Win a copy of Programming with Types this week in the Angular and TypeScript forum
or The Design of Web APIs in the Web Services forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Knute Snortum
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Frits Walraven
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis

Religious tolerance

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 183
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Great site!
Have a look:
religious tolerance.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sorry, but no self respecting fanatic is going to let an ugly website distract him from of his duty of killing non-believers.
 
Bartender
Posts: 2205
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hey, everyone knows that L. Ron Hubbard and Galactic Overlord Xenu are the only true way to salvation!!
http://www.xenu.net/
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
First off Omar I respect Saladin who was a Kurdish Islamic warrior in the 12 century.
Why? because he had a code of Honor, that Honor was about never killing innocents,
respecting others (A famous rabbi was his doctor) and the respected "cease fires" which
back in the 12 century was an accomplishment.
I know I am tough on Islamic fundamentalists but I also despise Nazi's and Communists equally.
Also not all religions are the same, Nazism is a "religion" does that mean that because it is a
religion that is should be tolerated?
The same goes with the Thugees a cult in India that strangled its victims for the purpose of sport.
Just because a set of beliefs is grouped together and marketed as a "religion" does not mean that
anyone should swallow it lock, stock and barrel.? Right?
On another note, all religions tell you how to think, which is inheritantly totalitarian, since they
all have a set of beliefs which a "believer" of a religion must not question. Even when these
beliefs are in conflict with reality and common sense.

Anyway This is a better website:
http://www.skeptic.com/
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Erich brant>:

On another note, all religions tell you how to think, which is inheritantly totalitarian, since they
all have a set of beliefs which a "believer" of a religion must not question. Even when these
beliefs are in conflict with reality and common sense.


Umm.... actually those are patently false statements, which you cannot back up anyway. Are you a theologian who is familiar enough with the teachings of all religions? I would tend to think anyone who would make such blanket statements is in fact not sufficiently familiar with any religion. For the sake of argument, might I also ask whose "reality" and whose "common sense" you would be referring to?
I cannot speak for all religions, but I can enlighten you to a couple of points about the one I am familiar with
1) The Church does not tell people how to think or what to believe. It does however tell you what the Church's interpretation of the Bible is, as well as the Church's stance on various issues.
2) The Church does have a set of "beliefs" (see above) but practitioners are free to question them. The very nature of religion is questioning. Does this make them any less a member of their Church just because they might have issues with some of the Church's stance on something? Nope.
The one religion i can think of off the top of my head that might fit your definition is liberalism, although the truly devout practiotioners of that religion will surely deny this.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

1) The Church does not tell people how to think or what to believe. It does however tell you what the Church's interpretation of the Bible is, as well as the Church's stance on various issues.



wow I did not know that Church does not tell people how to think or what to believe

Believe in God and in Christ


from : http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-10-faith.htm
from the same URL


In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned."


but still The Church does not tell people how to think or what to believe.


2) practitioners are free to question them. The very nature of religion is questioning.


Have a look on Q & A session
Q & A session:
Questions Lesson 10
Believing In God And Christ
(click on the button of the answer of your choice)
1) (John 8:24) If we do not believe in Christ
We will still be saved.
We will die in our sins and be lost.
Our sins will still be forgiven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) If we die in our sins we will still be saved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) (Hebrews 11:6) Without faith in God
It is impossible to please Him.
We can still please Him.
We can still go to Heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) If we don't believe in God and Christ we will still do what they tell us to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) (John 12:42-43) Many people who believe in Christ are ashamed to confess Him
Because they love Christ.
Because they do not want to embarrass Christ.
Because they love the praise of men more than the praise of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) It is good to love the praise of men more than the praise of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) (James 2:19) If we believe there is one God, we do well,
The demons also believe and tremble.
The demons do not believe in God.
And this alone will get us to heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) The demons do not believe there is one God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) (John 6:29) Believing in Christ whom God sent
Is not a work of God.
Is not required by God.
Is the work of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10) The work of God is not to believe in Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) (John 14:21) We show our love for Christ
When we say we love Him but don't do what He says.
When we have His commandments and keep them.
When we only observe some of His commandments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12) Our obedience shows our love for God and Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13) (Matthew 28:19-20) We are to observe how many of the commandments of Christ?
Some.
Those we choose.
All.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14) We need to only observe some of the commands of Christ.

from http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-18-obeying-the-gospel.htm
you have to scroll down to see the QA
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Before quoting me out of context, please re-read all of my post. You missed (ignored) this very crucual statement:

I cannot speak for all religions, but I can enlighten you to a couple of points about the one I am familiar with.


Therefore, as is plainly evident, when I say "The Church", I am referring to the one I stated I am familiar with, not with every Church in known existance. "Christianity" is not a single religion. There are in fact many branches of Christianity, which is itself a derivative of Judaism. Probably the only thing these different branches of Christianity agree on is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. I did not state which branch of Christianity I was referring to, further rendering your statements meritless. Actually I didn't even specify Christianity, but I guess that can be inferred since I used the word "Church".
So in other words, any attacks you would like to make against Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, are only based in ignorance if you cannot even choose which flavor of a religion and its doctine that you are attacking.
Now really I was hoping I could have gotten somebody to bite on that offhand comment I made about liberalism being a religion.
[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Before quoting me out of context, please re-read all of my post. You missed (ignored) this very crucual statement:


I cannot speak for all religions, but I can enlighten you to a couple of points about the one I am familiar with.



I said everything regarding this statement only.
I thought you are familar with one religious about which you are enlightening us and that is Christianity ..
so I thought why not enlight you too about your one familar religion

when I say "The Church", I am referring to the one I stated I am familiar with


By God ... I did not know that there is Chruch in this world which says there is Christ but its OK of you do not believe HIM, you will not be condemend if you do not beleive in Christ.
I only knew that I will be condemened as I do not believe in Christ ... forget Christ any God.
Can you send me the address of your Chruch, I would love to visit it.
Will you please tell us more about your this Unique Churuch.
There is only one religion Humanism so enjoy it.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think Mapraputa Is is your friend otherwise he would have said :
---------------------------------
Heck, I even do not think Jason Menard is an idiot, he is just fool.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The site is entirely biased and misleads.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7292
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Now really I was hoping I could have gotten somebody to bite on that offhand comment I made about liberalism being a religion.


You might have, if you hadn't tipped your hand. Linking to the National Review made the bait smell more human than fishy. No bite for you or your Buckleyite friends.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Some anonymous jackass said:
I thought you are familar with one religious about which you are enlightening us and that is Christianity


As I said before, which you are unable to grasp, Christianity is not a single religion. The main branches of Christianity are divided among the Eastern and Western branches. The Eastern branches of Christianity may be divided between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. The Western branches may be divided between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Some of the major branches of Eastern Orthodoxy include: Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukranian Orthodox.
The major branches of Oriental Orthodoxy are: Armenian Orthodox, (Egyptian) Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church.
There are two further major subdivisions of Catholicism: Roman and Non-Roman. Various orders of Roman Catholicism are: Cistercian, Franciscan, Jesuit, Redemptorists, and Xaverian. Some Non-Roman (not in communion with Rome) Catholic Churches are: Aglipayan, American Catholic Church (Syro-Antiochan), Catholic Life, Christ Catholic, North American Old Roman Catholic, and Old Roman Catholic.
Protestantism includes: Jehova's Witnesses, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormon, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, Anglican (including Anglican Orthodox and Church of England), Episcopalian (Charismatic, American, Reformed Southern), Baptist (countless flavors of Baptist abound), and Lutheran. There are many others.
So my ignorant friend, I re-iterate, it is pointless to make blanket statements about any religion, including Christianity. Trying to say "Christians believe this" or "Christians believe that" only shows you have no clue what you are talking about, as the many branches of Christianity hold widely varying views of Christianity, and differing interpretations of the Bible.
So which version of Christianity were you talking about with those well-informed statements you were making? Russian Orthodoxy? Southern Baptist? Egyptian Coptic? Roman Catholic? Seventh-Day Adventist? Lutheran? Church of England? Come on man you must have some idea what you are talking about if the words are coming out of your mouth (or flowing from your keyboard), right?
As for humanism, I think the whole concept is a little arrogant and self-centered for my personal tastes, but whatever floats your boat.
[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

You might have, if you hadn't tipped your hand. Linking to the National Review made the bait smell more human than fishy. No bite for you or your Buckleyite friends.


Overall the National Review is a little bit too conservative for my tastes, but I still think the guy who wrote that piece wasn't too far off. I'd heard similar sentiments elsewhere (can't remember where, sorry no source), but that is what came up when I did the Google search.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7292
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I read it; I dismissed it as the musing of a paranoid coat-and-tie journalist who views "liberalism" as the source of all PC rhetoric. "Those bleeding hearts are out to get us" etc., etc.
I don't think he's so much way off as being a pot calling the kettle black. What, are we now harking back to the days of a kinder, gentler executive branch? What happened to dividing the entire world into Them and Us? I think that's all that article hopes to do: take our international posture to a domestic, political plane.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7292
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This site is entirely smart and mentors.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
This site is entirely smart and mentors.

You mean JavaRanch, right?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Reporter>:
I think Mapraputa Is is your friend otherwise he would have said :
---------------------------------
Heck, I even do not think Jason Menard is an idiot, he is just fool.


Just thought I should point out that Map is a girl.
On an unrelated note, what is tolerance but hypocrisy? (And what play is the main clause of the previous sentance quoting?)
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7292
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thomas: Of course! That you should even have to ask...
All: Isn't "anonymous coward" redundant in this forum?
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
All: Isn't "anonymous coward" redundant in this forum?


If we assume he/she is real "anonymous coward", not an imposter. We already have this epistemological problem with two noams... chomskys? Chomskies? One is real and all other false:

Originally posted by <noam chomsky> here:
I the reel noam. u others r imposters.


So we have:
1) noam chomsky
2) real noam chomsky
I would suggest to re-write the above sentence more accurate:
"I the reel <noam> u others r imposters."
Otherwise how we should refer to "real" Noam Chomsky? "Real real Noam Chomsky?" :roll:
Now back to our "anonymous coward". If he/she is genuine "anonymous coward", then the name is redundant. But what if not? What if somebody hijacked the account and hides behind the name "anonymous coward"? Logically thinking, shouldn't we admit that in this case we cannot say for sure whether he/she is "anonymous coward" or not?
[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm sure many of you know it already, but for those who have never read slashdot, that's where Anonymous Coward comes from. [b]Anonymous Coward[b] is the name that is printed in the name field of anyone who posts anonymously there. If you're not a linux zealot or conspiracy theorist, there's not much point in reading slashdot anyway IMHO, although occassionally they do have links to interesting tech related news items.
But yeah, Anonymous Coward may be redundant.
 
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!