earth as scripture says.
Just because what we believe has actual order and clarity to it is no reason to fear or shun it. If nothing else respect the beliefs of others. It will bring peace into your own heart. Peace makes you happy and contention brings you down.
I see in your "explanation" you did not talk about any specifics of the Joseph Smith and Moroni story at all. (After all, the devil is in the details.)
Besides, all you have said in essence is this: it might be possible that I can flap my wings and fly to the moon - why fault me for believing I can.
If you don't understand that last part, you have my sympathy.
You came with the offensive. You are to offer specifics - not me. For every truth there are twelve "anti's" to go with it. What you hear and see are by and large from those who hold a grudge with a specific person in the Church and have done no real personal research, study or even personal prayer. They only spew hatred and discontent.
As to your last part just make sure you oil up those wings. It's a long flight.
That's a very broad assumption.
It's like saying 'what you see and hear from believers is a grudge against those that don't agree with them. They've done no real personal research or studying of what's available. They only spread fear and judgement'.
It comes from both sides. Being a theist or an atheist does not signify that the speaker is hateful or mean spirited - or guided by a singular motive. And praying is irrelevant if an individual is an atheist.
@ paarsurrey - do you?
When you refer to someone's faith as "hogwash" do you really expect to have a reasonable discussion, or are you just indulging in arrogant, mean-spirited intolerance?
I am indulging in mean-spirited intolerance - not of the believer as a person, but his belief in the patently absurd fabrication dreamed up by the fraud Smith.
I don't care if I insult the beliefs of the Scientologists, either.
Absurdity does not have to be condoned with civility.
I doubt very seriously if ANY hypocrite recognizes that they are one.
I will even admit that I can not see mine.
Thank God for those that point it out to me.
You do not hate the believer but you do hate the belief.
I've heard something like that before, "someplace??"
How sad for you. You must feel very persecuted. He was the one that said he follows God's instruction, "Thou shalt not kill." With a gun in hand. But - yes, I do tend to point out hypocrisy - no matter which cult you belong to.
Thou shalt not kill - except for oil money.
Actually I was on a peace keeping mission. Self defence is not murder. and I'm pretty sure there aren't any disputed oli fields in Korea.
"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed." Alma 43-47
Yes - I know "Thou shalt not kill" is not a maxim you feel the need to adhere to. Meaningless platitudes like all your stated beliefs. Strange that you bought it up really. Korea huh? When were you in Korea? Got a lot of family in Korea do you?
Mark - Do you know for a fact Golden was there with "gun in hand"? Perhaps he was there as a chaplain?
The support troops are just as responsible, so I don't care if he pulled the trigger, delivered the bullets, built the runway, sang songs in the field, cooked the meals, made the propaganda movies, patched up the wounded or salved the conscience of the shooter. Without the support troops - an army does not function.
But - you go ahead and argue in favor of going to war and believing "Thou shalt not kill," as working just fine together.
Whoa! I asked a simple question and get a rabid dog attack about how I am arguing in support of a religious war??!!
Not really Holly. But please tell me how following the admonition "Thou shalt not kill," allows one to go to war?
There is a difference between those 2 stubborn men who disagree and start a war, and those who must participate. Enlisted men cannot refuse to deploy without serious consequences, for one. There are also chaplains and nurses who traditionally do not bear arms save self defense. Do you see the difference? Of course you can, but you likely won't admit it.
By the way, I am proud of my son who is a veteran. He was airborn infantry special ops. He did what he had to do. And before you judge him and all the other enlisted military, watch the Battle of Fallujah. He was there, and survived.
I have seen Christians who try to make every last thing be about God, but you put them all to shame - for you any and everything is about God. And you put them down for it. Interesting.
Still - you did not answer my question. How do you reconcile "Thou shalt not kill," with being in the military?
This is all I was talking about when you so rudely interrupted. Some one claimed "Thou shalt not kill" made Christians less likely to go to war. He wears a military uniform and carries a gun in his avatar.
I said this was hypocrisy and was attacked by the Mormon and you now because I think this is hypocrisy.
Get it accurate Mark. I asked a question about a post you made on a PUBLIC forum. I was rude to ask why you made assumptions? Now you claim persecution? You sound more and more like those christians you claim to know so much about.
Deflect all you want for it doesn't alter the facts.
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.
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!!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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
(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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.... )
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
That's just you trying to be what you have been taught to believe. You had no chance to have any other belief.
Au contraire! I have been exposed to all manner of religious dogma in my area of the bible belt. This part of the country is full of self righteous bible thumpers who know almost nothing of the bible they quote ad nauseum.
You know the type, I'm sure! LOL!
Actually, Randy was reared by Christian parents. They found him when he was about 2 years old, living with a pack of coyotes. These kind people took him in and raised him as their own.
And religious folks have just never, ever, ever heard of atheism, and every child of atheist parents is educated in and encouraged to consider adopting a major world religion, right?
I think the Atheists plan to have deaf, dumb and blind off-spring so that they are not influenced by their parents.
Thats a two way street. Atheists don't want to believe in God and they go to extremes to ignore, diss, lie, misinform, misinterpret, post hateful propaganda...
Your profile states you only use the King James version of the bible for your biblical knowledge. Why, out of the many, many, edits of the original writings, do you assume you have the correct version? Because you want to, of course!
A couple of atheists was recently put in jail here for the beating of two of their children because the children was asking questions about Jesus and the kids did not agree with what the parents was telling them. the kids are 12 and 14 years of age. the kids went to school and the teachers saw the bruising on them, one had a cracked rib, and the others' arm was cracked,
when questioned by the police the father said he would not allow the talk about Jesus in his home, that was his only defence of what took place in his home that night
Coupl'a Kristians dun kilt there offspring fer not beleebin too. Sad reely - tehy dun sed they atheists an the parent dun kilt them fer it.
Sed so in the news innit.
So far we dun got 34,989,888 kilt fer not beleebin like wot god sed. Praise B!!!
Polees sed it were wot god sed and there aint no never mind.
How many believers gave their children poison Kool-Aid in Jonestown Guyana? And your point is?
This thread just doesn't want to die, does it?
Is it moral to tell another adult what he should believe?
Is it moral to tell another adult what you yourself believe?
Absolutely. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion and sharing ideas.
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.??
Not when they have made it quite clear that they don’t want to hear it. Sorry.
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.
@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.
Really? : 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.
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.
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
You know absolutely nothing about this jesus person you speak of.
You read inane "heresay" and ya believe.
i didn't mean to email you. but man your an angry person. i think you might need a cigarette or something
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.
What?! You don't know?!
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!
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.
@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.
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.
by Roshan Sharma3 years ago
Belief is to believe in something. It can be true or false. But we believe, out of trust, faith and sometimes because the world believes in it.Beliefs are the old thoughts, that sometimes you hang on in your life for...
by brittvan225 years ago
As a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Jehovah Witness, etc is your job to convert someone you deem a non-believer? Do you think as a representative of your faith that you are supposed to convert non-believers...
by Brittany Williams3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Kyle Payne5 years ago
Does human reason tell us the only thing we should believe?
by enderw1ggins2 years ago
The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.1.)...
by maestrowhit8 years ago
I mean, what does it accomplish? I see so many different "belief" systems being argued and discussed on these pages. I haven't yet seen a single hardcore Christian being persuaded towards non-belief by an...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.