quote: VIRGINIA BEACH - Selecting presidential candidate Mitt Romney as its May commencement speaker has riled some of Regent University's students and alumni who say his Mormon faith clashes with the school's bedrock evangelical Christianity.
"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year.
The controversy over Romney's visit has bubbled for two weeks among students, spilling onto Regent's internal electronic bulletin board, "The Branch." Scores of e-mails on both sides of the debate have been posted, a student said.
Pat Robertson, the Christian broadcaster who is Regent's founder and chancellor, invited Romney to be the keynote speaker, said Sherri Stocks, a Regent vice president. Romney is the former Republican governor of Massachusetts.
This, I think, bodes ill.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wonder if the university will rescind the invitation? It will be interesting to see what they do.
I decided yesterday I need to be more zen about this all. And remember that BYU once invited an exhibit of Rodin sculptures to campus and then refused to exhibit the nude sculptures. I just need to keep telling myself that all sorts of people do the craziest things.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
We aren't talking just about evangelical college students. We are talking about college students at an evangelical college whose mission is to support a certain religious viewpoint. Hence I don't find it surprising or particularly worrisome that student there would be upset about having someone with a different religious viewpoint speak at commencement.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I meant it bodes ill for Romney from a political perspective. I think it was Karl Rove who said getting evangelicals to go vote won Bush the election; this makes it seem like they will stay home instead of voting for Romney.
I also thought this comment would be particularly upsetting for LDS:
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year.
Don't most take exception when people call them not Christian?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: "What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe,"
Even though the beliefs are different, to say that Mormons are on the opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values is ridiculous. Either he misspoke or he doesn't have a clue.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jatraquero Mormons are a bit more understanding than regular Mo's when it comes to that particular question, Kasie.
I think.
I'm not offended by Doug's statements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are different definitions of Christian. I don't think evangelicals using their definition (which generally includes saying that Catholics aren't Christian either) is any worse than LDS labeling everyone who isn't them gentiles and saying that other Christian churches come from the Aposty. The Evangelicals have a specific definition of what it means to be Christian in the way they use it. LDS clearly do not fit that definition. It's not particularly repsectful, but the LDS don't exactly have much of a leg to stand on if we're talking about respecting others' religious beliefs.
I'm not sure that this is (edit: has to be) an instance of bigotry as much as it is their perspective that:
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe,"
(edit: although I'd be suprised if anti-LDS bigotry didn't play a role.)
I don't think that not wanting someone to speak there simply because they have a different religion than you is really a great idea. But, then again, I think that speaking at commencement is usually accompanied by an honorary degree, which I could see being a problem. I wonder if there'd be an issue if, say, a Catholic was asked to speak.
[ March 02, 2007, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
From the article:
quote:Another Republican presidential candidate, ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, will speak at Regent's executive leadership program in April. Giuliani is Catholic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Regent had William Pryor, a devout Catholic, speak in 2004. Can't find anything about whether he was protested or not.
Total side note: What I like about Pryor is that he's the one who forced Moore out of office in Alabama. Pryor agreed with Moore that the 10 commandments monument was acceptable under the first amendment but demanded compliance with the SCOTUS decision.
I disagree with both about the first amendment analysis, but I like a chief law enforcement officer who publicly enforces a civil rights ruling he disagrees with.
George Allen, 2005 Elaine L. Chao (Labor Secretary), 2003 Richard Armey, 2002
Edit: I do think there's a difference between protesting over commencement speakers and other types of speakers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Kasie, As I said, I think it might be a different issue for commencement than for other speaking occasions. I'm just trying to point out other options for a full perspective. Ultimately, it's a college of evangelicals founded by Pat Robertson. Yeah, I think that they very likely have a large pool of bigots, but I wanted to throw out another explanation that wasn't represented yet. edit: And it fits with what the guy quoted in the article is saying:
quote:Dowdey said he welcomed diverse viewpoints at Regent but that the university's commencement should reflect the school's distinctive religious values.
Dag, Your link doesn't work for me, but it's really no biggie. Having a devout Catholic speak weakens their argument quite a bit, I think, but, as you said, we don't know if there was a strong protest over that. Of course, the students now would likely know going in that the school asks non-Christians (by their definition) to speak at commencement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the LDS don't exactly have much of a leg to stand on if we're talking about respecting others' religious beliefs.
Do you mean we DOCTRINALLY don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to respecting other peoples' religions? Because that's simply not true-- respect for other peoples' religion is practically encoded in the doctrine.
quote:The Articles of Faith 11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Or are you talking about the BEHAVIOR of some LDS members?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I don't think evangelicals using their definition (which generally includes saying that Catholics aren't Christian either) is any worse than LDS labeling everyone who isn't them gentiles and saying that other Christian churches come from the Aposty."
I do completely. Gentile is a religious word for non-Mormon, but it isn't anything that we would use outside of our own group. Second, we might have very different conceptions of Jesus (not to rehash the whole thing, but NOT the differences that change the role of Christ) and where the Christian churches went after the Apostles. What we would NEVER do is define a Christian by those beliefs.
There is a difference between holding beliefs that others don't hold, and showing respect and tolerance for those same people. This is especially the case when saying Mormons don't hold the same "Christian values" as they do. At best that would be true for a whole host of values for many people. Then again, evangilicals have not been known for tolerance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Doctrinelly, you baptise the dead, pursue and active missionary program, regard the founders of the other Churches as apostates, and call every one else gentiles. Doctrinally, you deny the sacraments of the other religions have any validity or that their practiconers have any authority.
That's at least as disrespectful as them asserting their definition of Christianity that excludes you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, the derogatory word 'Gentiles' hasn't enjoyed serious (or widespread) use among Mormons since World War II.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
MrSquicky,
*nods*
I'm not trying to be inflammatory or suggest that Mormons *should* be upset. I just thought it had potentially interesting political ramifications, and also was curious as to how LDS members would react to the comments in the second paragraph.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Second, we might have very different conceptions of Jesus (not to rehash the whole thing, but NOT the differences that change the role of Christ)
Yes, they do change the role of Christ, in important and fundamental ways. Your statement is based on a serious misperception of the role of Christ in non-Mormon religions.
I spent a fair amount of time calling Ron to task for telling Mormons what they believe. I wish you'd stop doing the same thing in reverse.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I disagree and I protest your opinions MrSquicky so much that I feel violent! In what you point out the choice of offense is yours and not ours. Mormons do NOT believe that anyone is NOT Christian if they believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. What you are pointing out is not an argument against the definition of Christian. It is an argument about proper Authority and not Faith in the Lord.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
How many students are we talking about? Maybe it's because I went to a protest friendly school, but a reporter can find a group of students to protest anything. This is a local issue, or maybe an educational issue, but I don't think this a Evangelicals hate LDS issue.
As I see it, there are discriminatory sides of all religions, which is fine because to the believer, the whole world is at stake, but the media instigating conflict isn't the same thing as reporting, is it? It seems Romney would do better in the Republican primary if he were an Evangelical Christian, but he is also a big white businessman with a photogenic family and a dull demeanor who likes tax cuts and is willing to stick it to gays. He is a familiar political character, even if his family wears different underwear. I figure as long as Romney doesn't say he is going to deliver the US to the Jews or Satan, he is good with the non-LDS Christian right.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Yes, they do change the role of Christ, in important and fundamental ways"
How? You have YET to answer that question Dagonee. You have just said it does with no explanation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Occ, LDS believe in a fundamentally different God than evangelical Christians do. I could see from their perspective, you are much Christians as Muslims are, who, after all worship the God of the Old Testament. In fact, their conception of the deity is closer to the one that the Muslims hold than the one that LDS hold.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you baptise the dead
You've got a certain point here. I know lots of Christians feel it's disrespectful to the PERSON; how is it disrespectful to their religion?
quote:pursue and active missionary program
How is it disrespectful to other people's religion for us to have missionaries?
quote:regard the founders of the other Churches as apostates
You misunderstand Mormon doctrine here. The only apostates I'm aware of that we call apostates are those that have belonged to our church.
This has to do with the idea that in order for someone to apostatize from the truth, they have to know the truth first.
:shrug:
Mormonism is doctrinally exclusive. You're right about that-- we claim to be the one true religion. Most of your complaints are offshoots of this claim.
However, I dispute the idea that we don't respect other people's religions. I don't think that the term 'respect' means 'accept,' in other words. I don't think exclsivity, in the way it is doctrinally outlined within Mormonism is disrespectful of other religions; at the worst, it merely ignores them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occ, for what it is worth, I believe Dag is sincere and has a point worth addressing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"LDS believe in a fundamentally different God than evangelical Christians do."
We are not talking about the nature of God or Jesus; we are talking about the ROLE of Jesus.
"Occ, for what it is worth, I believe Dag is sincere and has a point worth addressing."
That is probably the case, but I would like it addressed and not just stated.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
PH, yes you are. That is because Catholics consider themselves Christians, Mormons consider themselves Christians, and some people who hardly can be called such still consider themselves Christian. To deny them that definition is to deny them a fundimental self-identification that is like calling someone un-American because they don't agree with you politically.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Yes, they do change the role of Christ, in important and fundamental ways"
How? You have YET to answer that question Dagonee. You have just said it does with no explanation.
First, I'm not demanding explanations of differences from you - I'm taking you at your word. It's getting very tiresome to have to correct certain people who, when explaining the difference or similarity between LDS beliefs and other beliefs, base their comparison on an almost complete misunderstanding of others' beliefs. I've seen this concerning the concept of authority, I've seen it concerning food and drink restrictions, I've seen it concerning the trinity. It's tiresome. You could give explanations of your beliefs without referencing ours. Several people do this all or essentially all the time - Scott, Geoff, Kat spring quickly to mind, but there are others. Or you could learn - seriously - about other faiths. MattB seems to have done this. But it's tiresome to go through this so regularly.
Second, there's a distinct difference in the fact that the the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection were undertaken by an incarnation of the Father himself. Third, the differences concerning the fall change the nature of what is corrected by the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection.
The reason for, the nature of the being doing, and the consequences of the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection are all different.
quote:That is probably the case, but I would like it addressed and not just stated.
You have demonstrated no basis for your claim that the role of Christ is identical in LDS beliefs and other Christian beliefs. I've addressed - at length - the differences in the nature of God. I've addressed - at length - the differences in beliefs about the nature of authority. Each time, I did so to correct statements about my faith that were inaccurate. It's systemic amongst a certain group here (one NOT defined by being LDS). I think at this point the credibility of that group is shot concerning non-Mormon beliefs just as much as Ron's is concerning LDS beliefs.
So, when you say that "X is the same as Y" without deigning to support your conclusions about Y, I'm not inclined to pull together a full explanation for you. I'm going to assert that your wrong and, if necessary, subsequently address any evidence you decide to present.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I find that attitude pretty intolerant...
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think she was talking to Squicky, Dags.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, I was. I took too long to post!
Dag.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Yes, they do change the role of Christ, in important and fundamental ways"
How? You have YET to answer that question Dagonee. You have just said it does with no explanation.
His explanation that was good enough for me can be found in the OTHER Mormon/Romney thread,
I'm sorry I don't particularly care to locate the precise page but its towards the end not the beginning.
What I cannot understand is not the difference in opinion doctrinally, is that they stated a difference in "values" of the Christian variety as ground for opposing his speaking there.
I cannot think of what values they could be talking about. Unless acceptance of the 3 in 1 trinity constitutes a moral value, which it could be argued it does I am not sure what these evangelicals are saying.
Two years ago at Utah Valley State College there was a relative uproar when Michael Moore was invited to speak here. Most of the students are LDS and hate the message he was peddling, while others argued that at an academic institution of learning, and a government school, all view points must be given equal footing and none should be given preferential treatment.
I personally attended his speech, learned some things, and went away from it deciding that I disagreed with much of Moore's take on things.
Romney in this instance is not coming to talk about his Mormonism and why he believes in it. He is not proselyting, though setting a good example and by that means influencing others that Mormons are good people could be called proselyting.
