• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

ceo_esq said:
First of all - and I would appreciate a reply here - when have I ever claimed that the Bible is a Holy Book around which anyone should build his life? I would no sooner say such a thing than you would.
Click to expand...

Then why are you always an apologist for Christianity?

Second, no one's talking about disregarding the text. When faced with a text that could be interpreted in more than one way
Click to expand...

Full stop. We're not talking about passages which are open to interpretation.

Edit: Here's an example of a perfectly clear and unambiguous passage which you have falsely accused me of interpreting in the most ridiculous way possible.

On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

Pray for anything in Jesus's name, and you will get it.

In Jesus's name, I pray for flying pickles with wings to conquer the moon.

See? No flying pickles with wings on the moon.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
I suppose so. Neither I nor Google know what you're talking about. :confused:
Click to expand...

A friend of mine taking a linguistics class (I believe), had to find as many interpretations of that sentence as possible (I think the bare minimum to pass that assignment was 6 or 8, can't remember). My point is there's always a lot more room for interpretation than there might appear to be (without having to twist definitions).
 
Jorghnassen said:
A friend of mine taking a linguistics class (I believe), had to find as many interpretations of that sentence as possible (I think the bare minimum to pass that assignment was 6 or 8, can't remember). My point is there's always a lot more room for interpretation than there might appear to be (without having to twist definitions).
Click to expand...

Well, this is pretty clear.

On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

And so are the other eight instances of the same sort of promise in the Bible I quoted earlier.
 
Jorghnassen said:
A friend of mine taking a linguistics class (I believe), had to find as many interpretations of that sentence as possible (I think the bare minimum to pass that assignment was 6 or 8, can't remember). My point is there's always a lot more room for interpretation than there might appear to be (without having to twist definitions).
Click to expand...
Another such word sequence is "What is this thing called love", if you play around with punctuation and intonation. ("What!? Is this thing called love?!" and so on.)
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Christians are, though it may surprise you to hear it, even more guilty of this, as the New Testament contains commandments and prohibitions that few Christians, if any, follow.
Click to expand...

Guilty? Guilty? That seems a bit presumptuous for you to be imposing guilt on them.

I say unto you that the Jews are doing it perfectly well, thank you. The fact that you don't understand what they are doing or why they are doing it says a great deal more about you than it does about them. And I believe that is a point closely related to what ceo and others are saying.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The day of the ressurection. Here Jesus was addressing his disciples just before being arrested.
Click to expand...
Ah. So we can buy a promise. Nothing to do with today's affairs - sick folk, harvests, barrenness, lost rings and such. Pay now, choose your prize in the afterlife. Nobody's lost that gamble yet and regretted it. Survivors have - "He left what to the Abbey!? Call my lawyer! Senile old ..." - but there comes a time when you have to think about your own future. Death-beds and foxholes often feature at these times apparently, but you find a lot more priests (and lawyers) hovering around the one than the other.
 
Meadmaker said:
Guilty? Guilty? That seems a bit presumptuous for you to be imposing guilt on them.

I say unto you that the Jews are doing it perfectly well, thank you. The fact that you don't understand what they are doing or why they are doing it says a great deal more about you than it does about them. And I believe that is a point closely related to what ceo and others are saying.
Click to expand...

I understand that they worship something which does not exist. And yes, Christians are guilty of hypocracy.
 
CapelDodger said:
Ah. So we can buy a promise. Nothing to do with today's affairs - sick folk, harvests, barrenness, lost rings and such. Pay now, choose your prize in the afterlife. Nobody's lost that gamble yet and regretted it. Survivors have - "He left what to the Abbey!? Call my lawyer! Senile old ..." - but there comes a time when you have to think about your own future. Death-beds and foxholes often feature at these times apparently, but you find a lot more priests (and lawyers) hovering around the one than the other.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, let's look at the sorrounding passages.

21
When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world.
22
So you also are now in anguish. But I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.
23
On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.
24
Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete.
25
6 "I have told you this in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but I will tell you clearly about the Father.
26
On that day you will ask in my name, and I do not tell you that I will ask the Father for you.
27
For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have come to believe that I came from God.
28
I came from the Father and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

I suppose you could say it applies only, and explcitely, to that specific day, and not that day and henceforth.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I suppose you could say it applies only, and explcitely, to that specific day, and not that day and henceforth.
Click to expand...
Suspiciously so. You finally get to the counter, the angel asks "What you here for?", you blurt out "72 virgins" (being a bit fazed by the whole situation) and that's it. The rest of eternity to fill out by your own efforts, entertain yourselves, guys. What women might ask for, I dunno, but I doubt it'll often be 72 virgins. Anyhoo, given that eternity is involved, choose no finite prize. "Anything I want any time I think I want it", that's cool. Eternity becomes a challenge, not a sentence.
 
CapelDodger said:
You seem to have a hair-trigger response to the word "guilt". Anything Catholic in your background?
Click to expand...

As it turns out, yes. I was raised Catholic.

But actually, the point I was trying to make to ImaginalDisc is that he had, once again, missed the point. I was making a comment about the Jewish approach to scriptural interpretation. I was saying that Jews could, indeed, be said to ".... base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book? "

And he said that Christians are even more "guilty" of this.

Many Jews, including some of the most devout and observant of the lot, are fully aware that they are basing their beliefs in their own interpretations of a relentlessy self contradictory and meaningless book. They might quibble with the word "meaningless", but not all that much. If you asked five Jews about it, you would get no more than 10 words that would be a better description.

However, they aren't "guilty" of anything, not even of illogical thought. ImaginalDisc thinks they are "guilty" of something because he thinks he knows the way they ought to be approaching the Bible, or possibly he thinks he knows the way they actually approach the Bible. In reality, he doesn't understand what they are doing, and his lack of comprehension leads him to believe that what they are doing is illogical.
 
Meadmaker said:
As it turns out, yes. I was raised Catholic.

But actually, the point I was trying to make to ImaginalDisc is that he had, once again, missed the point. I was making a comment about the Jewish approach to scriptural interpretation. I was saying that Jews could, indeed, be said to ".... base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book? "

And he said that Christians are even more "guilty" of this.

Many Jews, including some of the most devout and observant of the lot, are fully aware that they are basing their beliefs in their own interpretations of a relentlessy self contradictory and meaningless book. They might quibble with the word "meaningless", but not all that much. If you asked five Jews about it, you would get no more than 10 words that would be a better description.

However, they aren't "guilty" of anything, not even of illogical thought. ImaginalDisc thinks they are "guilty" of something because he thinks he knows the way they ought to be approaching the Bible, or possibly he thinks he knows the way they actually approach the Bible. In reality, he doesn't understand what they are doing, and his lack of comprehension leads him to believe that what they are doing is illogical.
Click to expand...

It's blatantly obvious what Christians are guilty of; hypocracy. Christians claim to believe in an all powerful and good god, yet they pray. Somehow, an all knowing and good god needs to be begged and cajoled into doing things for his followers, despite being allegedly good.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It's blatantly obvious what Christians are guilty of; hypocracy. Christians claim to believe in an all powerful and good god, yet they pray. Somehow, an all knowing and good god needs to be begged and cajoled into doing things for his followers, despite being allegedly good.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting interpretation of Christian practice. Nevertheless, you might profit from greater understanding of theistic perspectives.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The world could greatly benefit from less theism, not more.
Click to expand...


That's a matter of opinion, however, it isn't what I suggested.

I suggested that you, ImaginalDisc, could benefit from a greater understanding of theistic perspectives, even if it is a "Know your enemy" exercise. You have some terribly inaccurate ideas about what religious people believe.

Whether or not religious tolerance is a good or bad idea, as the thread title asked, I think we could all agree that whether you choose tolerance or intolerance, you should do so based on an accurate understanding.

You have some work in this area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom