The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tolerance > Comments

Tolerance : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 10/3/2006

The key is tolerance: let them go to hell, if that’s their destiny in your view, in their own way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. 16
  14. 17
  15. All
Boaz_David, you ask 'Can you point to any command or example of Jesus which suggests the violent oppression of others ?' I presume you will also accept examples involving God Himself. So: The flood of Noah, The mass murder of the first-born sons of Egypt, Joshua's destruction of Jericho, the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Israelites (in fact the whole notion of the Israelites being 'the chosen race'), Moses against the Midianites. It was very easy to find these examples.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:16:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading the posts above i've lost track somewhat of what this debate is. Seems to have boiled down to a "my religion/non-religion is better than yours" type thread.

Faustino,
In response to your post to me, i do like your answer. I have great respect for Buddhism and admire the teachings of the Buddha Siddhartha.
You said: "to teach the Dhammas (truth) only to those who asked them to, and only to those who were in a fit state to receive it (eg., not tired, distracted or drunk)"
The only thing with this is that you'd still have to know that someone (like Buddha) may have the truth before you can ask to be taught it. And how can you know this unless he (or his followers) has promoted it in some way first?
On achieving enlightenment, the Buddha could have kept it to himself and left the conditioned state with noone the wiser. But he instead chose to remain and "spread the word" as it were.

The problem is that some have altered "spread the word" to be "enforce the word" and this has damaged the good name of many religions (Buddhism possibly excluded).

Alchemist,
This brings me to your post. I'm not fully clear on what you are asking me or what you refer to by the term "forceful conversion". But I would only consider being "constantly assaulted by religious verbal rubbish" to be forceful if it were threatening in some way. Otherwise its just a bunch of words and/or sounds.
Though I would definately not expect you to "tolerate" being assaulted by verbal rubbish (which i don't think you do anyway :)). I'd expect you to either ignore it or return fire (verbally of course).
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:35:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie, forceful conversions not only relates to bible bashing, but to the millions of indigenous and animists, that were threatened with damnation and death of they didn't believe. When you have someone with a gun and are fearful because of the mystery and power of the gun, plus you have no idea how it kills from such a distance, with such noise. Then are threatened, that if you don't follow and believe in god, you will suffer purgatory and are faced with technology far beyond your experience and understanding. Thats forceful.

Its also forceful to have it thrust in your face from TV and door knockers giving the same message. Its an affront to our intelligence, considering the evidence of gods works, (violence, war, destruction of indigenous lifestyles and beliefs). As well as the ongoing and growing religious wars between monotheistic factions worldwide throughout history.

Your statement "spread the word" to be "enforce the word" is very true. But I have yet to see an example from any of history that could be described as spreading the word as opposed to enforcing the word. Those that lack evidence of the veracity of their claims, always use force. True love, caring and reality requires no enforcement, it speaks for itself. Unlike religious ideology which must use forceful methods and threats, as its reality can only be expressed in its truth and thats violence.

We see it in the zealots here, condemnation and threats of damnation, no examples of love. Just you wait until your dead, your in for it then. What a loving god you have, no consideration for any of those that lead good and helpful lives without enslaved dogma, no you'll all go to hell. Great I say, all the good people will be there whilst the religious will be fighting in heaven to be the closest to their god and prove their worth in the manner that they do in life, violently.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 4:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does the quote by Socrates - "Out with the Gods and in with the Good" still suffice today? Maybe it does after reading so many of our well-intentioned Posts - some knocking Christianity, but many more knocking Islam.

Indeed, if killing each other apart from WW1 and WW2 is the problem, there is little doubt that in the last two hundred and fifty years Christian nations must win the inglorious medallion, pepped up so much by the Germanic genocide of six million Jews. But also British and European colonialism can count up to many millions, as can Russian Siberian advancements, even before the millions put to death by the Soviets. Moreover, the Americans in so-called modern peace-time have made a pretty strong fist of it, owing to the deaths that can be caused by modern artillery and missiles alone without the use of aircraft.

Not that we should ever concede to Islamic suicide bombing as such, but as far as damage is caused to buildings and superstructure alone, 9/11 and the destruction of New York Trade Center, stands insignificant compared to the destruction so far carried out by missiles and shot fired by consent of Christian leaders.

Finally, taking the Socratic view that we must look for justice deep within us, we might well protest about what is happening from both sides of this modern conflict between Christians and Muslims? Is it that one wants to dominate the other, or as the well-decorated writer and thinker, Harold Pinter believes, it is simply a question of a strong nation virtually being granted the power, and making sure that it can maintain that power by making sure other nations are subjected to far lesser power. Certainly sounds more like the power of pagan Pax Romana, than what the power of the strongest modern Christian nation should be like.

No doubt what Socrates meant to say, if the Gods think that way, then find something better by using deep reasoning rather than a faith misguided.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 5:01:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent Gary

I don't care that you probably selected not the best photo of yourself available - your article is lucid, eloquent, refereshing to read amongst the avalanche of nonsense that has followed the cartoons. And it has a nice world-weary sense of humour (e.g. "let them go to hell in thier own way").

My own spiritual convictions are my own and apart from being based on the underlying altruism involved in "do unto others" have little to do with any bureaucratic establishment claiming to be a true religion but really just another McDonalds-like franchise system organised for the power and aggrandisment of its officials.

What puzzles me is that we actually give TAX BREAKS to religions. In democracies, no party standing for election dares offend the religious vote. The creationist-type Christian fundamentalist vote got Bush into power (for the second time, he wasn't actually elected first time round - why WASN'T he made to relinquish the presidency when the true result became known?).

Democracies are too beholden to religions. Religions don't pay rates or taxes and that's how they manage with such ease to build all these buildings dedicated to their particular choice of imaginary friend.

By all means tolerate religions but why give them special tax treatment? They should be treated like the businesses they are and taxed at the normal rate. The money thus raised could be used to help poor people (but probably wouldn't be).
Posted by Thermoman, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:20:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Better still, the money raised from taxing religions could be used to improve the education system so that people are less susceptible to being hoodwinked/brainwashed by snake oil salesmen proposing to save your soul.
Posted by Thermoman, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:28:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. 16
  14. 17
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy