Various religions on nonbelievers

[Sanamas]

There's one thing I've been wondering about for a while now. What do the official doctrines of various religions say about atheists and other nonbelievers?


I'm curious to see just how tolerant the various religions of the world are towards those who don't believe in their doctrines. Would anyone who is either knowledgable or a member of any religion mind sharing what they know?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Sanamas
There's one thing I've been wondering about for a while now. What do the official doctrines of various religions say about atheists and other nonbelievers?


I'm curious to see just how tolerant the various religions of the world are towards those who don't believe in their doctrines. Would anyone who is either knowledgable or a member of any religion mind sharing what they know?

Sanamas,

Can you define "tolerant". This way we are all on the same page. The word "tolerant" can have several connotations. It can mean to respect other's beliefs or practices or it can mean to accept others beliefs or practices you hold to be false.

[Yahweh]

Very good question... but I dont think it can be answered by one person in one post. Not even Christianity has one set answer or even set of beliefs. From what I'm told by friends of all different sectors of Christianity including Baptist, Mormon, Lutheran, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. theres a number of things that can happen including all of the following: The most popular thing I hear is "God doesnt send people to Hell, people send people to Hell by not accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and Savior and not accepting God Almighty as their Creator", somepeople say that you go to Hell if your a nonbeliever, some say that your soul ceases to exist and you just stop 'being', some others say God is all forgiving and accepts all in, others elaborate on that saying as long as your a good person you get accepted into Heaven.

But thats just Christianity alone... I'm pretty sure theres a whole massive wide field of other possible outcomes in all different religions.

[TylerD]

It all depends on who you ask. There are fundamentalists in every religion who say that non-believers will have very bad things happen to them. Almost every sect of Christianity/Islam say that non-believers either go to hell or cease to exist. I'm not sure about Judaism, Zoaroastrianism, Hinduism, etc. However, most of them that I've met have been pretty tolerant of atheist.

[LCBOY]

There is a difference between "official doctrines" and what the Bible says. I am a Christian and a skeptic so I don't accept any "official doctrine" unless it jives with the Bible. So to answer your question, as a christian I obviously disagree with the atheistic belief that there is no God.

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, I don't know. Let's see what the bible has to say about non-believers.

2 Chr 15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Matt 10:14-15 Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God.

Matt 10:13 "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."


Matt 12:30 "Jesus says, "He that is not with me is against me."

John 3:36 "The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. "


These are just a few excerpts about non-believers. Of course, there are some nice ones in that NT as well that totally contradict these. So one can be a christian and be tolerant and accepting of non-christians, or one can be christian and be non-tolerant... either way is condoned by that bible. It all depends on which parts the particular christian believes to be true and which parts they pick to be "figurative" (ie.. not believe).

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY
There is a difference between "official doctrines" and what the Bible says. I am a Christian and a skeptic so I don't accept any "official doctrine" unless it jives with the Bible. So to answer your question, as a christian I obviously disagree with the atheistic belief that there is no God.

It appears to me that you accept the bible in its entirety, THEN you are a skeptic from that point on.

[Sanamas]

Well, I guess there are several parts to this question. There's whatever is said in a religion's holy scripture (if it has any), the official doctrine of a particular sect, and then the actual attitudes of its followers (which can greatly vary). I know that each religion usually has quite a variety of sects and whatnot, so I'd expect different answers for each one.

By tolerance, I'm looking for answers like "religion A says smite the nonbelievers, religion B says love them as your neighbors" and "Followers of A mostly regard the smite the nonbelievers thing as barbaric and no longer practice it."

[Man of jade]

One big thing that Jesus said was "love thy nieghbour." killing certainly isnt a loving act. Nuff said.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Man of jade
One big thing that Jesus said was "love thy nieghbour." killing certainly isnt a loving act. Nuff said.

Ahh, yes.. the golden rule does appear in the bible a couple times. However, it seems that many christians don't regard nonbelievers as neighbors.

History tends to show that the more secular a religion gets, the more tolerant and peaceful it becomes.


Sanamas, your question is extremely broad and covers way too many varieties of superstition. My answer is this, most religions are not tolerant to other religions or nonbelievers. It's the secularization of the free world that is getting people to tolerate each other.

[evildave]

There is also the historic "Better off DEAD than not believe as we do." people. Inquisitions, crusades, jihads and pogroms galore.

[Sanamas]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Sanamas, your question is extremely broad and covers way too many varieties of superstition. My answer is this, most religions are not tolerant to other religions or nonbelievers. It's the secularization of the free world that is getting people to tolerate each other.

Yeah, I just realized that myself.

Hmm, maybe I should just try one thing at a time. I'll start with Islam. What does the Koran say about nonbelievers?

[Yahzi]

Ask a fundie preacher which is worse in the eyes of God: an axe-murdering homosexual rapist, or an athiest.

He will tell you that the murderer still has a chance at redemption.

The answer is: all religions agree that atheists are a common enemy.

[TylerD]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Ask a fundie preacher which is worse in the eyes of God: an axe-murdering homosexual rapist, or an athiest.

He will tell you that the murderer still has a chance at redemption.

The answer is: all religions agree that atheists are a common enemy.

I would disagree there, "All religions" is a pretty bit jump from Christian Fundamentalists. True, Christian fundies (as well as there desert counterparts, the Muslims) do agree that we are the scum of the earth, I'm not sure about other religions however.

[Man of jade]

I disagree with Yahzi, as I have several friends who are actually preachers and would most likely say the opposite.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Oh, I don't know. Let's see what the bible has to say about non-believers.

2 Chr 15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Matt 10:14-15 Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God.

Matt 10:13 "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."


Matt 12:30 "Jesus says, "He that is not with me is against me."

John 3:36 "The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. "


These are just a few excerpts about non-believers. Of course, there are some nice ones in that NT as well that totally contradict these. So one can be a christian and be tolerant and accepting of non-christians, or one can be christian and be non-tolerant... either way is condoned by that bible. It all depends on which parts the particular christian believes to be true and which parts they pick to be "figurative" (ie.. not believe).

Thank you for making my point for me. The Bible has certain things to say about "non-believers" of which you've stated some specific verses. Man-made "official doctrines" may or may not agree with these verses which was the point I was trying to make. :)

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Ahh, yes.. the golden rule does appear in the bible a couple times. However, it seems that many christians don't regard nonbelievers as neighbors.

I have to disagree on this. I can only speak of myself, of course. But some of my closest friends are "non-believers". We spend time together enjoying each other's company. I don't speak of my faith unless they ask me. On occasion thay have asked me and I've shared my faith with them. Some have even come to church with me out of curiosity. When they are going through some difficult times in life I pray for them and they appreciate that. So I disagree with the characterization that christians don't regard non-believers as neighbors.

Sanamas, your question is extremely broad and covers way too many varieties of superstition. My answer is this, most religions are not tolerant to other religions or nonbelievers. It's the secularization of the free world that is getting people to tolerate each other. [/QUOTE]

I agree the question is broad. I believe that I am a tolerant person. I believe a person is free to worship anything they want, Allah, Budha, Satan, Mother Earth, etc. I believe that a person is free to not worship also. However, if you were ask if I believe if other religions are true I will say no, they are false religions. Does that make me "intolerant"? Besides, what would a person in another religion care what I think anyway? If they truly believe their religion is the "true way" they shouldn't care at all what I think.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Thank you for making my point for me. The Bible has certain things to say about "non-believers" of which you've stated some specific verses. Man-made "official doctrines" may or may not agree with these verses which was the point I was trying to make. :)

Aren't these verses man-made?

[Dancing David]

The buddha did not specificaly condem non followers.

Amongst pagans there is as much intolerance as you would find anywhere, but it does cause some to try to be nice to everyone.

I think that recent history has proved the Hiduva to be somewhat intoerant of Islam, but it's a longer battle than the recent riots.

[Jet Grind]

The "big three" monotheistic religions in the world today (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) openly condemn non-believers to eternity in hell (okay, I'm not quite sure about Judaism, as not all sects of it believe in hell). I think you will find intolerance of non-followers in every religion, except maybe for Buddhism. However, most Hindus, Taoists, Pagans, etc. that I know have been pretty tolerant toward atheism and other religions.

