What is fighting the good fight verses fighting for the sake of fighting?

Is defending oneself / defending one's beliefs and perspectives fighting the good fight, or is it only worth while when you're in danger?

Is standing up against the wrongs of society, and the injustice and cruelty of others fighting the good fight? Or is that turning the people fighting against it into the same as what they are fighting against?

Even on the things we can say are fought for that are worth it. Is it fighting the good fight to make a difference? Or is it fighting other people's personalities, and your history with them? Changing nothing except to fight for the sake of the fight. "There's more to say, more to do. The battle is not yet lost." Is the fight really about anything else except the fight?

I have shared my beliefs and defended them. I've seen others do the same for their beliefs, their social causes, and the politics they stand by. And at the end of the day, I wonder. Was any of it of value? Was it fruitless like chasing the wind?

I have corrected what I saw as misunderstandings and mis-truths, and have watched as others try to scope each other's merit down by calling one point meaningless, or another point a fallacy. Each one probably believing they are the one uncovering mis-truths and lies. Is the fight in us something that makes us lose the ability to listen? To be corrected, and become better informed? All because we we fought for the sake of the fight itself. Mistaking that for fighting the good fight. If no one corrects you how will you know any different? But at the end of the day, I ask. Was it worth it?

I've stood by those I've seen as being bullied, then later learned that sometimes they weren't being bullied as much as they were just talking to someone who was fed up and angry. Too often with a justified reason for their anger. Who was fighting the good fight in those instances?

Dear NNS,

We do not and will agree on what is good. You can only do the best that you can do, and I can only do the best that I can do. I have fought and argued for my beliefs. Perhaps it is better if we learn to live with people who have other beliefs rather than to try to get them to adopt ours. That is an alternative to fighting.

Dear NNS,

Should have written:

We do not and will not agree on what is good. You can only do the best that you can do, and I can only do the best that I can do. I have fought and argued for my beliefs. Perhaps it is better if we learn to live with people who have other beliefs rather than to try to get them to adopt ours. That is an alternative to fighting.

Dear NNS,

I've written so many times on this forum that the art
of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. Arguments are something we all confront
at some time. I believe that sound reasoning will conquer
unreasonable generalisations every time. However it is
important not to sound too dogmatic. If you don't listen
to the other person's opinion you will be deemed pig-headed
and will either be attacked or subsequently ignored.

It's also helpful to know your topic. Whether the topic is
politics, religion, television, or guns, make sure you are
informed especially in the latest developments. Using
statistics gives the element of authenticity to your opinions.

The final point to remember is to at all times remain calm.
Try not to appear insulting or abusive. No-one likes or
supports an abusive, illogical debater. It's best not to
appear to be arguing on an emotional level, but a mature,
intelligent one.

Of course this is not always easy to do. When the right
buttons are pushed - most people will react. However,
I personally feel that as long as our intentions are not
just to win the argument, then one can feel good that
they've spoken their mind without malice or anger but from
the depth of their truth. It is important to be conscious
and compassionate and act with civility. However it is
also important not to forsake one's own wisdom because
of the fear that you will lose something.

What's more important? Losing your face, or losing your
integrity?

"What is fighting the good fight verses fighting for the sake of fighting? "

Verses are what you have in poetry; I think you meant "versus", Latin for "against", or "as opposed to"...

In the end if no one stands and says what they think is right we may just own the injustice we now fight against
, apathy kills

I totally agree with you BELLY on this issue. If you won't argue your point of view, then often you'll be walked all over - in other words; you'll be bullied. There's nothing that pushes all my buttons more than 'a bully'!

Fighting the good fight like most things in life depends on the environment. If I'm in a war, I'll use a gun. If I'm physically threatened, I'll use whatever I have to defend myself. If someone uses neutral language in a discussion, I'll use neutral language. If they immediately tee off with emotive prejudicial generalisations that bear little resemblance to reality, they have drawn their line in the sand. I've learnt over a long time that you know their attitude will not change, no matter what language you choose to engage them with, civil or otherwise. So you know when you engage them that you are not entering a discussion because a discussion requires them to hear your point of view and that's the last thing they want to hear. But you are entering a fight. Not a fight to change their view because you won't. But a fight for your standards, a fight that states those low standards need calling out. I know who I am, I know what my standards are. Walking past bigotry impacts my integrity more than losing face on a forum. They can ignore me or start talking about anything but the topic under discussion, at least there's one less platform they'll infest.

Social progress has been made by people by people who stood up against oppression and for what they thought was right.

However, I doubt that that’s what NNS means when he mentioned ‘fighting the good fight’. In a previous thread he accepted the designation of missionary. He disagreed with the attitude of some other posters that one should ‘live and let live’. He wanted to push his religion - his particular version of Christianity.

I am sensitive on that subject. When I was a child and heard about the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice telling him to sacrifice me. He told me he would see a psychiatrist. As a child I received a Jewish education, but doubt eventually caused me to leave it. I could no longer believe there is a God listening at the synagogue door and deciding our fate.

In my long life I have been approached by Buddhist, Christian, Jewish and Muslim missionaries. The Jewish ones have wanted me to return to the faith. However, I don’t go around telling people of religious faith it is nonsense unless they try to push it on me. As the obnoxious ones leave me they proclaim, “I’ll pray for you”. Ugh!
In my opinion missionaries have done great harm to the world. They have accompanied imperialist gun boats, destroyed native cultures and aided in the enslavement of native peoples. They have helped promote the attitudes that led to the Holocaust. The Buddhists, like Christians and Muslims have promoted the myth that they’re a religion of peace. In WW2 they were the primary religion of the Japanese army and in Sri Lanka they oppress Tamils. Israel imitates the kind of country Jews fled. Now they are the first class citizens, and others are the second class citizens.

Religion has given comfort to many people. However, I think it should not be the business of government, and government should not be the business of religion - separation of religion and state.

To Doug. Good correction. My bad on the spelling.

To DavidF. We won't agree with each other that's probably true, but at what point does the disagreements become something worth standing against, instead of endless bickering. Ending when one person gives the hardest punch instead of the best reasoning. Religion isn't what I'm talking about, but the conversation that inspired this was religious in topic. Basically where do you draw the line and either walk away or not enter the discussion at all, verses get into it, fully throwing the insults farther and farther down the other person. If I remember the conversation your talking about before, you admitted to being a missionary for your cause. You also aggressively upped the language and the insults in that conversation. My point on not living and let live was that there are things you don't just let go, unless you don't care about the other person. Drug addiction is one of those issues.

To Foxy. The things we feel passionate about are the things that we fight the hardest for. It no longer becomes a thing of just speaking your mind and from the depth of what you know, but a thing to stand for, stand against. Plead for against possibly uncaring or aggressively opposed views. I've seen you do this too, as well as myself. Eventually if the fight is invested enough for you then the stakes for fighting fair and in personal get tossed for a few well chosen slurs of the opposing person. I believe you're being named a anti-Semitic in one conversation, and I've seen you name those others with a few choice names as well. I'm not innocent of this either. But at that point I think it can be said the the fight is about the fight itself more then fighting for a good cause of any kind. If you see what I'm saying.

To Belly. That's a concern. Doing nothing, does nothing to resolve anything. But I'm beginning to wonder if that's entirely true. Or if there are other ways of making things right then our current ways of fighting each-other raggedy.in my first draft (before the word limit edit) I ended the OP with this paragraph.

"At the end of the day I sometimes wonder. Is there a point to any of these debates? Or is it's worth (if any) out matched by the harm it does. If it's not worth it, what does that say about us? Have we lost the ability to stand up to the wrongs of the world and listen to those who have correction to give us? If so that's a tragedy. Doing nothing and saying nothing often is looked as the same as being willing to be walked all over and a passive onlooker as another is being harmed.

What is the good fight? And what is fighting for the sake of fighting?"