I understand why Mormons are not being called Christian by the students/alumni, its unfortunate that their spectrum of moral compass is so narrow that Evangelical Christianity is on one side and Mormonism is on the other. It is to be wondered where they place hedonism, atheism, and Aztec sun God worship.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
-pH
I don't honestly understand what you're getting at here. All I suggested was that some people don't seem to think Catholics are Christian. I suppose I implied that such an attitude is intolerant, which I will come out right now and say that it is intolerant so there is no need to put words in my mouth any longer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I cannot understand is not the difference in opinion doctrinally, is that they stated a difference in "values" of the Christian variety as ground for opposing his speaking there.
This part is incomprehensible to me. Unless they still think you practice polygamy (thinking which is basically inexcusable at this point), I can't think what they mean. If they mean beliefs, their using the word "values" in a counterintuitive fashion, plus they call out beliefs seperately.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pH, I don't understand the nature of your characterization. Could you provide your rationale for saying that? What am I not tolerating?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
-pH
I don't honestly understand what you're getting at here. All I suggested was that some people don't seem to think Catholics are Christian. I suppose I implied that such an attitude is intolerant, which I will come out right now and say that it is intolerant so there is no need to put words in my mouth any longer.
Um, I wasn't aware that I was putting words in your mouth in the first place...
And I also don't see it as particularly intolerant, considering that by the definition that some faiths give, Catholics and other denominations aren't Christian. And by the LDS definition, I'm not Mormon. Does that mean that if I go around saying I'm Mormon when I don't meet that definition, Mormons are intolerant?
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
pH: Actually there are splinter groups that call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists," as they refuse to accept that God discontinued polygamy. Our church vehemently denies that they can accurately be labeled as Mormons or "fundi mormons" as there are just too many doctrinal differences besides polygamy to accurately call them Mormons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pH, a lot of the polygamist groups call themselves Mormon and that claim is contested by the LDS church. Also, there's an RLDS church from those who stayed in Illinois when the bulk of the Saints went West, and they, I think, also call themselves Mormon. It's actually an issue.
For Christian, it depends on your definition. It takes a fairly convoluted definition to exclude religions that worship Christ as the Son of God and believe that the atonement was necessary for salvation from being Christian.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see it as particularly convoluted to say "a Christian is someone who believes those things that a council, acting under apostolic authority and guided by God, compiled as the common underlying beliefs of Christianity."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Just a quick statement, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who will say that Catholics/Protestants are not Christian. A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as savior and also in the principles he taught.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dagonee, that definition puts the decision of a council centuries after Christ lived as the sine qua non of Christianity. A simpler definition would be that someone who follows Christ as the Son of God is a follower of Christ as the Son of God.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not sure I see the difference between the groups that departed from the LDS church (some of them claiming to be closer to "original" Mormonism) wanting to call themselves Mormon and groups that departed from mainstream Christianity (claiming to be closer to "original" Christianity) wanting to call themselves Christian.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ]I don't honestly understand what you're getting at here. All I suggested was that some people don't seem to think Catholics are Christian. I suppose I implied that such an attitude is intolerant, which I will come out right now and say that it is intolerant so there is no need to put words in my mouth any longer. [/QB]
Not only intolerant, but the fact is that Catholics were the original christians and there would be no Christians, of any variety, without the Catholic church.
Having done a lot of examination of the evangelical christian faiths, and speaking with many evangelical christians, I can tell you from first hand experience that many evangelical christians do not consider the LDS faith christian. And some go so far as to consider it anti-christian. I won't go so far as to say satanistic, but many believe that the mormon church is a religion designed to "trick" christians into not believing in Jesus in the "proper" way, and a device of the devil to lure christians from being "saved". I say that not to inflame or offend, but because that is the truth as to what they believe. I've been told that by many of them. That's not what *I* believe by any means.
So when I saw that original post about Romney I was not suprised. There is a lot of animosity by evangelical christians towards mormons. And frankly, Romney has no chance of winning the evangelicals over in this election. IMO from my experience with the evangelicals.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Just a quick statement, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who will say that Catholics/Protestants are not Christian. A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as savior and also in the principles he taught.
I'm speaking specifically to someone calling him/herself Mormon when most Mormons would not agree. If that isn't intolerant, then I fail to see how thinking that someone is not Christian when he or she does not meet your faith's definition of "Christian" is intolerant.
Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm not sure I see the difference between the groups that departed from the LDS church (some of them claiming to be closer to "original" Mormonism) wanting to call themselves Mormon and groups that departed from mainstream Christianity (claiming to be closer to "original" Christianity) wanting to call themselves Christian.
I don't either, really. I think it's fine if they want to call themselves Mormon.
I do object to the press lumping them together with the LDS, though, because that means all sorts of people believe that all Mormons still practice polygamy as a result. I also strenuously object to them calling themselves "fundamentalist" Mormons. Polygamy is NOT the most fundamental of doctrines - it shouldn't be.
For that matter, I think other Protestants should object to term "fundamentalist Christian." Aknowledging that term is like saying those who AREN'T in that group are following something that is NOT part of the foundation of Christianity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, that definition puts the decision of a council centuries after Christ lived as the sine qua non of Christianity. A simpler definition would be that someone who follows Christ as the Son of God is a follower of Christ as the Son of God.
There's a difference between "convoluted" and "not the simplest."
Nice use of "sine qua non," though.
To be clear, I think both definitions are accurate. If I were making an organizational chart of world religions, I'd have "Mormon" under the branch labeled "Christian."
I just don't think a definitition such as the one I put above is either particularly convoluted or necessarily ill-intentioned.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think anything from the relicos in this debate is ill-intentioned - even the protesters at the university.
Hmm...I think there should be another term for those who believe the council at Nicea was authoritative. Right the term in use is "Christian", but that is causing problems all over, because you end of up several definitions for an emotionally charged word.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pH, Still waiting for an explanation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Second, there's a distinct difference in the fact that the the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection were undertaken by an incarnation of the Father himself. Third, the differences concerning the fall change the nature of what is corrected by the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection.
The reason for, the nature of the being doing, and the consequences of the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection are all different."
That is better. That is something. Where you see the differences of the "consiquences" as an important distinction, I personally don't. For me the act of the "incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection," or Atonement in LDS wording, by a God/Person named Jesus and called The Christ is far more important in labeling a person Christian then what they might mean in the theological long run. The biggest difference is if you are going to call someone Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or something else.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The evangelicals are not using "believes in the council of Nicea" as their defintion of Christian. As had been noted, many of them believe that Catholics are not Christians either.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: pH, Still waiting for an explanation.
Wait, what am I explaining? This thread is moving too quickly.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You said what I said was intolerent. I have no idea how that could be an accurate description. I was hoping you'd explain why you thought it was.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I'm not sure I see the difference between the groups that departed from the LDS church (some of them claiming to be closer to "original" Mormonism) wanting to call themselves Mormon and groups that departed from mainstream Christianity (claiming to be closer to "original" Christianity) wanting to call themselves Christian. "
I don't either and I think they are wrong headed to try and do so.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH [/QB]
The first Pope was Jesus' main man. Without the catholic church, christianity dies and doesn't spread throughout europe. Whether or not you agree with the religion, everything starts from what the catholic church did to spread the word of Christ. Yes there are many 'sects' of christianity that were around from the time of Jesus, but the spread of Jesus' word and the differentiation from the Jews began with what eventually became the catholic church.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where you see the differences of the "consiquences" as an important distinction, I personally don't.
I'm not trying to say you should see them as important. I'm trying to say that I (and many others) see them as important. Also, my post didn't relate to whether Mormons should call themselves "Christian" (I think they should). It related to you claim that the differences in our conceptions of Christ don't create differences in our beliefs about the role of Christ. They do create differences. What I particularly object to is when such a statement misstates the beliefs of others, which I believe your original statement did.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH
The first Pope was Jesus' main man. Without the catholic church, christianity dies and doesn't spread throughout europe. Whether or not you agree with the religion, everything starts from what the catholic church did to spread the word of Christ. Yes there are many 'sects' of christianity that were around from the time of Jesus, but the spread of Jesus' word and the differentiation from the Jews began with what eventually became the catholic church. [/QB]
Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The first Pope was Jesus' main man.
John the Beloved was Jesus' main man.
The first person given authority over the church Jesus founded was Peter.
(As a trade-up, John gets to live forever. Or until Christ comes again. I think John DEFINITELY got the better end of the deal.)
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
-pH
It's disrespectful in the aspect that an evangelical that doesn't consider a catholic or a mormon to be christian believes so because they think their faith is the only faith that can be considered christian. And that if you don't meet the qualifications as to what they believe, you're not a christian. As has been stated, catholics and/or mormons generally do not consider evangelicals to not be christians. And for the most part, are pretty tolerant of other religions.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
PH, I think you are getting mixed up between (I hope I get this correct) genus and species in religious nomenclature.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Are you even reading what I'm saying?
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
-pH
It's disrespectful in the aspect that an evangelical that doesn't consider a catholic or a mormon to be christian believes so because they think their faith is the only faith that can be considered christian. And that if you don't meet the qualifications as to what they believe, you're not a christian. As has been stated, catholics and/or mormons generally do not consider evangelicals to not be christians. And for the most part, are pretty tolerant of other religions.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.
I can believe I'm plenty of things. It doesn't obligate other people to believe I am those things.
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It related to you claim that the differences in our conceptions of Christ don't create differences in our beliefs about the role of Christ. They do create differences"
I think at this point it isn't about misunderstanding. Rather, its about disagreement. You believe your conception of Christ changes his Role. I believe it only changes the consiquences. Don't think we can go any more from here.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH [/QB]
What I said was catholics were the original christians. Jesus' original followers considered themselves Jews, even after His death. Without the organized religion that became the catholic church, there would be no other christian varieties of churches. Catholics spread and maintained the word of Christ through Europe and Asia and Africa and in the new world. Unless your gnostic or greek orthodox, pretty much every other religion that uses the christian bible traces its origins in some way or another from the catholic church.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think at this point it isn't about misunderstanding. Rather, its about disagreement. You believe your conception of Christ changes his Role. I believe it only changes the consiquences. Don't think we can go any more from here.
It's a disagreement about what I believe. The only reason you can possibly disagree about that is by telling me that I don't believe what I say I believe. It's exactly what Ron was doing.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Just a quick statement, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who will say that Catholics/Protestants are not Christian. A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as savior and also in the principles he taught.
I'm speaking specifically to someone calling him/herself Mormon when most Mormons would not agree. If that isn't intolerant, then I fail to see how thinking that someone is not Christian when he or she does not meet your faith's definition of "Christian" is intolerant.
Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
-pH
I never made any comments about whether someone should or should not be called a Mormon, nor will I. I do not know nearly enough about the splintering of the Mormon church to say anything about it.
As to the Catholic Church -- it was the original church. When Constantine got all the factions together and told them to stop bickering and make up their minds, that was the origins of the organized catholic/christian church. Before that, it was very disorganized, mostly underground, and often considered a cult. Once it became organized it began to spread more rapidly and also, it began to splinter.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH
What I said was catholics were the original christians. Jesus' original followers considered themselves Jews, even after His death. Without the organized religion that became the catholic church, there would be no other christian varieties of churches. Catholics spread and maintained the word of Christ through Europe and Asia and Africa and in the new world. Unless your gnostic or greek orthodox, pretty much every other religion that uses the christian bible traces its origins in some way or another from the catholic church. [/QB]
AGAIN, I will say that the Catholic church spreading Christianity IS NOT THE SAME as Catholics being the first Christians.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Okay, your post got mixed in with the one above it in my mind. I don't know that I think it's all that disrespectful to have that attitude, simply because by that logic, a faith's definitions should be all-inclusive. If I claim to be a certain faith, and the members of that faith say, "No, you don't meet the definition of a follow of our faith," I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
That's not it at all. First, "Christian" is not a faith. It's a superset of faiths. Second, I'm not saying that a faith's definitions should be all inclusive, but rather when they don't respect other people's beliefs and faith, they are being disrespectful. They may not be wrong to be disrespectful, perhaps those beliefs and people don't deserve respect, but that doesn't change that they are disrespectful.
I think you may have gotten the definition of respect mixed up. You can believe whatever you want. That is not the defining aspect of respect or not. When you dismiss another person or their beliefs, you are not respecting them. It is not what you believe, but your regard for the other person's beliefs as valueless, that makes it disrespectful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pH, Catholics believe that the Church founded on Pentacost is the same entity known as the Catholic Church today. Each of the original twelve except Judas was a member - in fact, together with Paul and the one appointed to replace Judas, the leaders.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is YOU who say that Mormons regard other people's beliefs as valueless. You are making this up. It isn't true.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I can believe I'm plenty of things. It doesn't obligate other people to believe I am those things.
-pH
But if I disagreed with what you believe you are because I consider myself to be the 'true' brand of that particular belief, it can make me intolerant. Especially if I tell you that you are 'wrong'. Whether or not I agree that I am intolerant.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: pH, Catholics believe that the Church founded on Pentacost is the same entity known as the Catholic Church today. Each of the original twelve except Judas was a member - in fact, together with Paul and the one appointed to replace Judas, the leaders.
True..."On this rock I will build my church." The Catholic church teaches that this is where they began.
Historically, I tend to think that the real, organized church began with Constantine (as I said before) but in religion classes, I learned that the first pope was Peter.
[ March 02, 2007, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Let's try this again. Jesus' original followers weren't a part of the Catholic church. Period. Whether or not the Catholic church helped spread Christianity is irrelevant to your claim that the first Christians were Catholic.
-pH
What I said was catholics were the original christians. Jesus' original followers considered themselves Jews, even after His death. Without the organized religion that became the catholic church, there would be no other christian varieties of churches. Catholics spread and maintained the word of Christ through Europe and Asia and Africa and in the new world. Unless your gnostic or greek orthodox, pretty much every other religion that uses the christian bible traces its origins in some way or another from the catholic church.
AGAIN, I will say that the Catholic church spreading Christianity IS NOT THE SAME as Catholics being the first Christians.
-pH [/QB]
I didn't say "first", I said "original" christians. There's a big difference there.
You can sit back today, after 2000 years and say that Jesus and his apostles were the "first" christians. But they weren't, they were Jews. As I said, even after Jesus' death the apostles and his followers considered themselves Jewish. Christianity as a faith (church) started when the organized church that followed Jesus came into being. And that organized church that spread the word of Jesus and started it all became the catholic church. That was the original christian church.
And yes, Catholics believe that the apostles and the work they did after Jesus' death was the foundation for the catholic church. The organizing force that gave birth to the church. And Paul is considered the first Pope.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I appreciate that explanation, Dag.
But for the most part, this is like talking to a wall.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, What the crap are you talking about?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You made up the part about Mormons considering other people's religions as valueless. It isn't true.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Peter was the first Pope, not Paul.
Paul was, however, the main force for taking Christianity beyond a Jewish sect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not talking about LDS there[edit:], although, yeah, I'll expand it to them. When you say that dkw, for example, isn't really a minister of God and all the ceremonies she officiates are without authority, you are disrespecting her and her faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
A couple things:
First of all, I'm no fan of Bible thumpers. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say they're intolerant in this case. And when it comes to what defines a Christian, there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation and that needing an intermediary to God whe it comes to confession is also a disqualifying factor. By their definition, some groups of Christians, including Catholics, place importance on both of these. As a result, they do not consider Catholics to be Christian by their definition. I don't see that as the horribly terrible thing some seem to. It's not like they're thinking that everyone else eats babies and worships Satan.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation
No matter what Jesus had to say.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation
No matter what Jesus had to say.
*sigh* I am not trying to start an argument about works vs. faith. I'm explaining why some people don't consider some faiths to be Christian.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: and the one appointed to replace Judas
Matthias, if anyone's wondering.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: A couple things:
First of all, I'm no fan of Bible thumpers. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say they're intolerant in this case. And when it comes to what defines a Christian, there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation and that needing an intermediary to God whe it comes to confession is also a disqualifying factor. By their definition, some groups of Christians, including Catholics, place importance on both of these. As a result, they do not consider Catholics to be Christian by their definition. I don't see that as the horribly terrible thing some seem to. It's not like they're thinking that everyone else eats babies and worships Satan.
-pH
Then you missed my post above about evangelicals believing the Mormon church is a 'trick' by satan to lure people away from being 'saved' and true christianity. I think you're probably giving some evangelicals too much credit. If you were to speak with many evangelicals, and have them tell you that catholics aren't christian because they eat fish on fridays and follow the pope, and mormons aren't christian because Joseph Smith was crazy and blasphemed the gospel and bible, you would see that they don't always disagree because of docterine or dogma. They disagree because they are indeed intolerant of other religions, even those who do believe in Jesus Christ. I've heard a lot of ridiculous things from evangelicals about other religions that they neither know nor understand. I can't speak as to the motivating factors behind the Regents Univeristy students not wanting Mitt Romney to speak, but as I said it didn't suprise me that a evangelical christian university didn't want a speaker at their univeristy because he's mormon.
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH: A couple things:
First of all, I'm no fan of Bible thumpers. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to say they're intolerant in this case. And when it comes to what defines a Christian, there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation and that needing an intermediary to God whe it comes to confession is also a disqualifying factor. By their definition, some groups of Christians, including Catholics, place importance on both of these. As a result, they do not consider Catholics to be Christian by their definition. I don't see that as the horribly terrible thing some seem to. It's not like they're thinking that everyone else eats babies and worships Satan.
-pH
Then you missed my post above about evangelicals believing the Mormon church is a 'trick' by satan to lure people away from being 'saved' and true christianity. I think you're probably giving some evangelicals too much credit. If you were to speak with many evangelicals, and have them tell you that catholics aren't christian because they eat fish on fridays and follow the pope, and mormons aren't christian because Joseph Smith was crazy and blasphemed the gospel and bible, you would see that they don't always disagree because of docterine or dogma. They disagree because they are indeed intolerant of other religions, even those who do believe in Jesus Christ.
I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:there are plenty of people who say that works absolutely cannot be included as a part of salvation
No matter what Jesus had to say.
*sigh* I am not trying to start an argument about works vs. faith. I'm explaining why some people don't consider some faiths to be Christian.
-pH
But you still haven't explained why this doesn't make them intolerant.
What if I said I don't think black people are human, even if they say they are? Is it intolerant of me to say such a thing if, by my definition, they simply aren't included?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: They disagree because they are indeed intolerant of other religions, even those who do believe in Jesus Christ.
Yes, but to be fair, they are also less tolerant than other groups in regards to other races, cultures, and their own spouses as well.
quote:I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
Really? There aren't any bigotted Southern Baptists? Because that disagrees with the research that I'm aware of that puts South Baptists among the groups that display almost the highest levels of prejudice.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You guys, I just wish there was a little more respect for evangelicals in this thread. It's bothering me so much that such a stink is raised about respecting people's religious beliefs, and yet it's considered perfectly okay to trash evangelicals, an action that none of you seem to find the least bit intolerant.
-pH
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: [I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree. Maybe you've never heard an evangelical tell you mormons are evil and mislead by the devil, but I have. Many a time. I've also been told that I was going to hell for being a catholic. Nice people, very tolerant.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It's a disagreement about what I believe. The only reason you can possibly disagree about that is by telling me that I don't believe what I say I believe. It's exactly what Ron was doing."
No it is not. I understand you believe differet things about what reasons He did things, who He was that did them, and what those things ultimately lead to. Still, the Role is Jesus as Christ and Savior of the World.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're going to have to define "trash" for me. Is it saying negative things about a group, even if those things happen to be true. If not, I don't think what I'm doing fits. edit: And I want to emphasize that I'm not talking everyone who is an evangelical.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH: [I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree. Maybe you've never heard an evangelical tell you mormons are evil and mislead by the devil, but I have. Many a time.
They believe that Mormons are being misled, yes. And there are other religions who think Mormons are being misled, too. And I think that believing that a religion is misguided does not a bigot make.
For people who are getting so up in arms about religious intolerance, you're being pretty intolerant, yourselves.
-pH
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: You guys, I just wish there was a little more respect for evangelicals in this thread. It's bothering me so much that such a stink is raised about respecting people's religious beliefs, and yet it's considered perfectly okay to trash evangelicals, an action that none of you seem to find the least bit intolerant.
-pH
I'm simply relating my experiences. I do not negate what they believe, or why they believe it. I do have a problem with what I've experienced from evangelicals and how they (dis)respect other faiths.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pH, Are you saying that all evangelicals have a problem with Mormons because of doctrinal differences and that there aren't any bigots?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by pH: [I was raised Southern Baptist, although I'm not anymore. I have an uncle who is a Southern Baptist minister. They disagree because WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE is not in tune with what they believe.
-pH
I can deal with people who don't agree based on docterine. Unfortuately, from experience, docterine is rarely why they disagree. Maybe you've never heard an evangelical tell you mormons are evil and mislead by the devil, but I have. Many a time.
They believe that Mormons are being misled, yes. And there are other religions who think Mormons are being misled, too. And I think that believing that a religion is misguided does not a bigot make.
For people who are getting so up in arms about religious intolerance, you're being pretty intolerant, yourselves.
-pH
How?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: You guys, I just wish there was a little more respect for evangelicals in this thread. It's bothering me so much that such a stink is raised about respecting people's religious beliefs, and yet it's considered perfectly okay to trash evangelicals, an action that none of you seem to find the least bit intolerant.
-pH
I do have some intolerance for evangelicals. I admit it. I have had multiple bad experiences in which, most notably, I have been accused (as a catholic) of not being Christian. (As it happens, they may currently be right, but that's because I'm not really Catholic or Christian any longer.) I have run into some good, well intended people who consider themselves evangelical and some who are even tolerant of other beliefs, but even many of the good, well-intentioned ones make it a mission to "save" those who have the slightest variation in belief from themselves.
As a result of my bad experiences, and even though I have run across some good evangelicals, I tend to generalize and be intolerant of them.
So yes, absolutely, intolerance can go both way. I think the first step is admitting it exists. I try very hard to check what I say and use qualifiers such as "some" or even specifics such as "I have met some..." as I did in my first post in this topic.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
AT NO POINT did I say there were no bigots. I'm saying that YES, FOR THE MOST PART, ULTIMATELY THEY ARE DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.
For God's sake, I'm done. You guys go ahead and keep patting yourselves on the back about how "tolerant" you are. This is clearly never going to be a productive discussion.
Edit: Christine beat my post.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This is clearly never going to be a productive discussion.
You think maybe your habit of throwing out insults when they are not warranted and not engaging people's statements or respecting what they have to say might have something to do with that?
edit: People have related experiences with bigotted evangelicals here. I mentioned the research that shows that they are more prejudices and more likely to get divorces than most other groups. You've responded with "They disagree because of doctrinal differences." I don't think the people who you are talking to's experience nor that research strongly support this claim. Then you insult people and now you are storming off, because people have said bad, but quite possibly accurate things about evangelicals.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I see nothing posted here that is intolerant with evangelical religions. I've posted from my experiences with evangelicals regarding other faiths. I'm certainly not saying they all believe that way. But many do. If it were isolated incidences of one or two people I wouldn't bother relating the stories. But I've experienced it over a widespread sampling of evangelicals.
Frankly, I don't care what evangelicals say about catholics or mormons. I find it intolerant, yes. And I'm going to relate my experiences with those people in a conversation about whether or not evangelicals considering other christian religions not christian in order to further my claim that of intolerance.
How that is being intolerant is beyond me.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I would love it if people in general (not here, but across society) would stop getting prissily offended by things that are not meant to offend. I think it should be okay for two churches to consider themselves exclusively correct, without that belief on one side being considered "disrespect" by the other.
I mean, the reason I'm a Mormon and Dag is a Catholic is because each of us believes our religion is true. That ALSO means that each of us thinks that the other's religion is wrong, and does not truly represent Christ in any kind of official capacity. Yet oddly enough, despite that difference, Dag and I get along great, and do not feel disrespected by one another (at least, to my knowledge).
It is perfectly possible to believe you are right and others are wrong (not disrespectful) without professing that you are teh awesomest and others are st00pid (disrespectful).
If we could all permit each other that much leeway — the right to believe we are correct without that being considered inherently offensive — then that will go a long way towards establishing a degree of harmony and cooperation between our faiths.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:This is clearly never going to be a productive discussion.
You think maybe your habit of throwing out insults when they are not warranted and not engaging people's statements or respecting what they have to say might have something to do with that?
I do even if she doesn't.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:When you say that dkw, for example, isn't really a minister of God and all the ceremonies she officiates are without authority, you are disrespecting her and her faith.
Not really. I'm disagreeing with her and her faith, certainly. Depending on the tone of my disagreement, I may be disrespecting her faith.
dkw has stated she disagrees with Mormonism; Dagonee has as well. In recent history, both of their religious organizations (I may be wrong about DKW's specific organization) have made statements to the effect that Mormon baptisms are not considered Christian baptisms, and that converts who were baptised into the Mormon church must be rebaptized.
This is not an indication of disrespecting Mormonism.
It is disagreeing with Mormonism.
Additionally, there's the problem that misunderstanding/misinformation != disrepsect. For example, Squicky stated early in this thread that Mormons call non-Mormons "Gentiles." He was quickly corrected-- we do not. His statement MAY have been disrespectful, if he knew through experience that we don't do this; however, barring evidence, I choose to think he was just misinformed, or misunderstood something, and was not being disrespectful.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I would love it if people in general (not here, but across society) would stop getting prissily offended by things that are not meant to offend. I think it should be okay for two churches to consider themselves exclusively correct, without that belief on one side being considered "disrespect" by the other.
I mean, the reason I'm a Mormon and Dag is a Catholic is because each of us believes our religion is true. That ALSO means that each of us thinks that the other's religion is wrong, and does not truly represent Christ in any kind of official capacity. Yet oddly enough, despite that difference, Dag and I get along great, and do not feel disrespected by one another (at least, to my knowledge).
It is perfectly possible to believe you are right and others are wrong (not disrespectful) without believing that you are teh awesomest and others are st00pid (disrespectful).
If we could all permit each other that much leeway — the right to believe we are correct without that being considered inherently offensive — then that will go a long way towards establishing a degree of harmony and cooperation between our faiths.
What you are describing is what I like to call "agreeing to disagree" and it is a very tolerant attitude. When you say to someone, "You are not a Christian," however, you are stripping them of a certain social dignity that is associated with being Christian in this culture (for better or worse). That goes to the definition of intolerance that I found, at any rate:
quote:
quote:Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant Pronunciation: -r&nt Function: adjective 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I think it's entirely possible to be a part of a religion and yet respect another religion. And I don't think it's a requirement of believing in a religion to consider it to be "true" and others to be wrong. IMO, it's a matter of what fits you the best. And I don't believe anyone else can tell me or anyone else that what fits them should fit everyone.
As a catholic I do not consider evangelical faiths or other christian faiths to be 'wrong'. I just think that being a catholic is more right for me. IMO, that is being tolerant. To consider another faith to be 'wrong' is not tolerant.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I once heard a brunette use the n-word. Clearly, all brunettes are racist.
-pH
That is incredibly, and pathetically, specious.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I once heard a brunette use the n-word. Clearly, all brunettes are racist.
Errr...how is that equivilent to what anyone is saying?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I once heard a brunette use the n-word. Clearly, all brunettes are racist.
Errr...how is that equivilent to what anyone is saying?
I thought it pretty equivalent to the post you deleted.
-pH
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Christian -
Definition 1: Someone who considers themselves to be a follower of Christ's teachings.
Definition 2: Someone who actually succeeds in following Christ's teachings.
I think it is clear that Mormons fit definition 1. I would also say it is up to debate whether Mormons fit definition 2, since people don't agree upon what Christ's teachings actually are.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:When you say to someone, "You are not a Christian," however, you are stripping them of a certain social dignity that is associated with being Christian in this culture (for better or worse).
Mmm... no, I disagree.
You are merely expressing an opinion that they do not fit your definition of what a Christian is. You don't strip them of anything.
Hopefully, the two people will be able to act like adults and talk things over in an amicable way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pH, That's because you didn't read my post correctly (and I deleted it because I didn't think it would be particularly conducive to the discussion and thought that I could get it before anyone saw it). I wasn't labelling everyone in the group from one person's behavior. I was able to guess what his denomination was from his bigotted statements, because it is very common for me to run into people from that group that are bigots. I was not at all surprised by the bigotry displayed. Also, as I've said, the research shows me that prejudice is significantly higher in that group. When I'm able to predict soemone's membership in a group based on a characteristic, because, in my experience that is a common characteristic of people in that group, it is very different from what you posted.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: pH, That's because you didn't read my post correctly (and I deleted it because I didn't think it would be particularly conducive to the discussion). I wasn't labelling everyone in the group from one person's behavior. I was able to guess what his denomination was from his bigotted statements, because it is very common for me to run into people from that group that are bigots. I was not at all surprised by the bigotry displayed. Also, as I've said, the research shows me that prejudice is significantly higher in that group. When I'm able to predict soemone's membership in a group based on a characteristic, because, in my experience that is a common characteristic of people in that group, it is very different from what you posted.
It means that you're bigoted towards Southern Baptists, since when you meet one, you decide they're probably racist.
That's like saying whenever I meet an Asian person, I decide they can probably help me with my math homework.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squicky deleted a post after it had been replied to?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, you've got it backwards. I deduced from what I knew that because the guy was a minister and he was displaying a certain form of bigotry, it was likely that he was a Southern Baptist.
That is a very different thing from saying that I assume all Southern Baptists are bigots.
If I meet a red head whose last name is O'Malley, I can reasonably deduce that he likely has Irish ancestry, which is very different from thinking that all people of Irish descent have red hair.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squicky deleted a post after it had been replied to?