[ShottleBop]

The "big three" monotheistic religions in the world today (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) openly condemn non-believers to eternity in hell (okay, I'm not quite sure about Judaism, as not all sects of it believe in hell).

Judaism is not an evangelizing religion. To the extent that Jews believe in an afterlife, they believe that "the righteous of all nations shall have a poriton in the World to Come."

There is no Jewish dogma regarding the existence or nature of hell. Whatever ideas there are, are pure speculation.

From www.jewfaq.org: Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.

More detail (from the same source--but again, remember that this is not dogma--I was raised as a Conservative Jew, attending Sunday and Hebrew school for several years, and was taught nothing about heaven and hell, other than the generic belief the righteous of all nations have a share in whatever heaven there may be): Do non-Jews have a place in Olam Ha-Ba? Although there are a few statements to the contrary in the Talmud, the predominant view of Judaism is that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Statements to the contrary were not based on the notion that membership in Judaism was required to get into Olam Ha-Ba, but were grounded in the observation that non-Jews were not righteous people. If you consider the behavior of the surrounding peoples at the time that the Talmud was written, you can understand the rabbis' attitudes. By the time of Rambam, the belief was firmly entrenched that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba.

Gan Eden and Gehinnom

The place of spiritual reward for the righteous is often referred to in Hebrew as Gan Eden (GAHN ehy-DEHN) (the Garden of Eden). This is not the same place where Adam and Eve were; it is a place of spiritual perfection. Specific descriptions of it vary widely from one source to another. One source says that the peace that one feels when one experiences Shabbat properly is merely one-sixtieth of the pleasure of the afterlife. Other sources compare the bliss of the afterlife to the joy of sex or the warmth of a sunny day. Ultimately, though, the living can no more understand the nature of this place than the blind can understand color.

Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba.

Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse.

This 12-month limit is repeated in many places in the Talmud, and it is connected to the mourning cycles and the recitation of Kaddish. See Life, Death and Mourning.

[Jet Grind]

Thanks for the creections ShottleBob.

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by LCBOY
There is a difference between "official doctrines" and what the Bible says. I am a Christian and a skeptic so I don't accept any "official doctrine" unless it jives with the Bible. So to answer your question, as a christian I obviously disagree with the atheistic belief that there is no God.

I realise you are probably just being glib when you say "jives with the Bible", but I can't help wonder what you might say if you were to not be so glib - in other words, can you elaborate on your method for assessing "official doctrine".

For the record, dictionary.com includes the following definitions for jive(s):

v. intr. Slang To talk nonsense; kid.
v. tr. Slang To cajole or mislead.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by EdwardG


I realise you are probably just being glib when you say "jives with the Bible", but I can't help wonder what you might say if you were to not be so glib - in other words, can you elaborate on your method for assessing "official doctrine".

For the record, dictionary.com includes the following definitions for jive(s):

v. intr. Slang To talk nonsense; kid.
v. tr. Slang To cajole or mislead.


Are you jiving me?!!! :D

I apologize for using slang. I can see where it may cause confusion. What I meant was that whenever I read an "official doctrine" I compare it to what the Bible says. I read and study and detemine to the best of my ability whether an offical doctrine is in line with Biblical teaching. I realize that sometimes this process of evaluation may be complex because the Bible does not address many issues directly.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by triadboy


Aren't these verses man-made?

Historical Biblical Christianty has always held the Bible as more than a human work of writing. Divine Inpiration is a fundamental principle in Christianity. Divine Inspiration implies that the Bible is God's authoriative self-revelation to mankind. God guided the authors of the various books of the Bible to write what God wanted to be written using the writer's style and personality. Now, I realize a lot of people may see that as just woo-woo and they are entitiled to their opinion. I am just stating how the Bible is regarded within Christianity

Triadboy, did you study this when you wrote your master's thesis? You stated previously that you wrote your master's thesis on Christianity. Was there a specific topic that you wrote about? I'd be interested in reading your thesis if that is possible.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Jet Grind
The "big three" monotheistic religions in the world today (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) openly condemn non-believers to eternity in hell (okay, I'm not quite sure about Judaism, as not all sects of it believe in hell). I think you will find intolerance of non-followers in every religion, except maybe for Buddhism. However, most Hindus, Taoists, Pagans, etc. that I know have been pretty tolerant toward atheism and other religions.

Can you explain what youy mean by "openly condemn"?. I have been a Christian almost five years now and as far as I can remember I have never openly condemned anyone to an eternity in hell. Even if I did, I have no authority or power to carry out any condemnation anyway. Does "condemn" not imply the ability and the authority to punish the person being condemned?

It's my understanding that this thread was opened to discuss what views various "religions" have on non-believers. This could means many things. To a Muslim I am a "non-believer" because I declare Jesus, the Christ, Son of the Living God. This is considered blasphemy and punishable by death in certain countries.

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I realize that sometimes this process of evaluation may be complex because the Bible does not address many issues directly.

I can only imagine the complexity of trying to find guidance in the Bible. After all, if I understand correctly, it's not a list of rules for the modern Christian, even if it may have been such a list for ancient (OT) believers. I can imagine that it must be especially difficult to discern between general advice to be taken in principle and specific advice to be taken literally. How would moral stories be distinguished from the detailed instructions.

Care to share more thoughts?

Oh and by the way, I should make it clear that I'm an Atheist - technically agnostic. Don't want to seem to be baiting :)

[zakur]

Originally posted by EdwardG
For the record, dictionary.com includes the following definitions for jive(s):
v. intr. Slang To talk nonsense; kid.
v. tr. Slang To cajole or mislead.
This is a common misuse. The correct term in this instance would have been jibe not jive:Per Dicitonary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jibe)

jibe
intr.v. Informal jibed, jib·ing, jibes

To be in accord; agree: Your figures jibe with mine.

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by zakur
This is a common misuse. The correct term in this instance would have been jibe not jive:

Ah yes, thanks, I should have picked that.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by EdwardG


I can only imagine the complexity of trying to find guidance in the Bible. After all, if I understand correctly, it's not a list of rules for the modern Christian, even if it may have been such a list for ancient (OT) believers. I can imagine that it must be especially difficult to discern between general advice to be taken in principle and specific advice to be taken literally. How would moral stories be distinguished from the detailed instructions.

Care to share more thoughts?

Oh and by the way, I should make it clear that I'm an Atheist - technically agnostic. Don't want to seem to be baiting :)

I try to take as simple approach as I can. I just read the Bible and lean the fundamental principles from it. I do pray and ask God "guide" me. This doesn't me that I check my brain at the door and just expect Him to do everything for me. I like to read a lot and I tend to be stubborn. I question everything, even what the Bible says. In a way I appoach the Bible as philosphy, as a way of thinking and living my life. I hope this helps. I can give more detail if you'd like.

[thaiboxerken]

In a way I appoach the Bible as philosphy, as a way of thinking and living my life. I hope this helps.

This is the vague type of answer that isn't unexpected. This is what I call the Burger King christian, you have your god Yahweh.



;)

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In a way I appoach the Bible as philosphy, as a way of thinking and living my life. I hope this helps.

This is the vague type of answer that isn't unexpected. This is what I call the Burger King christian, you have your god Yahweh.



;)

Your response was too vague for me to understand. :)

Seriously though, can you explain what you mean?

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I try to take as simple approach as I can. I just read the Bible and lean the fundamental principles from it. I do pray and ask God "guide" me. This doesn't me that I check my brain at the door and just expect Him to do everything for me. I like to read a lot and I tend to be stubborn. I question everything, even what the Bible says. In a way I appoach the Bible as philosphy, as a way of thinking and living my life. I hope this helps. I can give more detail if you'd like.

Yes it does help explain how you use the bible as a guide, even though I don't jive with your method. :D Thanks.

Another question if you don't mind - would you expect certain passages of the bible to change their meaning for you over time, or would you expect them to remain constant once you have discerned their meaning for the first time. I suppose I'm wondering how much "god speaking to you" influences your interpretation.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by EdwardG


Yes it does help explain how you use the bible as a guide, even though I don't jive with your method. :D Thanks.

Another question if you don't mind - would you expect certain passages of the bible to change their meaning for you over time, or would you expect them to remain constant once you have discerned their meaning for the first time. I suppose I'm wondering how much "god speaking to you" influences your interpretation.

I've had this discussion with some of my Christian friends. It is my view that the Bible was written by SPECIFIC men, at a SPECIFIC time, within a SPECIFIC culture, for a SPECIFIC purpose with a SPECIFIC meaning. So I look for the specific meaning of a particular book of the Bible. Obviosuly how I apply a certain teaching will differ from how people in the year 850 AD would apply it. Application is the key. Others believe that the Bible's meaning changes with time. The problem with this is that it can negate a previous meaning and it can lead to bizarre "interpretations".

[Loki]

LCBOY,

Although you addressed the question to Jet Grind...

Can you explain what youy mean by "openly condemn"?. I have been a Christian almost five years now and as far as I can remember I have never openly condemned anyone to an eternity in hell.
You have been a self-proclaimed Christian, but are you a member of the "big 3"? This is a simple circle of logic, and one which plagues such discussions.

If I define a "christian" as doing "X", and you do not do "X", then you aren't a christian (no matter what you think) by my definition. But you can't argue that my definition is wrong simply because you don't fit it! We have two simple choices in such a case :

1. My definition is wrong;
2. You aren't *really* a christian.

How do you propose to demonstrate that #1 is incorrect, but without referring to yourself?

If you turn the question around and ask me how would I go about demonstating that #2 is correct, I could start by pointing you at the the Catholic catechism - there's 900 million people who seem to disagree with you in a few key areas (like "the fate awaiting unbelievers"). Are you baptised?

[Finella]

This is a really interesting topic, although others are right -- it has the potential to be huge.

I actually just went through the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer (for the Episcopal Church, USA) and you know what? This is the only part that mentions hell:

"Q: What do we mean by heaven and hell?
A: By heaven, we mean eternal life in our enjoyment of God; by hell, we mean eternal death in our rejection of God."

Note: it never says that belief in Jesus is required to go to heaven. In the whole Catechism, there is nothing regarding those who do not believe. Even in this part there is no mention:

"Q: What, then, is our assurnce as Christians?
A: Our assurance as Christians is that nothing, not even death, shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen."

(BCP, p.862)

I knew my church was pretty vague on this, but I didn't realize we were that vague.

As an aside, LCBOY, I found the most amazingly bizarre Bible in Borders -- if you're looking for hard-core, relevant-to-today's-modern-lifestyle kinda scripture interpretation. It's a teen's Bible that answers all of your life's questions with chapter and verse references. I think God's supposed to have some kind of opinion about computers and the internet in 1 Corinthians somewhere. It was waaaay out there for me.

---,---'--{@

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Loki
LCBOY,

Although you addressed the question to Jet Grind...


You have been a self-proclaimed Christian, but are you a member of the "big 3"? This is a simple circle of logic, and one which plagues such discussions.

If I define a "christian" as doing "X", and you do not do "X", then you aren't a christian (no matter what you think) by my definition. But you can't argue that my definition is wrong simply because you don't fit it! We have two simple choices in such a case :

1. My definition is wrong;
2. You aren't *really* a christian.

How do you propose to demonstrate that #1 is incorrect, but without referring to yourself?

If you turn the question around and ask me how would I go about demonstating that #2 is correct, I could start by pointing you at the the Catholic catechism - there's 900 million people who seem to disagree with you in a few key areas (like "the fate awaiting unbelievers"). Are you baptised?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Big 3"? Do mean the three largest Christian "denominations?" I need to read the Catholic catechism. I haven't read it since I was a boy. I really don't go to a particular church right now, though I went to a non-denominational church for almost five years. I disagree with the Catholic Church in that they believe in the "Holy Scriptures AND Holy Tradition" While I hold to "Sola Scriptura" principle. I don't think all 900 million hold hold to every single Catholic teaching. Abortion is a highly controverial issue, especially since a large number of Catholics DISAGREE with the Vatican.