To Unravel. You've hit my topic square on. Fight for your standards whatever those standards are, or let it all go. Sometimes you know the discussion is not a discussion. But recently I ended a long and heated discussion where I stood by my points, and when asked for proof of a matter I gave it and continually stood by it. One point being fought over in my opinion was a small point. Nothing too huge. But to the other person it was apparently a personal insult to point it out. I'm not going to apologize for it, but I do wonder about the point of any of it. The fight lost any point of being a good fight, but fighting for the sake of the fight that it turned into. "Prove this to me" combined with "why are you trying to insult me" along with the underlying scoreboard that saying nothing has in the past been counted as a win for that person. So I refused to back down. The small point was not wrong. Fighting for the sake of the fight.

To everyone (so far). Essentially this is my underlying thought. I have fought for the things I thought were worth fighting for here. And I've watched others do the same for what they think is worth it. And I see the fights those very debates get reduced to talking past eachother and an exchange of personal insults. Then it turns ugly.

My underlying thought is if all the fighting is worth any of it. Or should I practice to walk away from it all. Not get involved in any of it.

The underlying thought I'll consider privitely, but for anyone willing I ask. Where do you draw the line. For fighting the good fight, versus fighting for the sake of the fight. Nothing to gain, nothing to help, and possibly worth walking away from before entering to begin with.

Dear NNS,

Unless my memory is faulty your previous missionary activity did not mention drug addiction but your necessity to try to 'save' others by your religion. As far as drug addiction goes I feel it should be treated as a medical problem as alcoholism is. My cousin was a psychologist working with the Los Angeles government in treating drug addicts. He said he had about a 5% success rate - not very good.

As always have read every post here and see we have differing view around fight,just saying no can be fighting for the good, just as saying nothing is the opposite,guns are not needed always, if you see wrong and silently walk away you are part of the problem

Dear NNS,

Probably, that drug addiction is bad is one thing we agree on. I think decriminalising addiction and drugs would help. What would you recommend?

To David F.

Regarding drugs, I wish I knew. I don't think making it legal is the answer either. Where I'm at, there's been a big issue with opiate drugs. Prescribed and FDA approved drugs for pain that is the center of prescription drug addiction that leads to being more and more expensive and higher tolerances and higher doses of the drug. One of my brother's friends had a back injury when he was younger and has been on medication ever since. Last I heard he was on heroine because no doctor would prescribe a higher dose and cut him off. That and apparently the illegal variety was getting cheaper anyways.

Sad to say I don't trust the legal system to fix the issue if harsh drugs were decriminalized. Nor am I confidant that being legal doesn't mean the suppliers would be just as dirty, pushing a product that is highly addictive and harmful. Recently heard of ICE as a higher quality of meth. And I don't want that legal with a approved rubber stamp selling it to people.

Regarding the conversation from before. If I though you were going to hell and did nothing, wouldn't that make me a monster? Live and let live fits when there's no danger and no harm. Or even when there's minimal harm that people learn from and mature from. But for people who think those who are unsaved (regardless if they are right or not) will go to hell, saying something instead of doing nothing is on a similar level as taking a depressed friend to be on a suicide watch, or an addicted friend to a rehab center. Doing nothing shows you don't care. This is an issue because like those instances no one (or rarely) wants to receive your help, and if teaching the gospel no one want to hear it.

To Belly.

There's a few verses in Proverbs about not fighting (not quarreling). Proverbs 17:14 says it well though.

"Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out."

I know you and others don't believe in the bible, but I am reconsidering these discussions and debates with some of these verses in mind. I'd suggest considering the same if you're willing.

Dear NNS,

When I hear some of the things that I've been called on
this forum by some posters - I feel that I'm going to
die. It's not just a question of mudslinging, but a
little bit of who I am as well. Whether it is in my
relationships or in the workforce, it seems I am always
negotiating for my own voice, and as a female, and the way I
was brought up, (always be a lady)
I'm often hesitant of speaking what I feel. But now, after
all this time, I throw down the gauntlet. I feel that the
only path to happiness is to really be all that you can be.
To be secure and unafraid of speaking your own mind.
If your intentions are not just to win the game, then you can
feel good that you have spoken your mind without malice or
anger but just from the depths of your truth.

The more we can feel emotionally liberated, the more whole
we can feel as people. Sure, we might say to ourselves
afterward,, Gee, I shouldn't have said that, or maybe I should
have said it differently. Well, okay, maybe I need at times
to work on my presentation - because it is important to be
as I explained earlier - conscious and compassionate and act
with great civility - but I do not believe in forsaking
my own wisdom because I fear that I will lose something.
I would rather lose face, then my integrity.

I saw this thread as determining what drives a particular “fight” you are engaged in, that is the strategy, motivation, expectation and not the “good”. We can start a “good” anytime we feel like in another thread.

….............if you see wrong and silently walk away you are part of the problem............

…............."Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out."..............

I agree with Belly to a large extent, though I think it impossible to tackle every wrong you see. If your responding you haven't started it. If it's wildly factually incorrect you don't have to waste too much energy making your point. You know you won't change that person's viewpoint, you're just making sure the factually correct version gets out.

Dear NNS,

You may be a decent fellow, but I feel the missionary effort is in essence evil. In addition to what I mentioned in the previous post it substitutes nonsense for rationality. Historically it has created great suffering and been a part of the suppression of cultures and the slaughter of peoples. Would you have me be silent in the face of what I see as evil?

Dear NNS,

You wrote: "If I though you were going to hell and did nothing, wouldn't that make me a monster?"

I think that a religion that maintains that a person will go to hell because that person does not subscribe to certain mumbojumbo is a religion that is nutty and should be discarded. When I die I have no reason to think I am going anywhere except into nothingness. Believing that a person will go to hell because that person does not subscribe to certain mumbojumbo is a reason for doing something. It is a reason for questioning such a silly and ugly belief.

Good grief, what is the world coming to when people think that exchanging ideas over the interweb amounts to a fight?

A fight is where one of the parties has to physically pick his teeth up off the floor afterwards.

What goes on around here is basically a modified version of that famous thought experiment involving infinite monkeys and typewriters. So far our collective bashing away at out keyboards has yet to produce anything as worthy as a crap sonnet, let alone the script of the Lion King.

Still, we have fun don't we? I do, at any rate. Otherwise you'd bugger off, wouldn't you?

To Foxy.

Your examples of the conversations in OLO are often part of the examples that inspired me to say this part in the OP.

"I've stood by those I've seen as being bullied, then later learned that sometimes they weren't being bullied as much as they were just talking to someone who was fed up and angry. Too often with a justified reason for their anger. Who was fighting the good fight in those instances?"

Some causes that you've stood by are causes I've seen reason to stand against. Just experience with people from those causes or otherwise what those causes promote that I don't agree with. (Abortion comes to mind as part of a feminist cause, that I readily think is wrong). With this in mind several of the posts I see between you and those who are against you, at first would make a younger me rush to your side to defend the bullied person. But now? Not so much. Now I can see the reason for the anger that sometimes is not contained. (As I've said in one of the other conversations, part of this realization is feminist activists silencing male perspectives with a kind of call that they have no right to speak up. It shows they never wanted men's opinion to begin with, and will only keep it if it suits their cause). And I hear the counter arguments against PC filtering in ongoing conversations. People get fed up not being "allowed" to share their view, or having their points ignored in the whole of society. Build that up and yes people get angry.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said I get exactly what your saying that some of the names your called make you feel like you should respond and defend yourself. In my time on OLO, there's several occurrences where that's all that was offered to me. Counterpoints that mock and belittle. And occasionally try to sprinkle a point in between their taunts. Believe me I get it. I don't think that replying to those those does anything to help the matter except to fill satisfied for a moment (till they respond again). And at that point it's not fighting a good fight. For a cause, or a justified reason. It's fighting for the sake of fighting. Winning these fights are paired with defending yourself. It can get ugly, and for now in this topic, I'm questioning the entire circus act.

However with one poster I see the merit of having nothing to do with him instead of saying something when I see wrong. The conversations with Opinionated2 have been fruitless with continual mudslinging on his side. Ignoring that, I was able to actually address any other part of the discussions. (Either things to agree with or points to counter).

