I doubt that. Everywhere you look new churches are popping up. Christianity is set into the world culture and I doubt there is anything we could do to change it
( ... )
Re: relativism = faileggsnailAugust 19 2007, 00:25:03 UTC
I have to agree with some of the other comments about the basis behind your argument/logic/what-have-you. There is no conclusive proof for or against the existence of any mystical deity, thus neither side of this argument can claim absolute correctness and superiority over the other. Absolute conviction that you are correct, all right.
If by "tolerate" you mean tolerating an absolute overthrow of government and society by radical Christian theology, no I don't think we should tolerate that. But if you're using tolerate in it's actual dictionary connotation, I see no reason why a religious belief (or lack of belief) could not be tolerated simply because one person feels that it is absolutely wrong. Particularly since being overtly intolerant of a Christian's view on god, for example, would just throw you into the same fanatical close-minded camp as the Christians you believe are so wrong.
Frankly, I think the Christians are all wrong, too. But to say, "I'm right and you're wrong," particularly about something that neither party
( ... )
Does it suck that there are constantly Christians trying to save your soul? Yes. Is it there right as free citizens of this world to do that? Of course.
But I'd really rather they didn't. What about my right as a free citizen of the world to be left alone?
I can ignore them when they try to convert me (although it'd be nice if they'd not do that); however, when they're in the government making morality laws that affect me, it's a little harder to ignore.
You can't ignore them. Many fundamentalists want to implement their beliefs into law. Many are succeeding.
Furthermore, throughout the world, theocratic and near-theocratic states create tremendous suffering. It's callous and inhumane to just "ignore" that.
Bookstores in the past have refused to carry certain books or magazines because of threats from certain fundamentalists. That's not the kind of world I want.
Sounds like the rise of "Religious Humanism" and such things.
Also, glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't mind religious/spiritual people. I seem to be the only one against organized religion and not religion itself.
Reply
If by "tolerate" you mean tolerating an absolute overthrow of government and society by radical Christian theology, no I don't think we should tolerate that. But if you're using tolerate in it's actual dictionary connotation, I see no reason why a religious belief (or lack of belief) could not be tolerated simply because one person feels that it is absolutely wrong. Particularly since being overtly intolerant of a Christian's view on god, for example, would just throw you into the same fanatical close-minded camp as the Christians you believe are so wrong.
Frankly, I think the Christians are all wrong, too. But to say, "I'm right and you're wrong," particularly about something that neither party ( ... )
Reply
But I'd really rather they didn't. What about my right as a free citizen of the world to be left alone?
Reply
Reply
Reply
But when they're acting like private citizens, whatcha gonna do?
Reply
Furthermore, throughout the world, theocratic and near-theocratic states create tremendous suffering. It's callous and inhumane to just "ignore" that.
Bookstores in the past have refused to carry certain books or magazines because of threats from certain fundamentalists. That's not the kind of world I want.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Also, glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't mind religious/spiritual people. I seem to be the only one against organized religion and not religion itself.
PS: You used the right "there" there. ;-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment