Every word in S T H is mined from theo and philosopical tomes of de pas and the fables still hit the charts every year mon. Solid material infinitely re workable all of it gold.
Why are many Christians so intolerant of other religions and spiritual paths?
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
"I am the way and the truth and the life" doesn't leave much room for anyone/thing else does it?
Last I heard, Buddhism was pretty tolerant of other religions. I'm thinking you are referring to what I call the "aggressive religions", Islam and Christianity.
Just skepticism.
Before we learn how to swim there may be in many cases justified skepticism but lots of people still learn to swim. O f course most of them haven't done their reassuring science and therefore have to rely on faith.So I don't think we can say the stuff dosn't work.
Yup. But it is just my opinion, not an attack on religion or their beliefs. If my opinion can shake their belief, they are not too strong in it.Has it occurred to you that it might be hitting a little too close to "home"? -
Yes, I know but we are discussing Christianity here. The Baha'i faith is very tolerant too.
Last edited:
Well you're a member of a large congregation of christians and this is a Christian discussion so I thought the question and any subsequent answer would be relevant to the discussion. I don't know that it is but since you seem to suspect my intentions I believe it now might be. I wonder would you be averse to further interrogation some afternoon.?
I'm going to stick you in that hourglass yet, JLM
Cliffy, here you go - my response to 98. Cliffy's quote: "Religion was created out of fear to promote fear" . My response - Religions may use fear, but Christianity is not a religion. Remember Motar's thread.
"The fear of the Lord is for life, and whoever has it rests satisfied , untouched by evil" Pro. 19:23
Fearing the Lord is defined as revering, admiring, standing in awe and gratitude. The use of the word does not mean to fear as in be afraid because one is in danger. Nor is it used to define God as demanding. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This sort of fear brings rest and peace.
" It is quite obvious, that most Christians, particularly the born againers, become religious because they fear their own nature, to exercise their own demons and try to find some inner peace from the constant battle in their hearts and minds. " Cliffy - We do not become Christians because we fear our own nature. We are oblivious to our nature and have no reason to fear. When the Holy Spirit comes, we see ourselves for what we are - sinners. By then it is too late for us to "exercise our demons and try to find some inner peace...". We do not need to. Who has rescued us from this body of death? That's right, Jesus.
Is everyone who is not a Christian well pleased with his behavior all the time? Do those who are not Christian think it is ok to murder, steal, cheat, lie and hate? If not, are they able to lead such lives of perfection to never sin or break their moral code? You can throw as much paint and poetry over the human nature as you like. But the bottom line is we folks are a mess.
My point was that you said "religions", not just the one, Christianity. Typo?
Right. It's a cult, according to Oxford's dictionary.
Personally; no, no, I do not "sin" (as an atheist) nor do I break my principles (and I am ignoring the bit about perfection because I do not know what it is; never having seen nor heard of an example of it). But I know that I could still be a better person.
Interesting that you redefine fear to something it is not. Fear is fear: to be afraid. The rest of that stuff is just self aggrandizement. I know plenty of people who professed to have been saved who commit adultry, steal from people who trust them, even members of their own church, beat and/or sexually molest their own children. They think they are immune to punishment because the profess to believe in Geezuz. I'm sure the percentage of Christians doing these things is not any different than non-Christians. The point is, that it doesn't make them any better and any more saved.
Fact is, I've met atheists who have more integrity and moral code than many Christians. Claiming to be saved does not ensure anything. Just ask any of the evangelists who have been caught with their pants down. You can claim all you want but Christianity is a religion by definition. Evangelicals do not get the free pass that they claim. The whole sinner bit is just a fear mechanism used by those who gravitate toward leadership to control their "flock".
Nothing can save you from your own nature. Only you can. It does not take a belief system to fly straight. It takes will. Everybody grows and evolves in their own way, in their own time. Some need others to help them along the way and some don't. Some need a belief system and some don't. Life is the greatest teacher. It is pointless to spend a life adhering to arbitrary rules laid down 2000 years ago to ensure a better afterlife. The only reality we have is right here, right now. The past is just an imperfect memory and the future is just a dream; wishful thinking.
Ironically, one group of people who AREN'T very tolerant are the atheist scum.
That disgusting post just proves my point.
The thing about scummy atheists is that they continuously bang on about the supposed "intolerance" of religions - especially Christianity, the religion they despise above any other, for which they see it as open season all the time to attack it - yet they don't realise that they themselves are extremely intolerant.
By telling Christians that their god doesn't exist (without a shred of evidence to back up their dubious claim, by the way); that the Bible is a "work of fiction" (isn't it funny how they never attack the Koran as being a work of fiction? Why is that? Too cowardly is my belief); and even putting up posters on the sides of London buses declaring "GOD PROBABLY DOESN'T EXIST (but woe betide anyone putting up posters telling the intolerant atheists that they are wrong; they are quickly censored) just proves that the intolerant atheists are far more intolerant than the supposed "intolerant Christians" that they are rather intolerantly attacking in this thread.
767 Comments 22 August 2013 Nick Cohen
It’s August, and you are a journalist stuck in the office without an idea in your head. What to write? What to do? Your empty mind brings you nothing but torment, until a thought strikes you, ‘I know, I’ll do Richard Dawkins.’
Dawkins is the sluggish pundit’s dream. It does not matter which paper you work for. Editors of all political persuasions and none will take an attack on Darwin’s representative on earth. With the predictability of the speaking clock, Owen Jones, the Peter Hitchens of the left, thinks the same as Craig Brown, Private Eye’s high Tory satirist. Tom Chivers, the Telegraph’s science blogger, says the same as Andrew Brown, the Guardian’s religious affairs correspondent. The BBC refuses to run contrary views. It assures the nation that ‘militant’ atheism is as fanatical as militant religion — despite the fact that no admirer of The God Delusion has ever planted a bomb, or called for the murder of homosexuals, Jews and apostates.
Sharp operators could sell the same piece a dozen times without changing a word. Read the papers, and you will suspect that is exactly what sharp operators have done.
Cultural conservatives have always hated Dawkins for challenging traditional Christian beliefs. The liberal-left is fine with knocking Christianity, but it hates Dawkins for being intellectually consistent and tweeting — yes, that’s right, tweeting — against Islam too. Many of the charges against his inappropriate tweets are extraordinary. Jones denounces Dawkins for tweeting ‘Who the hell do these Muslims think they are? At UCL of all places, tried to segregate the sexes in debate’. If Jones can’t see what is wrong with segregation, then not even an equality course for beginners can save him.
But let me try to be fair. Dawkins has also tweeted against all Muslims — not just sexist god-botherers at University College London. I accept that generalising about Muslims can incite racism. It is all very well atheists saying that religion is not the same as race, because you are free to decide what god if any you believe in, but cannot choose your ethnicity. But try telling that to the persecuted Christians, Shia and Sunni of the Middle East. Their religious persecution is no different from racial persecution. I would go further and concede that Dawkins’s critics had other arguments that weren’t wholly asinine, were it not for a telling detail. They never stick their necks out and defend real liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims who are being persecuted in Britain right now.
They stay silent because they are frightened of breaking with the crowd, of the faint threat of Islamist retaliation, and of absurd accusations of racism. Journalists want the easy life. They want targets who cannot hurt them. Dawkins has never hurt a fly, so he’s all right. Looked at in a certain light, however, the enemies of Nahla Mahmoud might not be.
I have picked on her, not because her case is unusual, but because it is so typical. She is a Sudanese refugee who became a leading figure in the British Council of ex-Muslims. Earlier this year Channel 4 gave her one minute and 39 seconds precisely to talk about the evils of Britain’s Sharia courts in Britain. In these institutions, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, a man can divorce his wife by simple repudiation, and women who remarry lose custody of their children. One minute and 39 seconds may not sound long enough to list their vices. But it is one minute and 39 seconds longer than the BBC has ever given her.
Nahla described how she grew up under Sharia. She was ‘always dealt with as a second-class citizen, always bought up to believe that I am an incomplete human being [who] needed a man as a guard.’
She was shocked to find the same system here in her land of refuge. ‘Muslims have been living in Britain for hundreds of years and never needed sharia courts,’ she concluded. ‘Everyone should have equal rights and live under one secular law.’
She and her family have suffered for her simple moral clarity. Salah Al Bander, a leading figure in the Cambridge Liberal Democrats, went for her. (I was going to write, ‘who, surprisingly, is a leading figure in the Cambridge Liberal Democrats’ — but given the Liberal Democrats’ awful attitudes towards women and Jews, nothing they do surprises me anymore.)
Al Bander posted an article in Arabic on the Sudanese Online website (one of the most widely read sites in Sudan and throughout the Sudanese diaspora). He called her a ‘Kafira’ (unbeliever) who was sowing discord. These are words with consequences — particularly when Al Bander added, ‘I will not forgive anyone who wants to start a battle against Islam and the beliefs of the people…’ After mosques and Sudanese newspapers took up the campaign against her, religious thugs attacked her brother and terrified her mother. Nahla told me she is now ‘very careful when I go out’.
I understand that the Cambridge Liberal Democrats have had an inquiry and decided that Al Bander’s words were misinterpreted. My point is that women like Nahla are being terrified and abused every day in Britain. I have seen Richard Dawkins speak up for them as a matter of honour and a matter of course many times, but have never heard a peep of protest from his opponents.
One day there will be a reckoning. One day, thousands who have suffered genital mutilation, religious threats and forced marriages will turn to the intellectual and political establishments of our day and ask why they did not protect them. The pathetic and discreditable reply can only be: ‘We were too busy fighting Richard Dawkins to offer you any support at all.’
SOME COMMENTS
Tristram
• 5 months ago
The left is disastrously hypocritical when it comes to Islam. We should oppose all totalitarian, misogynistic, irrational, homophobic, and untrue ideologies - not just the ones we created ourselves.
*******************************
Greenslime to Tristram
• 5 months ago
This is because it garners so many of its votes from followers of Islam. 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you', is more important than integrity!
***********************
Jackthesmilingblack
• 5 months ago
Dump Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Labour would never be elected.
**************************
Tore Sinding Bekkedal to Greenslime
• 5 months ago
That's a fundamentally conspiratorial piece of nonsense, whether it's about public workers or Muslims.
Of course a group of people is going to be predisposed to vote against politicians who rant about how terrible they are.
The left garners votes from Islam because they're the ones who aren't frantically ranting against them. No conspiracy here.
********************
blindsticks to Tore Sinding Bekkedal
• 5 months ago
We know, and so do all the little girls they ignored the cries of for all those years as victims of the ‘Asian’ grooming gangs. Not only did Labour not rant off against the assailants they tried to blame the children themselves for the crimes. Crimes they as good as ignored for nearly (so it was reported) thirty years. And what about Labour’s other voter/ friends,the gays. For years there have been reports of gays being harassed in certain areas of Tower Hamlets allegedly under ‘Sharia Law’ s Gay Free Zones. (More details on the Andrew Gilligan site/DT). It was also stated by a Labour activist- when these incidents were being reported to the police - that they did nothing - or ‘were useless’. Then the various white people who have been beaten up by Muslim gangs in racially motivated attacks. The worst case cited being the gang of Somali girls.
******************************
JoshLRussell to blindsticks
• 5 months ago
Urgh. Your such a fool. Clearly never has a violent or despicable act been committed by groups of white, atheistic men. The holocaust never happened. Joseph Fritzl didn't repeatedly rape and impregnate his own daughter. Why are these not the domain and responsibility of atheism? Or white identity? The fact you believe the nonsense justifications of the hateful few rather than listening to the majority of peaceful forward looking Muslims shows one thing: you are committed to persecuted the group as a whole, rather than blaming the individual. And that makes you ignorant and dangerous.
****************************
blindsticks to JoshLRussell
• 5 months ago
Yep, it's always 'the few' with people like you. But just compare the numbers of supporters the EDL can throw up to that the Muslims can throw up whenever it comes to the clash. Neither do these UAF or Muslim counter protesters always come with words of peace and understanding. They come with coshes, bottles of bleach, knuckledusters, knives, hammers, screwdrivers and whatever. And yet when it all goes off and ends in violence (violence usually instigated by the UAF and their Muslim allies), again, it's usually the EDL the media and establishment parties concentrate on demonising. Just saying.
In the piece Moore rightly criticises our societal inability to deal with Islamism. In particular he criticises the switch of attention which took place immediately after the murder of Drummer Rigby thanks to bogus claims of an ‘anti-Muslim backlash’. Moore also addresses the follow-up fib that a threat equal to the jihadis – or even the primary threat to our society.
*******************
JoshLRussell to blindsticks
• 5 months ago
There it is. It's the same arguments that drove anti-semitism, using one off events to imply a causation that a secret violent agenda is aiming to overthrow our society. That ended in fascism and genocide. It's rubbish and, frankly, I'm bored of hearing it.
And the fact that this ideas were hiding behind the opinions spread by Dawkins nicely highlights for me just why this sort of thinking is so vile and harmful.
***************************
ROBERT BROWN to JoshLRussell
• 5 months ago
Try walking through asian/muslim areas in London, Bradford, etc....see how long it is before you are abused, told to get back to your own area, man-handled, or beaten-up and left bleeding in the gutter, Russell. Yes, it will happen, and of course, you wouldn't dare, and go into denial. You stupid bastard.
Richard Dawkins attacks Muslim bigots, not just Christian ones. If only his enemies were as brave » The Spectator
******************************
202 comments 24 August 2013 20:32 Freddy Gray
Stephen Fry has used Nick Cohen's column as an excuse for an argument on religion. Photo: LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images
Well, well, well. Nick Cohen’s excellent column in this week’s mag has caused a stir today. Sadly, though, Nick’s astute argument became another excuse for a boring slanging match between atheists and believers. And of course Stephen Fry waded in:
Stephen Fry ✔ @stephenfry Follow
Mary had a little lamb
It's fleece was white as snow
All you religious ****s
Just **** off and go.
No more discussion with ****heads. Sorry.
5:02 PM - 22 Aug 2013
2,558 Retweets 2,787 favorites
Really? Fry’s Twitter cronies lapped that up. They always do. He’s so clever and civilised, our Stephen, bless his colourful cotton socks. Unlike those credulous maniacs who believe in God. In 2013!
Celebrity atheists always claim the rational high ground: we are calm and normal, the God squad is angry and mad. They tweet angry rubbish like the above, and still think they are morally and intellectually superior. Nick suggested there is no such thing as ‘militant’ atheism, and he’s probably right. There is a juvenile atheism, however, and its silliest high-priest is Stephen Fry.
Stephen Fry: the high-priest of juvenile atheism » Spectator Blogs
Last edited:
Thanks for the reds Blackhead and proving to one and all that you have sphincter lock.
There is not one shred of evidence that your god exists or that the bible is anything other than a book written by men. You are a very angry man, as your last post proves, who is dire need of a blow job. You are the poster boy for why not to become a Christian. Christianity doesn't seem to bring you any peace of mind. Might I suggest that you try Valium.
I'll tell you what my idea of hell is - cities. Cities are fortifications against nature.
What was the garden of Eden - a natural environment free of pollution or contamination of any kind. I was born in hell - Montreal. I now I live in what is left of paradise, the West Kootenay region of BC - in the forest. These are my neighbours"
There is not one shred of evidence that your god exists or that the bible is anything other than a book written by men. You are a very angry man, as your last post proves, who is dire need of a blow job. You are the poster boy for why not to become a Christian. Christianity doesn't seem to bring you any peace of mind. Might I suggest that you try Valium.
The main motivating factor given to non-Christians is THE FEAR OF GOING TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY. Fear of punishment for not accepting Geezuz!!! as our personal saviour. Fear is not revering or admiring. It is being terrified of being punished by some psychopath who demands constant adoration.
I'll tell you what my idea of hell is - cities. Cities are fortifications against nature.
What was the garden of Eden - a natural environment free of pollution or contamination of any kind. I was born in hell - Montreal. I now I live in what is left of paradise, the West Kootenay region of BC - in the forest. These are my neighbours"
Last edited:
Sometimes, just on a whim, I wish my world was black and white, right or wrong.
I have a girlfriend who is such. She is a gifted lab tech. She looks at those test results and she reads them and concludes. The test results conclude positive for malaria. The test results conclude negative for malaria. It spills over into her life. For her, there is no god. Behaviour is right or wrong. Human nature and nuance do not enter into it.
I have Christian friends who are such too. There is definitely a god, you are saved/you are not saved. It too can be measured like a test result. 50 indicators say the test is positive, you are saved. 50 indicators say you are evil and should be avoided.
Funnily enough, because I never discuss religion with them, I am in the saved category although I am no longer a Christian. My life philosophy, the choices I make, the trust I display about my world, my unwillingness to force life into a mold and trusting I am right where I should be, and life is exactly as it should be, and that everything about my life I have drawn to myself; the way I live my life would indicate I am a heavy duty Christian of faith. I am a bit lost and off of the path because I do not go to church. But none the less, I display heavy Christian values (to them) in their estimate.
I find that quite interesting. They never really ask. We talk around it. I have no problem with their belief; either end. I care only if they bring a positive light into my world and that they are warm loving and supportive and I trust them. Both camps meet my requirement and I meet theirs. Funny how that works.
I also have people in the middle of both ends. I am such. We dwell in the grey zone. Life is full of possibilities and probabilities, add a tiny twist in there, change a fact or allow for human differences and it alters everything. It changes the conclusion according to circumstance. We are comfortable with nuance and subtlety. We embrace it. (most days)
Sometimes especially when I face a hard decision, I think how much easier life would be if I was a black and whiter. Little thought needs to be exerted to make the 100% right choice in that world. But then I think we are all created different for a reason and everyone does their part. But then I am a gray zone dweller. Everything changes according to circumstance and or the facts presented.
I have a girlfriend who is such. She is a gifted lab tech. She looks at those test results and she reads them and concludes. The test results conclude positive for malaria. The test results conclude negative for malaria. It spills over into her life. For her, there is no god. Behaviour is right or wrong. Human nature and nuance do not enter into it.
I have Christian friends who are such too. There is definitely a god, you are saved/you are not saved. It too can be measured like a test result. 50 indicators say the test is positive, you are saved. 50 indicators say you are evil and should be avoided.
Funnily enough, because I never discuss religion with them, I am in the saved category although I am no longer a Christian. My life philosophy, the choices I make, the trust I display about my world, my unwillingness to force life into a mold and trusting I am right where I should be, and life is exactly as it should be, and that everything about my life I have drawn to myself; the way I live my life would indicate I am a heavy duty Christian of faith. I am a bit lost and off of the path because I do not go to church. But none the less, I display heavy Christian values (to them) in their estimate.
I find that quite interesting. They never really ask. We talk around it. I have no problem with their belief; either end. I care only if they bring a positive light into my world and that they are warm loving and supportive and I trust them. Both camps meet my requirement and I meet theirs. Funny how that works.
I also have people in the middle of both ends. I am such. We dwell in the grey zone. Life is full of possibilities and probabilities, add a tiny twist in there, change a fact or allow for human differences and it alters everything. It changes the conclusion according to circumstance. We are comfortable with nuance and subtlety. We embrace it. (most days)
Sometimes especially when I face a hard decision, I think how much easier life would be if I was a black and whiter. Little thought needs to be exerted to make the 100% right choice in that world. But then I think we are all created different for a reason and everyone does their part. But then I am a gray zone dweller. Everything changes according to circumstance and or the facts presented.