This action is supported by some of the wisdom in the bible. One is that a wise man knows to hold their tongue, and the foolish give full vent to their frustrations. Another is that when someone slanders or says wrong. Correct them up to two times, then have nothing to do with them. Their sinfulness is their own, not our responsibility.

Dear NNS,

A number of years ago I was in Morocco, and a man there told me I was going to hell because I was not a Muslim. There was no more reason to believe him than to believe you. Hell is an unpleasant fiction created to frighten people. Such nonsense may frighten little children but should not frighten grownups. There is no tooth fairy, no Santa Claus, no heaven, no hell, no God etc. These are fictions.

We are two sides of the same coin. You want to save people from hell. I I want to save you from superstition.

Dear NNS,

It sounds like you have found a way of contributing to this
forum in a way that makes sense to you. I am happy for you.
I've also found my own style that really feels good for me.

david f may I say your view is mine, humanity can be one if we live with reality in this matter

How do we achieve agreement on the definition of good before we start fighting for it ?

Dear individual,

Some fights may be a consequence of the fact that different sides had different definitions of good.

To Foxy. Fair enough. Sorry if I pushed the point too hard.

To Individual. Any topic a person thinks is important can be counted as the "good" that they are fighting for. So the "good" doesn't have to be agreed on. However, in debates if the fight loses it's reason to fight (such as fighting because of insults being thrown to and defend yourself, or long periods of arguing with some one who you've no reason to believe they will change their perspective) then it loses the "good fight" element that was part of the reason to fight the good fight, and turns into a reason of arguing for the sake of arguing.

Individual, would you like examples of what people are willing to fight for, compaired to what the fight turns into?

My question on fighting the good fight versus fighting for the sake of fighting can be looked at in this way. At what point do you draw the line to walk away and wash your hands from an argument, a conversation, or a person? To not stand up in the fight even if it holds a cause with defending, or even if you are defending yourself. Is walking away ever the answer? Should it be?

To David F.

You and I have been down this conversation before. I've seen where it ends. Do you really want to get into it all again?

The other conversation I posed the topic of loving God helps people love one another and be better people. (Specifically that a focus on God will help in this way, not just an acknowledgement of God). In that conversation, much of the topic was ignored to fan perspectives against religion. Essentially bringing up the topic of religion (in any way) is enough to step into a bear trap for all of the anger people have towards religion or towards those practicing a religion.

Your part of the conversation you starts in the same manner that you are here. A polite disagreement with religion. It intensified in the language you used until, you were raving against me for being evil and part of a history of evil. Placing crimes against me that I've never done. And taunting insults at me for this intense and growing hatred you had towards me. Even to the point that I addressed your pushy attitude to your accusation of me of being a missionary. That you were acting as a missionary as you've describe it. A point you actually agreed to even after all the ire you threw at that label as part of your reason for hating Christians and Christianity. I didn't back down from my faith, which seemed to fan your anger even hotter.

Do you remember this conversation? I do. Saying that I may be a decent fellow means nothing to me when I remember your part of the conversation from before and the hatred that grew more and more through the conversation. And bringing up the evils of missionary likewise shows nothing new to me because that was an intro to your anger in the last conversation. More then willing to place the crimes of religion on anyone who happens to in that religion, and have me to account for actions I've never done, and answer for a history I was never there for.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I've seen this conversation David F. And if you are wanting to continue it, then I hope you do better at reeling in your anger and hatred. If you want to push this topic then there are a few correction I want to point out before continuing on. (And forgive me if I don't continue on anyways, I saw this conversation from you before, and you get very ugly in it). None the less a few corrections.

•#1) "He wanted to push his religion - his particular version of Christianity."

Wrong. I wanted to teach from what I knew. I was more then willing to have a conversation if given the chance. I didn't get that chance though because by just holding to my faith as real and reasonable, I was thrust into arguments trying to push me out of my faith, or personally attack me for being part of that faith. All I had the chance to do was to stand up against you and a few others push against my faith. Against any version of it.

•#2) "Historically it [missionaries] has created great suffering and been a part of the suppression of cultures and the slaughter of peoples. Would you have me be silent in the face of what I see as evil?"

Have I told you to be silent? Did you not admit to being a missionary against Christianity, even in the face of your accusations towards missionaries? What history do I have to account for with events I was not there for? But most importantly, you asked if you should be silent on what you believe, yet in your very stance you want me to be silent in bringing up any topic of religion. Of any of my core beliefs that may have stemmed from study and faith. Should your stance or your double standard be acknowledged or given the rubber stamp of approval, that you're standing up for what you believe, when you strive to silence me from doing the same?

(Continued)

•#3) "We are two sides of the same coin. You want to save people from hell. I I want to save you from superstition."

What is there to save me from? From my faith? From my beliefs? From not rejecting religion as you have? God is real. From there it should be a task to seek what is from God and what is not. If that can be determined it should be. But at the very least it should still be tried to determine what is from God and what isn't.

Your fist comment included this quote "Perhaps it is better if we learn to live with people who have other beliefs rather than to try to get them to adopt ours. That is an alternative to fighting." Is this something you're willing to practice too? Or is it that no one should try to teach from their religion or their faith? That teaching is getting in the way of other people holding on to their own beliefs?

Before you answer, consider this. Why do you believe what you believe? Is it because you think it's a nice possibility to believe in, or because you think it's false but enjoyable? Of course not! You believe what you believe because you find it to be true. Should you stay silent on what you think is true because it might interfere on what someone else believes? If the answer is no then consider what you are doing here, because that is exactly what you are asking of me to do.

Dear NNS,

We both feel we are right, and, feeling we are right, makes us heated in speech. I think you really don't know enough about your religion. I have no hostility to Christians, but I do not feel good about Christianity. Some Christians such as Bishop Spock are fully aware of the flaws in Christianity and are trying to create a different Christianity without the arrogance and intolerance that has characterized so much of its history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

"The sin of Christianity is that any of us ever claimed that we had somehow captured eternal truth in the forms we had created."

If we are aware of evil it is a moral imperative to try to do something about even if it is only putting posts on the net. Some Christian missionaries have faced the evil in Christianity and are aware of it at the same time that they are trying to spread their faith. It seems to me a contradiction. One such person is Colin Barnes. This website describes the book he wrote:

https://www.bokus.com/bok/9780956200624/they-conspire-against-your-people/

"This book explores the extent to which the European churches and their theology contributed to a mindset that permitted the genocide of six million Jews during the Holocaust."

Diarmaid MacCulloch, a former member of the Church of England hierarchy, wrote "A History of Christianity". I cite two quotes from his book:

"For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes." P. 4

"I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species." P. 11

Spong, Barnes and MacCulloch are aware Christians. You are an unaware Christian. Go and learn.

davidf & NNS,
The dilemma with "Good" is that it really become indefinable so, people must therefore agree to disagree which in turn is the cause of all trouble.
Just look at Religion, they all say there's only one God yet these same religious organistations have wars to fight for the Good of their religion ?
What is good in the mind of an intelligent person can be the exact opposite of an educated one.
A producer's definition of good differs from the end users definition. Good is only good when it is to the everyone's advantage or on a much more important level, good is only good if peoples' actions are not imposing on others. In other words we need to discipline ourselves to be less self-centrered & focus on being more tolerant & even more important, more understanding.
We have petty laws & rules which all but ruin peoples' lives yet there are laws & rules which are designed to curb negative imact of our actions on others yet they are so punctured with loopholes that they end up causing more harm than good.
Democracy & its laws was supposed to work along those lines but it was hijacked by dictators under the guise of equality & opened the floodgates of exploitation. That is not good !

Oh C'mon seriously.

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't automatically make you a good person,
And you can be a good person without being a Christian.

The answer is ethics.

You people have it all stuffed up.
It's not about believing Jesus existed and suffered, it's about that he was 'teacher' and what he taught.

'Do unto others' = ethics.

This is why you have religious people with their heads up their backsides.
They think they have ethics when often they don't.

Holy crap...
And I'm not even religious, I'm agnostic.

Regards 'Fighting the good fight'
What do you all think of this?
http://.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/06/pompeo-reportedly-gives-kim-jong-un-elton-john-rocket-man-cd-at-trumps-request.amp.html

//Essentially bringing up the topic of religion (in any way) is enough to step into a bear trap for all of the anger people have towards religion or towards those practicing a religion.//

//Do you remember this conversation? I do.//

You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the anger that people felt in that discussion, NNS. I suspect that this is because you're unwilling to extend your empathy far enough to consider things from the perspective of people who don't share your faith because it would feel like a betrayal of your faith to you.

But I can assure that the anger wasn't against religion or those practising it. The anger was against your sneering, arrogant, sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude than Christians are necessarily more moral than those of other faiths, and that practitioners of other religions other than Christianity are necessarily incapable of being as moral as Christians because they don't believe in the right God. For some reason you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that other people might object as strongly to perceived as attacks on their faith as you do on yours.

Do you know what Jehovah's Witness doorknockers do if they're met with, say, a Sikh, who politely but firmly declines tells them that he's not interested as he has his own faith already? They leave. Yeah, sure, they might come back in few months/years to see if he's had a change of heart. But they leave, without making a fuss. What they don't do is stand on the doorstep and harangue the poor chap that he can never really be a decent person unless he renounces Sikhism and converts to JWism. Because they know it's not going to win them any friends, and they know that approach will hinder rather than help their cause.

It's the narrow mindedness and the intolerance that people were objecting to, NNS. Not the religion. After all, Foxy is Christian and Yuyutsu is... whatever Yuyutsu is (he's certainly not irreligious), and I don't object to their faiths.

Because they don't object to mine.

I think 'fighting the good fight' is:

Having ethics, whist making the most of life's opportunities, and not letting others get the best of you.

Dear individual,

You wrote: "Just look at Religion, they all say there's only one God yet these same religious organistations have wars to fight for the Good of their religion ?"

Religions do not all say there is only one God. Judaism and Islam maintain there is only one God. Christianity has a Trinity. God is in three parts which somehow is one God. I can't understand that. Buddhism does not maintain there is a God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

"The Rig Veda praises various deities, none superior nor inferior, in a henotheistic manner."

Judaism and Islam, to the best my knowledge, are the only monotheistic religions.

david f,

"Judaism and Islam, to the best my knowledge, are the only monotheistic religions."

There is also Christianity and Sikhism.

Dear Is Mise,

Sikhism is monotheistic. My understanding of monotheism is that it is the belief in one indivisible God. With that understanding of monotheism, I don’t see how Trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic.

david f,
good point. The bad point is that the monotheism religions are about 900 years behind to the trinity outfit. It's nearly a millenium since the tri-believers have given away the absurdity of holy wars. Your mono mates have a lot of catching up to do..

Dear individual,

I do not have monomates as I am an atheist and believe in one fewer god than the monotheists. The tri-believers give their holy wars another label, but they still have holy wars.

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062105097/the-great-and-holy-war/

"The Great and Holy War offers the first look at how religion created and prolonged the First World War. At the one-hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the war, historian Philip Jenkins reveals the powerful religious dimensions of this modern-day crusade, a period that marked a traumatic crisis for Western civilization, with effects that echoed throughout the rest of the twentieth century.

The war was fought by the world's leading Christian nations, who presented the conflict as a holy war. Thanks to the emergence of modern media, a steady stream of patriotic and militaristic rhetoric was given to an unprecedented audience, using language that spoke of holy war and crusade, of apocalypse and Armageddon. But this rhetoric was not mere state propaganda. Jenkins reveals how the widespread belief in angels and apparitions, visions and the supernatural was a driving force throughout the war and shaped all three of the major religions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam—paving the way for modern views of religion and violence. The disappointed hopes and moral compromises that followed the war also shaped the political climate of the rest of the century, giving rise to such phenomena as Nazism, totalitarianism, and communism.

Connecting numerous remarkable incidents and characters—from Karl Barth to Carl Jung, the Christmas Truce to the Armenian Genocide—Jenkins creates a powerful and persuasive narrative that brings together global politics, history, and spiritual crisis as never before and shows how religion informed and motivated circumstances on all sides of the war."

david f,
cheers for that enlightenment/information. Just goes to show humans still have a long way to go before they can morally claim the term human.

It is my view that long path humanity must take starts with an understanding of the impacts God, every one of them, has on us, and the shear blind belief that only by living our life on our knees worshiping a deity that we invented is holding us back

If there is a God, God he must be just so disillusioned with humans.

Dear Toni Lavis,

Thank you for your post of Saturday, 7 July 2018 9:24:42 AM.

What does it have to do with religion anyway.

I have a question.

Is the media fighting the good fight?

Look at this article.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/5514850/holiday-makers-attacked-woman-sexually-assaulted-in-jindabyne/

Renner when a headline was used to gain interest in a story?

I think they are deliberately doing the opposite.

Why doesn't the headline say 'Rape Gang on the Loose'

To Armchair Critic.

The only reason religion is a focus of this conversation is because I've posted on Christianity in the past. Outside of that, the reason for it being focused on should be very minimal, with regards to the the topic. I'm not suprised any more. And I'm not going to spend 20+ posts trying to say "stay on topic, when those who have an issue of my beliefs don't care about the topic. It's a lost cause. (As are apparently any topic I start). Thanks for noticing.

As for your article, I wonder if the article was titled in that way because of the location of the crime. Down in the article it mentions that police presence is high in the snow fields so these kinds of disturbances don't occure. Kind of like the article is trying to acknowledge a crime without harming tourism, or make any notice of the crime. Just a guess.

For anyone still interested (if anyone ever was...) here is an example of what I was trying to address in this topic.

A fight that is fought just for the sake of fighting. Holding no grounds for furthering a cause or to fight any good fight, (whatever cause could be counted as good, regardless if it's agreed on).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8334&page=1

The conversation is started over politicians and in this case, it is the politicians that are fighting just for the sake of it, not the posters on OLO. If anyone is interested look at the conversation and see for yourself. Would a lawsuit over an insult be anything you would count as justified? Regardless if you would say the insult is justified or not, is the lawsuit justified?

This is probabley the best example for fighting for the sake of a fight and nothing more. Because it is not an active critism on anyone here. However I am sorry but there are too many occurances of us fighting for just the sake of it. I'm guilty of this as well. It's something that we as a whole need to work on. Both on OLO, and in general life.

Dear NNS,

You wrote: "However I am sorry but there are too many occurances of us fighting for just the sake of it. I'm guilty of this as well. It's something that we as a whole need to work on."

I am shocked. I assumed you believed in what you were fighting for. I thought we had an honest difference of opinion. If you are fighting for just the sake of it, it is indeed something you have to work on. It is not something others have to work on.

To David F.

I do believe in what I fight for. I am also recognizing when it's no longer about that fight that I believe in, but becomes about Insults and defending one's self. With that in mind, I am not alone. Look at the debates that go on. And see how often there is an insult to demean a poster along with their stance, instead of just countering the arguments. How often the debate spirals into two people talking past each other, or just repeatethemselves.

There are other symptoms of a fight losing it's core reason to fight, and becoming it's own cause to continue on in a fight for the sake of fighting on without real reason. For now, just be aware of the sitution of fighting for a cause versus fighting for no real reason. Knowing is at least half the battle. (Possibly 3/5ths of the battle). Walking away in spite of your own anger and frustration in those times is also part of it too.

The earlier conversation you and I were in (that we discussed about again) was a very good example of fighting for the sake of fighting. It got ugly. You should be able to look back on it and see where you should be ashamed of your own comments. There are a few of mine that I should have walked away in anger instead of responding back to instead. Even if I can keep my tone completely civil, (I lost my patience, I'm sure that was noticeable and wasn't civil). But even if you or I can stay civil, there should be a point to walk away and not feed an ongoing fight that is going nowhere except more of the same.

With this in mind don't assume innocence of fighting for no core cause. You believed in your fight probably as much as I believed in mine. Yet it eventually lost all scope and became about you and me. My admitting this is an issue for me to work on does not excuse you from it, or excuse anyone else.