How many of you truly think for yourselves?

[Derek]

I'm just curious how many of you would describe yourselves as thoughtful. I see so many people who subscribe to very narrow minded views of religion. One can sum it up as: "Religion is a mere tool for controlling the masses, and has resulted in nothing but misery throughout history." And those of you who hold this oh-so-original view usually call yourselves atheists or agnostic or something like that.

Well, I'm just curious how many of you are truly open minded, and sometimes think things like: "Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there really IS a God. Maybe it IS unfair of me to mention only atrocities caused by religious governments, and not atrocities caused by governments in modern times such as communism and Nazism.  Maybe religion isn't to blame, but simply human beings."

I consider myself a Christian, but I am also very open minded. I have put myself in the "shoes" of alternative viewpoints, whether it be atheist, agnostic-mystic, or what have you. I keep returning to Christianity however, because none of these views provide any answers....not even Christianity. But at least Christianity provides a way to connect with other human beings who are just as vexed as I am by age old questions. And it also provides a book full of wisdom about how to be a better human being. I'm not saying by being open minded you should end up a Christian, or Atheist, or whatever, I'm just saying for heaven's sake, stop parroting all the stereotypical pseudo-intellectual nonsense over and over again about religion causing all this strife and controlling the masses and so forth. I'm bloody sick of it.

[ramithediv]

I'm just curious how many of you would describe yourselves as thoughtful. I see so many people who subscribe to very narrow minded views of religion. One can sum it up as: "Religion is a mere tool for controlling the masses, and has resulted in nothing but misery throughout history." And those of you who hold this oh-so-original view usually call yourselves atheists or agnostic or something like that.

Well, I'm just curious how many of you are truly open minded, and sometimes think things like: "Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there really IS a God. Maybe it IS unfair of me to mention only atrocities caused by religious governments, and not atrocities caused by governments in modern times such as communism and Nazism.  Maybe religion isn't to blame, but simply human beings."

I consider myself a Christian, but I am also very open minded. I have put myself in the "shoes" of alternative viewpoints, whether it be atheist, agnostic-mystic, or what have you. I keep returning to Christianity however, because none of these views provide any answers....not even Christianity. But at least Christianity provides a way to connect with other human beings who are just as vexed as I am by age old questions. And it also provides a book full of wisdom about how to be a better human being. I'm not saying by being open minded you should end up a Christian, or Atheist, or whatever, I'm just saying for heaven's sake, stop parroting all the stereotypical pseudo-intellectual nonsense over and over again about religion causing all this strife and controlling the masses and so forth. I'm bloody sick of it.

I have always been told that I think too much.

And I do often contemplate religion.

But, the more I think about it, put together with FACTS, the more ridiculas it all seems.

This is to true to me with all Religions.

I have no place for it in my life.

I do not need it.

[general disarray]

And it also provides a book full of wisdom about how to be a better human being. I'm not saying by being open minded you should end up a Christian, or Atheist, or whatever, I'm just saying for heaven's sake, stop parroting all the stereotypical pseudo-intellectual nonsense over and over again about religion causing all this strife and controlling the masses and so forth. I'm bloody sick of it.

Well, to be "thoughtful" is to observe dispassionately. 

And any observation reveals that the major religions create and foster conflict.  Christianity arose as a response against Judaism, immediately creating an antagonistic system. 

Protestanism arose as a response the the corruption within Catholicism, immediately creating an antagonistic system.

Then, we have the Eastern religions whose dogmas inherently set themselves up against the Western religions.

This has led to war and hatred among humans.  Each religion claiming its own superiority.  Each one claiming to embrace the only "true believers."

For this reason alone, many argue against the so-called good intentions of organized religion.

Buddhist philosophy suggests you be your own spiritual authority.   The Buddha -- and the many who came before him and who have come after him -- deny being authorities or even divine.

Yet, any Buddhist has the surest of moral and ethical codes.  No one has to tell a Buddhist how to behave or force a set of commandments on him or her. 

This moral core seems to be the potential in each one of us.

Is that evidence supporting the existence of a superior being?

Buddhists just smile and say:  "Meditate.  Clear your mind of programmed information forced on you by cultures and religious systems.  Grow quiet within and just listen.  The answer is there."

But, of course, people are loathe to practice this kind of discipline.  It takes work.  Much more difficult than reading an ancient text or listening to sermons or taking confession and communion. 

Buddhism doesn't give you the easy way out with that notion of "Faith."  Buddhism pays us the respect of saying you can find what is true without authoritarianism.

And, coming full circle, it's this authoritarianism of organized religions that makes them conflict with one another.  Conflict creates violence.  Christianity vs Judaism.  Islam vs. Christianity.

I'm trying to show in my opposition to organized religions that I have been somewhat thoughtful.   

[term]

I'm just saying for heaven's sake, stop parroting all the stereotypical pseudo-intellectual nonsense over and over again about religion causing all this strife and controlling the masses and so forth. I'm bloody sick of it.

I agree. I'm not a christian, but i'm still sick of it even from a neutral point of view. The arguments are repeated over and over again, not one is looking at it in detail. Just bold, generalising statements. Some of them are true, most partly, many untrue.

I often read blah blah blah......tolerance....blah blah.......Religion sucks....  yeah 
most interestingly, many people talk about the bible as if they have read it and then say it's full of bullshit. The vast majority didn't. It IS a book full of wisdom and helpful anaolgies, together with a certain amount of nonsense, but what's special about that?
It is wisdom from people thousands of years ago who had the same problems of the people today. Humanity isn't changing, humans stay the same and many of their problems too. The context changes. Fundamental works about philosophy in general, for instance, come from the greek. And so on.
I mean criticism is one thing, but it's going too far nowadays.

[general disarray]

I agree. I'm not a christian, but i'm still sick of it even from a neutral point of view. The arguments are repeated over and over again, not one is looking at it in detail. Just bold, generalising statements. Some of them are true, most partly, many untrue.

I often read blah blah blah......tolerance....blah blah.......Religion sucks....  yeah 
most interestingly, many people talk about the bible as if they have read it and then say it's full of bullshit. The vast majority didn't. It IS a book full of wisdom and helpful anaolgies, together with a certain amount of nonsense, but what's special about that?
It is wisdom from people thousands of years ago who had the same problems of the people today. Humanity isn't changing, humans stay the same and many of their problems too. The context changes. Fundamental works about philosophy in general, for instance, come from the greek. And so on.
I mean criticism is one thing, but it's going too far nowadays.

Okay, here's a good example of why these stupid debates on religion go nowhere on this board.  I offered a logical position, in my post above, on why people are opposed to organized religion.  A thoughtful one, in fact, that doesn't affirm or deny the existence of God.  Or criticize Christians or anyone else.

And you just continue Derek's rant.  You don't test my arguments.  You don't debate them.  Hell, you don't even acknowledge them!

If you want a debate that might yield some insight, instead of whining and bitching about the criticism aimed at Christians, then why don't you address the issues I raised in my post above?  The only one who attempts a defense of Christianity is pianistimo and we all know she is terminally immune to logic . . . so we go round and round in circles.

Disprove this assertion, please, and let's debate, not whine:

"Religions are in conflict with other religions by their individual assertion that they are the True Religion.  That their God is the one true God.  This creates conflict.  Conflict creates violence -- if not physical attacks, then animosity to others." 

Why can't you address this fundamental point and prove or disprove it?  Afterall, you claim to admire the ancient Greek philosophers.  So, debate like a Greek.

   

[thalbergmad]

"Religions are in conflict with other religions by their individual assertion that they are the True Religion.  That their God is the one true God.  This creates conflict.  Conflict creates violence -- if not physical attacks, then animosity to others." 
  

I am with you on this one.

I never forget pianistimo saying "try a religion that works"

For some people, following a particular religion is not enough. They have to claim superiority or uniqueness. This is when the problems start.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am with you on this one.

I never forget pianistimo saying "try a religion that works"

For some people, following a particular religion is not enough. They have to claim superiority or uniqueness. This is when the problems start.

Thal

Yes, Thal - right second time; it's not the religions themselves but some of the people that purport to follow them...

Best,

Alistair

[term]

If you want a debate that might yield some insight, instead of whining and bitching about the criticism aimed at Christians, then why don't you address the issues I raised in my post above?

lol. Stop complaining that i didn't make a comment about your comment. You sound like "mommy that guy just ignored me"  This thread is not only about you, but to make a statement if one likes to. I just said that i agree with derek and wanted to say that, period. This has nothing to do with a "productive debate" in the first place. You can always just make a general statement about the topic.

blah blah. so much to that. So when i have time, i may read your post again. Or not. At least I can say that i did participate in some religion debates here until i just had enough. 

[general disarray]

lol. Stop complaining that i didn't make a comment about your comment. You sound like "mommy that guy just ignored me"  This thread is not only about you, but to make a statement if one likes to. I just said that i agree with derek and wanted to say that, period. This has nothing to do with a "productive debate" in the first place. You can always just make a general statement about the topic.

blah blah. so much to that. So when i have time, i may read your post again. Or not. At least I can say that i did participate in some religion debates here until i just had enough. 

That's it.  Go for the territory you enjoy the most.  The good old "ad hominem" attack. 

I'm not interested if you read my posts.  Just interested -- given your inane response -- why you bothered to respond to Derek at all.  Particularly given your claim that you've had enough of the religious debates.

But, to quote you:  "blah blah.  so much to that."   

(Now I know why so many people leave this Forum.)

[term]

Just interested -- given your inane response -- why you bothered to respond to Derek at all.

To state my opinion in a thread in an internet forum.

@rest: stay calm. You get your debate, but not with flameposts. 

(Now I know why so many people leave this Forum.)

Rofl. Arrive, flame, leave. You're great man. 

[mike_lang]

Christianity arose as a response against Judaism, immediately creating an antagonistic system. 

Actually, Christianity came about as the fulfillment of Judaism.  The people of Israel await(/ed) the coming of the Messiah, who we believe has come as Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Protestantism arose as a response the the corruption within Catholicism, immediately creating an antagonistic system.

Protestantism came about as a response to corruption in the Church on Earth, not as a response to Catholicism itself.  The corruption was not in the beliefs or mystical Body of Christ, but in a group of its members.

Best,
ML

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

An open mind is an empty mind

It can be, but it certainly doesn't follow that it must be.

Best,

Alistair

[mike_lang]

An open mind is an empty mind

or "Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out..."

[pianochick93]

I am fairly open minded, I don't believe that religions are wrong, but I don't see any solid proof that they are right. If I met God, Buddha, or any other religious dieties (spelling?), I would believe, if not follow the religion.

Having said that I also see no rock solid proof that the scientific view is correct either. Unless there is someone who has lived for several billion years, then everything scientists have 'guessed' about our evolution is not necessarily right.

Put it this way, in several million years, paleontologists are going to look at fossils of our era and assume that the planet was primarily inhabited by cars or tyres. Not sure about the cars thing, but tyres are likely to last a lot longer that human bones, because they are rubber.

[indutrial]

It's obvious that everybody save for the really strident deviants concedes to some level of compromise with society's and culture's norms, but even the highest level of conformity is still an individual decision to some extent, unless you've been brainwashed since childhood.

I consider myself open-minded to the extent that I am willing to entertain almost any idea or phenomena without chomping at the bit to stamp my judgment upon whatever object that may be. I feel like lots of others that I deal with from day to day are a lot more set in their ways and some people have downright no interest in sharing ideas about anything. My co-workers are good examples of this. I have not once been able to discuss politics or movies with them because they are morbidly OCD about every dinky aspect of the workplace, even when there's absolutely no threat to their job on the horizon.

[counterpoint]

An open mind is an empty mind

An empty mind is what Zen Buddhists are striving for.

It's much better than a totally blocked or biased mind.

[pianolearner]

Put it this way, in several million years, paleontologists are going to look at fossils of our era and assume that the planet was primarily inhabited by cars or tyres. Not sure about the cars thing, but tyres are likely to last a lot longer that human bones, because they are rubber.

 

Sure, why not! I can just imagine history books of the future depicting a savanna inhabited by enormous Goodyears and Michelins. A time before a catastrophic extinction event ended their dominance. Scientists believe it was a giant nail that they all failed to see. They call it the big spike theory.

[danny elfboy]

I'm just curious how many of you would describe yourselves as thoughtful. I see so many people who subscribe to very narrow minded views of religion. One can sum it up as: "Religion is a mere tool for controlling the masses, and has resulted in nothing but misery throughout history." And those of you who hold this oh-so-original view usually call yourselves atheists or agnostic or something like that.

Well, I'm just curious how many of you are truly open minded, and sometimes think things like: "Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there really IS a God. Maybe it IS unfair of me to mention only atrocities caused by religious governments, and not atrocities caused by governments in modern times such as communism and Nazism.  Maybe religion isn't to blame, but simply human beings."

I consider myself a Christian, but I am also very open minded. I have put myself in the "shoes" of alternative viewpoints, whether it be atheist, agnostic-mystic, or what have you. I keep returning to Christianity however, because none of these views provide any answers....not even Christianity. But at least Christianity provides a way to connect with other human beings who are just as vexed as I am by age old questions. And it also provides a book full of wisdom about how to be a better human being. I'm not saying by being open minded you should end up a Christian, or Atheist, or whatever, I'm just saying for heaven's sake, stop parroting all the stereotypical pseudo-intellectual nonsense over and over again about religion causing all this strife and controlling the masses and so forth. I'm bloody sick of it.

I'm not religious and yet I think that you can find negative aspects in everything and even beautiful theories can be turned into dangerous dogma.
To say that religion is the source of all evil and brainwashing on this earth is just plain dumb because the majority philosophies, ideologies and theories who have brought destruction in the 20 century are absolutely secular and there's as much fanaticism and blind dogmatism in those philosophies and theories as there are in religion.
In fact I would say that the problem is not the theory per se but the militantism and closed minded of the people following them. Even music can be turned in a pretty distasteful and dumb form of dogmatic fanaticism.

What I really don't like is when very un-insightful scientism fans claim that the religious thought is inherently inferior and lower than the scientism thought, but they do this by comparing the highest science thought with the most hypocritical and superficial religious thought (typical of the sunday church goers) But the truth is that non-superficial religious thought is very high and have dealt seriously with important philosophical and epistemological issues with profound insight and I immediately think about people like Withehead, Hartshorne, Aquinas, Husserl, Flew which never let their thought reach the level of religious militantism and moral platitudes, militantism and platitudes that the thought of certain secular thinkers has reached. So I think that if we want to be fair we should compare real non-religious thinkers with real religious thinkers, and not real non-religious thinkers with the superficial militantism of self-called christian and their pop-morality.

[gaest]

Yes, Thal - right second time; it's not the religions themselves but some of the people that purport to follow them...

Best,

Alistair

I don't agree.  How can it just be the people when the very premise of many religions is "there is only one God" and "all other religions are invalid"?  Automatically, that sets up the religious conflict/tension that term described above.  If a religion acknowledges only its beliefs to be right, then the people who worship in accordance with that religion will intrinsically feel themselves to be the only righteous ones, the ones who are right while everyone else is incorrect.  That right there sets up the entire superiority mindset that so many religious fanatics come to embrace.

Of course, many believers are more relaxed than that and don't go around verbally or physically attacking people of other beliefs.  But inherently there is a potential for conflict built right into the foundation of many religions.  It is not merely people misinterpreting these religions.

So I'm going to have to agree with term here, which doesn't really help out as far as a logical debate goes.  It's hard to debate when you're both on the same side.

[ahinton]

I don't agree.  How can it just be the people when the very premise of many religions is "there is only one God" and "all other religions are invalid"?

Whatever the premise may be - or may have been - for some followers of religions, many such people regard their "one God" as the God of all religions rather than just their own and many also do not regard all religions other than their own as "invalid". I know, for example, quite a few Muslims who have a profound respect for the Christian religion and deprecate those Muslims who pour scorn on it. There are always those of what we now tend to call fundamentalist tendencies who operate under a "we're right and everyone else is wrong" agenda and this is indeed damaging to all religions but, in my experience, such people are not in the majority.

Automatically, that sets up the religious conflict/tension that term described above.  If a religion acknowledges only its beliefs to be right, then the people who worship in accordance with that religion will intrinsically feel themselves to be the only righteous ones, the ones who are right while everyone else is incorrect.  That right there sets up the entire superiority mindset that so many religious fanatics come to embrace.

In cases when this kind of thing happens, you are, of course, correct in what you write.

Of course, many believers are more relaxed than that and don't go around verbally or physically attacking people of other beliefs.  But inherently there is a potential for conflict built right into the foundation of many religions.  It is not merely people misinterpreting these religions.

I believe that there is a great deal of activity that purportedly goes on under the ægis of religions which is not germane to the religions concerned; one canot fairly accuse religions' founders for religious corruption and misinterpretation that occurs long after their deaths.

Best,

Alistair

[gaest]

Many of your points are true, but I still have to argue:

I believe that there is a gret deal of activity that purportedly goes on under the ægis of religions which is not germane to the religions concerned; one canot fairly accuse religions' founders for religious corruption and misinterpretation that occurs long after their deaths.

It is true that some people will twist religion to justify an activity that is not supported in that religion (except to those with active imaginations!).  But at the same time, it is not a misinterpretation to say that "my religion is better than yours" if the teachings of that religion really do state that.  Many people are thankfully more openminded than that now, but many religions still claim, black-and-white, that they are the only true religion and believing any other religion will lead you into "hell."

[timothy42b]

Actually, Christianity came about as the fulfillment of Judaism.  The people of Israel await(/ed) the coming of the Messiah, who we believe has come as Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.


Best,
ML

Well, no.  That is the construction of your denomination, you are an amilleniallist.  The pre- and post-milleniallists like pianistimmo deny this.  To the pre- and post- people, only Israel can fulfill Judaism, at which time it will be destroyed and only then will Christians triumph. 

Back on topic, I suspect there have to be two separate components for religion to cause trouble:  you must believe that yours is the Ultimate Truth and all others are wrong; but you must also believe the ends justify the means.  I think that was the unfortunate and unintended consequence of Acquinas's contribution.  Augustine opposed it, so for the first 1200 years or so the church was somewhat milder. 

[ahinton]

Many of your points are true, but I still have to argue:
it is not a misinterpretation to say that "my religion is better than yours" if the teachings of that religion really do state that.

But where in the Qu'ran or the Bible, for example, is that kind of exclusivity and superiority pushed and plugged? Tolerance of and respect for other faiths is quite rightly and sensibly encouraged by many, especially in areas where people of different faiths live and work together.

Many people are thankfully more openminded than that now, but many religions still claim, black-and-white, that they are the only true religion and believing any other religion will lead you into "hell."

The fundamentalist "hell-fire" agenda is certainly present and our consciousness of it is all the greater becuase those who pursue it tend to have the loudest voices; the more that people of different faiths live and work among one another, the sooner it will die a death - and the sooner the better. There is a chapter entitled Paths Leading to the Same Summit in Ananda Coomaraswamy's book The Bugbear of Literacy which is good on this one.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Religious people can't have a honest debate. They have too much spiritual investment in their positions to even consider questioning them.

[ahinton]

Religious people can't have a honest debate. They have too much spiritual investment in their positions to even consider questioning them.

As I've implied previously, there are indeed certain "religious" people who regrettably are unable and/or unwilling to do this because of their self-contrived positions of entrenchment, but these kinds of people are not, at least in my experience, representative of the majority of religious adherents.

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

Religious people can't have a honest debate. They have too much spiritual investment in their positions to even consider questioning them.

It's the difference between an idea and a belief. Nurturing a religious idea makes a lot of sense to me, since religious thought usually deals with an immaterial make-believe world that is very possibly NOT REAL!!!! Once somebody espouses their idea fully as a belief, then there is trouble, because they have invested their reason and dedication to some notion that the unreal is actually real.

It is possible to embrace a spirituality that does not entrench itself, but sadly, people are often haughty enough to feel that everything they think and do has to be able to stand on solid ground and be prepared to fight to the death. As long as unreasonable egotism exists, honest debate will always be hard-won.

I say 'f**k those people' and rest easier knowing that attitudes like their have pretty much wrecked the planet and killed off millions of innocent "non-believers" over the centuries (and will likely continue into the future, now that faith and greed are mutually intertwined). As regards debating them, it does not take that long to sniff out the fact that somebody is to stubborn to properly debate about anything. In those cases, I realize I have far better things to do than dick around with human sticks in the mud.

[mike_lang]

Religious people can't have a honest debate.

It's true - we debate with ourselves, with others, with logic, with emotion, and so forth for years, before coming to our personal conclusion about reality.  After this point, a real debate (in which one side can give) is not possible, as ideologies are already formed.  The most that can happen, in many cases, is a clearing up of misconceptions about the two opposing views (e.g., dispelling of myths about Islam, Catholicism), which may or may not lead to a conversion one way or the other.  I myself don't see a purpose in religious debate, as it is so personal, emotional sometimes, and often fruitless.  My grandmother always said that it is impolite to bring up matters of money, politics, or religion, and I tend to agree with that, since the three can be quite volatile and destructively divisive subjects.

[thalbergmad]

My grandmother always said that it is impolite to bring up matters of money, politics, or religion

So did mine, but i never took any notice.

I agree that it is pointless to debate, it gets nowhere.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

I am thoughtful. I think for myself. I believe. Sometimes I doubt everything. I mean *everything*. Well that's about all for now.

[shortyshort]

I agree that it is pointless to debate, it gets nowhere.

It has taken you a long time to realise that. 

I'm also guilty. 

Sometimes I doubt everything. I mean *everything*.

Yes, I'm guilty of that too. 

[thalbergmad]

Deep Wolfi, that is deep.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It has taken you a long time to realise that. 

I realised the first time i ever encountered pianistimo, but regretfully, i did not learn my lesson and wasted gigabytes on answering her posts.

Thankfully her latest departure has resulted in almost no religion, which is a great relief.

Thal

[shortyshort]

Thankfully her latest departure has resulted in almost no religion, which is a great relief.

She'll be back to continue her mission. 

[thalbergmad]

She'll be back to continue her mission. 

Probably.

After all, its her Birthday on the 25th.

Thal

[Bob]

I believe I truly think for myself. 


... That's right, isn't it?  Am I right?  



You've only got the material your given to work with.  I do think outside influence definitely play a part in my thinking.  How could they not?  But I do chew up things myself.  If you're only given two options, then you really haven't got much choice even though it appears so.  And then there are the lmits, like time.  After awhile I'll give up on thinking and researching and just make the best decision I can from what I know.

[pianowolfi]

Yes, I'm guilty of that too. 

Well I think there is no reason to call that guilty
I believe believing is an art, I believe doubting is an art as well 

[pita bread]

Well I think there is no reason to call that guilty
I believe believing is an art, I believe doubting is an art as well 

One perhaps a finer art than the other?

[timothy42b]

After this point, a real debate (in which one side can give) is not possible, as ideologies are already formed. 

I have taken an active part in some of these debates, usually in opposition to the more conservative end of the religious spectrum.

I have not converted any of them.  I am not sure that I have even influenced any of them to examine any of their positions in the slightest.

And then again, I am not sure that I have not.  Certainly I have reexamined my own beliefs, clarified some of them, and changed some of them in a process that still continues.  So if it has been useful for me, perhaps it has for a fundie or two as well.

Nah. 

[netzow]

I didn't bother to read the whole thread. Hence someone else may already have said this. But if we can't think for ourselves how are we going to know if we do or not?

[timothy42b]

I didn't bother to read the whole thread. Hence someone else may already have said this. But if we can't think for ourselves how are we going to know if we do or not?

Hah!  That is a really good point.

But perhaps we could use some evidence from other areas.  For example, if one doctor always diagnosed colds, and the other regularly found 8 or 10 diseases in the same population, we would suspect that Doctor 2 was better at thinking for himself.  But there could be other explanations we would have to rule out. 

In religious debates those who respond only with Bible quotations are probably not thinking for themselves, and those who use more logic and quote a variety of other sources probably are.  But again we'd have to look at more possibilities. 

[gaest]

My apologies, I should have responded to this awhile ago...

But where in the Qu'ran or the Bible, for example, is that kind of exclusivity and superiority pushed and plugged? Tolerance of and respect for other faiths is quite rightly and sensibly encouraged by many, especially in areas where people of different faiths live and work together.

I don't want to venture a response with respect to the Qu'ran, since I'm not as familiar with it as the Bible.

As for the Bible, there is plenty of exclusivity and superiority in the Old Testament.  I don't know verses off the top of my head, but I distinctly remember reading passages discussing "smiting of infidels."  One of the books - Joshua, I think - deals quite directly with the extermination of another people.  The New Testament moves away from that, it is true, and I'm hardly saying that all Christians take everything in the Bible at face value.  However, that sense of superiority is there.

Which is understandable.  Many religions have the concept that "this is the one true religion" at the center of their belief system.  This concept could influence people to do good things or bad things, or may not influence them at all... but it is there.

The fundamentalist "hell-fire" agenda is certainly present and our consciousness of it is all the greater becuase those who pursue it tend to have the loudest voices; the more that people of different faiths live and work among one another, the sooner it will die a death - and the sooner the better. There is a chapter entitled Paths Leading to the Same Summit in Ananda Coomaraswamy's book The Bugbear of Literacy which is good on this one.

I will check out that book and that chapter when I get the opportunity.  I agree with this statement.  Ignorance is what tends to build a sense of superiority and intolerance; not pure ignorance, just unfamiliarity with other viewpoints.  The sooner and the more often a person or group is exposed to other ways of thinking, the more tolerance will be fostered.

[thalbergmad]

I'm hardly saying that all Christians take everything in the Bible at face value. 

Thank God for that.

The ones that do are impossible to debate with.

Thal

[Siberian Husky]

i pretend i do. i fabricate a reality where i control my thoughts, ambitions, and opinion-forming processes. it gives a false sense of security and control. without this, i would fail at life, but because i do this for myself, my self esteem thrives. i believe i willed myself to type this; i thought about replying to this thread on my own and this action is in no way a complete product of the stimuli in my world--including the thread, the text, the internet, the computer, the interactive relationship between myself and a computing machine, which allows me to interact with foreign human entities.


i love you nils, have my baby.