Is it possible to end a religious battle without infringing rights?
As a third party, I would like to put an end to the constant, ever-present war going on between people of all religions and non-religion.
However, as has been rightly pointed out before, trying to tell people not to argue is technically the same as removing their free speech.
In order for total peace to ensue, there can be no argument to make. This may require preference of one side over another, which again infringes rights if put into practice.
But then again, there are some of us who are not only capable of accepting and respecting our opposition, we do it all the time, without having to sacrifice our own opinions.
This shows to me that there is some way to become tolerant without ‘rolling over’ for our opposition or giving anything up. The only thing that is missing is a method.
How can those few of us spread this way of living, when there seems to be no explanation of how we became this way?
In case anyone does not see that such people exist, look harder. We have atheists who are fully accepting of theists, and vice-versa, we have the JPA and the ART, who both actively encourage religious tolerance between groups. Alongside all of these are plenty of individuals who just quietly get on with it, and do not broadcast their tolerance.
So what’s the problem with Fireball?
I’m an atheist, but I can still recognise that Fireball gives some very good answers from time to time.
To be honest, just a few more and I’d be a fan.
In my opinion, everybody here (yes, even trolls) makes R&S a great place to be. Everybody has made worthwhile contribution here.
Whether we agree or disagree with somebody should not factor into it.
I poke holes in the idea of God all the time, I am not calling that intolerance. But I don’t generalise Christians as stupid, ignorant fools, or call God ‘Sky Daddy’.
Nor do I brand anyone as evil, or tell someone their future based on my own idealist view. If I had a place I believed would be torturous, I’d still recognise that it’s my place, and only I can go there.
Underneath it all, I see the religious, and the non-religious alike, as human beings, capable of good, and capable of harm also. But all to be loved, as one human race.
But that is just me. None need follow my example
A lot of these answers have shocked me completely.
Do some of you even know what you are saying?
About Jesus with the flaming sword to kill anyone who opposes…
WTF?!?
That’s not the quickest way to peace at all. Hitler, for example, set out to kill anyone who opposed him. I somehow don’t think Hitler was a messiah.
I agree with you totally about Fireball, she DOES have a lot of well written posts and I enjoy many of her comments as well.
Dharminator, tolerance is NOT tacit approval at all. Tolerance is being willing to accept that the other person has his/her own reasons for believing what they believe and even though you disagree with that person’s beliefs you acknowledge that they DO have the right to believe in what they do.
As for the firey sword and the flood people, YOU only PROVE the point of the question by your statements. Jesus smiting everyone with a fiery sword does NOT prove that he is correct. It only proves that he has a sword and can kill whoever he wishes. Now Jesus going around loving people and laying down his life out of love for them IS proof that he loves people. A Majorly BIG difference there, don’t you think?
That’s been the problem all along. There are those among you who feel that MIGHT makes right. It does not. Example makes right. One doesn’t obtain converts by attacking those one wishes to convert. One makes converts by being loving towards those whom one wishes to convert. So far, I see very little of that from the "Smite and Fight" crowd.
Brightest Blessings,
Raji the Green Witch
yes…this isnt wars here…they suck..
References :
If folks like Fireball and her ilk could just put forth some examples of humility more often, there be a lot less fighting.
References :
Telling people not to argue isn’t like removing their free speech. MAKING them not argue would be.
We are human and we are different. We have differences of opinion on everything. At the end of the day, tolerance is tacit acceptance, and I am not old or tired enough to roll over and wear a fake smile.
References :
* no religious belief implied
You can argue with someone about religion while still being tolerant of their religion. Pointing out inconsistencies with someone’s point of view isn’t the same as not being tolerant of their point of view.
References :
Living in civilized society means that everyone gives up some rights.
And if you think "this" is war,… you should enlist and serve in Iraq.
References :
Well I applaud your efforts. Good luck.
References :
In answer to your question, im sorry but no.
Lol sorry kidding, yes i am a beleiver, and id say i fit the mould to some extent that you are talking about
References :
As long as Fireball and Crusader are here, there will be no peace. From the atheist side, Desiree is shooting missiles.
References :
I wish you luck on that one cobber !! i think you have bitten off more than you could chew ……
References :
it is not possible to end any battle without denying someone rights, thats why they are called the losers.
References :
Yes, it is.
References :
Until people can agree there is only one true living God (Christian) then there will be division and spiritual warfare. It is up to Christians to teach the gospel and convert alien sinners to Christ.
References :
I once tried that by treating it like a mathematical problem – both arguments, which at the moment are subtracting from one another, need to be balanced out by another force.
That force, up until now (thanks for the info.), was me.
Think of it like this;
Religion – Atheism x Balance = Co-ordinated progress.
Right now it’s;
Religion – Atheism = One big crazy mess.
References :
If you think us Christians are intolerant of atheists and other false religions, wait until you meet our Father. The last time He ended this argument and infringed on peoples freedom of speech was with a world wide flood.
References :
Well, if someone was to finally offer up some EVIDENCE supporting the claims of their scripture, that’d clinch the argument pretty quick…
References :
A person after my own heart. Another peacemaker. I too feel as you do. I am a Christian and I sincerely hope that every human being will come to accept Christ as their savior, but I also believe that the choice must be theirs alone. And, it is not up to me to judge them for whatever choice they make. That right was given by God.
I think from what I have observed here on R & S, the disagreement between believers and those who do not believe comes not just from a point of view, but from disrespect of the other person as an individual. It is much like society in general even when not religion related. People just don’t seem to care about other people….regardless of what they sometimes say. I’m not really sure what lies behind this situation. Not having respect for other people seems to be becoming more and more prevalent here in the U.S., and not always just from people who do not believe in God.
References :
When Jesus returns, he will have a flaming sword coming out of his mouth, and he will kill anyone who opposes him (Revelation 19). That’s the surest way to peace!
References :
We can love them as people but the Bible very strongly makes the point that there is the ‘truth’ of Scripture and the Gospel and that truth must be held to.
The disciples were (and by extension we are) told to go out and preach that gospel and we are also told that if we don’t preach that truth we are guilty of their ignorance of that truth.
References :
Galatians 1
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Yes I don’t say this often (lol) but I must say Amen to that! I would say it IS possible to end the battle without infringing on peoples’ rights. All we need to do is agree to stop infringing on them in the first place and then no one would be justified in continuing the battle. I guess what I’m saying is instead of infringing on rights to control people, the ideal would be that everyone controls themselves. This appears to be against many peoples’ nature though.
I think the problem is that some people just don’t seem to have a natural respect and empathy for others. Instead, they take the easy road (well easier initially but actually adopting a respectful stance makes life easier in the long run) and demonise the oposition in order to make it ok to dismiss them offhand.
Some atheists do this by making disparaging remarks about intellect etc. neglecting to recognise that human perception is far from being influenced only by logic and therefore it is no sign of weakness to be consumed by cultural biases.
Some theists do this by dismissing atheists as amoral (Christians may be interested to know that this goes against the teachings of Paul, incidently.) against all evidence.
Now there probably IS one right answer if you really boiled it down and each of us like to think we’re close to it. However, some of us are tolerant of others and not only that, INTERESTED in others and their ideas and perspectives. Hopefully we can even recognise that OUR own perspective is not necessarily 100% correct or even close!
With this attitude there is no battle even though there is discussion and debate and I think you’ve made it clear that it is only the battle you are uncomfortable with. I can tell you that I would never personally make a choice to instigate a battle of any kind. Aggression is never warranted unless as a defense of last resort against aggression already instigated by others. It’s easy to see that if everyone felt as sickened by the concept as you or I, NO ONE would ever begin a battle and thereafter there would never be any justification in it.
Unfortunately people DO begin battles. On R&S it’s generally more or less harmless but saddening all the same. I can’t count the times I’ve read someone dismissing others as evil or ignorant or worse and just turned away from it because it’s so… pointless.
(
In the "real" world, discrimination and bigotry and bullying and derisive remarks are all around us and I just want to point out that at some stage somewhere, someone made a choice to allow themselves to cross the line of respect, compassion or tolerance and this just begins a chain reaction. Like you, I would call on everyone to prioritise NOT crossing this line and eventually maybe we’d get somewhere very beautiful indeed. Am I an idealist? Sure. But is it impossible? Well there’s always a little hope and it’s that very hope that makes the world at least approach the ideal.
References :
I agree with you totally about Fireball, she DOES have a lot of well written posts and I enjoy many of her comments as well.
Dharminator, tolerance is NOT tacit approval at all. Tolerance is being willing to accept that the other person has his/her own reasons for believing what they believe and even though you disagree with that person’s beliefs you acknowledge that they DO have the right to believe in what they do.
As for the firey sword and the flood people, YOU only PROVE the point of the question by your statements. Jesus smiting everyone with a fiery sword does NOT prove that he is correct. It only proves that he has a sword and can kill whoever he wishes. Now Jesus going around loving people and laying down his life out of love for them IS proof that he loves people. A Majorly BIG difference there, don’t you think?
That’s been the problem all along. There are those among you who feel that MIGHT makes right. It does not. Example makes right. One doesn’t obtain converts by attacking those one wishes to convert. One makes converts by being loving towards those whom one wishes to convert. So far, I see very little of that from the "Smite and Fight" crowd.
Brightest Blessings,
Raji the Green Witch
References :