Yes, I am baptised. As to what makes a person a Christian...Before I answer I like to hear from others, believers and non-believers, what they think a "Christian" is. I'm sure we'll get some interesting answers.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Finella


As an aside, LCBOY, I found the most amazingly bizarre Bible in Borders -- if you're looking for hard-core, relevant-to-today's-modern-lifestyle kinda scripture interpretation. It's a teen's Bible that answers all of your life's questions with chapter and verse references. I think God's supposed to have some kind of opinion about computers and the internet in 1 Corinthians somewhere. It was waaaay out there for me.

---,---'--{@

The number of translations out there is getting a bit out of hand. There seems to be a Bible for every person. I like a Bible that don't have too much commentary. I like to discover things on my own, and not let other people's views influence me.

[Loki]

LCBOY,

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Big 3"?
Sorry I was unclear - the orignal question was in the context of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so I just used "big 3" as an abreviation. Depending upon your exact acceptance of various combinations of doctrine (OT, Jesus, ressurection, etc) you might actually be able to shoe-horn yourself into any of these!

I disagree with the Catholic Church in that they believe in the "Holy Scriptures AND Holy Tradition"
Hey - so do I! Of course, this immediately disqualifies you (well, as ceo_esq so complicatedly points out, pending further case-by-case review of course) from calling yourself a True Christian, since only Catholics are True Christians (according to them).

I don't think all 900 million hold hold to every single Catholic teaching.
I'd agree, but that's another topic! Just how Catholic are the Catholics!

Really, it's like Gregor said to ehbowen - you're not a christian, you're an LCBOYite. You just happen to have a lot of common ground with christians (and Muslims, and Jews) in your own little personal faith/theology.

Is your baptism a Catholic baptism?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by LCBOY
It can mean to respect other's beliefs or practices or it can mean to accept others beliefs or practices you hold to be false.

Tolerance does not mean the latter. Ever. Who told you that it did?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by c4ts


Tolerance does not mean the latter. Ever. Who told you that it did?

Tolerance does not mean acceptance. Tolerance means that one simply "puts up with" something. Like the christians tolerate the muslims, they might hate them or think that muslims are all going to hell, but they don't take up arms and try to get rid of muslims in the USA. Tolerance isn't a "love" or "like" issue, it's more of a cease-fire type of attitude.

It's like G Bush Sr, he tolerates atheists, but he sure doesn't accept them as being real USA citizens.



LCBoy, my Burger King reference simply means that you'll read the bible and not take it for what it says, but for what you'd like it to say. You'll only believe certain parts are applicable to you and others, while other parts are "outdated" or not to be believed. In a Burger King, one can pick and choose what they want on their Whopper. You've made your own Bible Whopper, and added plenty of cheese.

;)

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LCBoy, my Burger King reference simply means that you'll read the bible and not take it for what it says, but for what you'd like it to say. You'll only believe certain parts are applicable to you and others, while other parts are "outdated" or not to be believed. In a Burger King, one can pick and choose what they want on their Whopper. You've made your own Bible Whopper, and added plenty of cheese.

;)

Wow! thaiboxerken, you must be clairvoyant. If your are, James Randi have a one million dollar prize waiting for you! :D

Seriously, though, I read the Bible and try understand what it says, not what I like it say. You sure make a lot of assumptions about me even though you do not know me.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Wow! thaiboxerken, you must be clairvoyant. If your are, James Randi have a one million dollar prize waiting for you! :D

Seriously, though, I read the Bible and try understand what it says, not what I like it say. You sure make a lot of assumptions about me even though you do not know me.

Not an assumption, a conclusion based on reality. The bible is full of so many contradictions that every christian has to pick and choose what parts to believe and adhere to, and which parts are 'outdated' or 'figurative'.


That's the problem with holy books, they are so cluttered and self-contradictory that any belief can sprout from them. Using your bible, it can be justified to say killing homosexuals is ok AND to say it's wrong to kill homosexuals at the same time. This is just one example. Subjective interpretation is a must if one is to believe the bible is "god's" word.