No. I deleted before the reply had been posted, and I wouldn't have had I thought that it was up long enough for people to read.
edit: The post that I deleted said something like (slightly expanded now):
I like to talk to people on the train. At one point, I was having a conversation with a guy who told me he was a minister. I had no problem with this and we continued talking. At one point, as a non-sequitor, he came out with how gays are evil and want to convert everyone else and that you should call lesbians "bull dagas", because that's the right name for them. I asked him if he was a Southern Baptist and was not at all surprised when he said yes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Squicky deleted a post after it had been replied to?
As did stihl, on the last page. *shrug*
-pH
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "It's a disagreement about what I believe. The only reason you can possibly disagree about that is by telling me that I don't believe what I say I believe. It's exactly what Ron was doing."
No it is not. I understand you believe differet things about what reasons He did things, who He was that did them, and what those things ultimately lead to. Still, the Role is Jesus as Christ and Savior of the World.
Part of the role of Christ in Classical/Catholic/Orthodox Christian belief is to unite the natures of God and humanity. The classic statement of that role is in St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The dual nature of Christ is essential to that role. "Christ" and "Savior of the World" are titles for the role, not descriptions of it.
Edit: Good heavens this thread is moving fast. I agree with what Puppy and ScottR said about disagreement not necessarily equaling disrespect.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think you're just peachy keen, Pastor Dana.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Squicky deleted a post after it had been replied to?
As did stihl, on the last page. *shrug*
-pH
I deleted a post directed to you while you were replying to it because it wasn't nice and not warranted. As you deleted your response to it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Part of the role of Christ in Classical/Catholic/Orthodox Christian belief is to unite the natures of God and humanity. The classic statement of that role is in St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The dual nature of Christ is essential to that role. "Christ" and "Savior of the World" are titles for the role, not descriptions of it.
Thank you, dkw. Every post I wrote on this got way too long without saying what you managed to say in three sentences.
To interject something additional, because I know Mormons believe that Christ has dual nature, the specific kind of dual nature is relevant.
quote:I mean, the reason I'm a Mormon and Dag is a Catholic is because each of us believes our religion is true. That ALSO means that each of us thinks that the other's religion is wrong, and does not truly represent Christ in any kind of official capacity. Yet oddly enough, despite that difference, Dag and I get along great, and do not feel disrespected by one another (at least, to my knowledge).
Your knowledge is correct.
I agree with both yours and Scott's posts on this page.
quote:No. I deleted before the reply had been posted, and I wouldn't have had I thought that it was up long enough for people to read.
For all my disagreements with Squicky, I have never seen him delete a post that has been replied to nor back-edit to change context during a discussion. If such a thing happened, I believe it to be entirely accidental.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
(The irony, gentlepersons, is that Squicky has complained about people deleting their posts. I thought it funny that he'd delete his own.)
But continue!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For Pete's sake, Scott, didn't you just have a thing where you said that kat sniping at me (and made a false accusation of me sniping at her) was detrimental to Hatrack? And now you are sniping at me? And calling something else ironic?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Please oh please don't let this be a another thread about Squicky. Please can we get back to religion?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What have I said that's untrue, Squicky?
I think that's funny. Take my laughter for whatever you please.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:When you say to someone, "You are not a Christian," however, you are stripping them of a certain social dignity that is associated with being Christian in this culture (for better or worse).
Mmm... no, I disagree.
You are merely expressing an opinion that they do not fit your definition of what a Christian is. You don't strip them of anything.
Hopefully, the two people will be able to act like adults and talk things over in an amicable way.
Well, I guess that depends, once again, on how you say it and the attitude behind what you say. I have often perceived this as an attempt to insult and disclude rather than disagree. In that case, I would say that intolerance is present.
But generally, I agree with what you said on this page. It is possible to disagree without being disrespectful.
The only wrinkle I would add is that, once again in my experience and perception, people have trouble being respectful when disagreeing on religious matters. This is true of *all* religious people. I am absolutely not finger pointing here. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The major problem I had with your initial post, Christine, was the phrase "you are stripping them..."
Dagonee, for example, cannot strip me of being a Christian, not even if he writes a best-selling novel to that effect. Self-identification is precisely that-- how I define myself. No one controls that but me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Point taken. Perhaps I should have thrown the word "attempt" in there somewhere. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"To interject something additional, because I know Mormons believe that Christ has dual nature, the specific kind of dual nature is relevant."
What kind of dual nature is different?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year
I didn't see where this was really addressed in the thread, but perhaps someone could explain what evangelical values are opposite from Mormon values.
Mormon values include faith, hope, charity, love, family, hard work, and honesty to name a few. What are the opposites of these? What Mormon values (and even beliefs if someone wants to go there) are 'on the complete opposite end of the spectrum' from evangelicals? I guess one might be that Mormons don't believe that non-Christians will burn in hell, and I could see how that may be seen as insidious. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The major problem I had with your initial post, Christine, was the phrase "you are stripping them..."
Dagonee, for example, cannot strip me of being a Christian, not even if he writes a best-selling novel to that effect. Self-identification is precisely that-- how I define myself. No one controls that but me.
I think one could correctly compare it to someone telling you you're not a proper American or a patriot if you disagree with the government. I for one believe it's every American's right or duty to disagree if they believe so. Yet so many people will jump on you for not supporting the President or the war, etc and tell you that you are not American or patriotic. If one believes themselves to be an American, and is proud of that, then it can be offensive to be told you're not.
From a catholic standpoint, I believe I'm christian, I believe that any faith believing in Jesus is christian. Yet to be told that I'm not a christian by another christian faith IS offensive to me, whether or not I allow that to affect me. And frankly, it's not going to affect my beliefs either way. Yet to be told what I believe isn't christian, when the very basis of what I believe being a christian is involves tolerance and understanding, does offend me. And to compound that with, from my experience with evangelicals at least, ridiculous intolerance and outright ignorant prejudice is very offensive to me.
Yet I realize not everyone is that way and I try not to get too offended. And frankly, I don't believe anyone truly knows what a 'true' faith is. SO I try to be forgiving and tolerant and flexible with other faiths. And as I said, if it's a question of docterine I don't really care, since I have a general distaste for docterine and getting held up in the details.
So the bottom line is, how other religions regard my religion doesn't really affect my beliefs. But it is a bit offensive that other religions that claim to be christian practice intolerances toward other christian faiths, which IMO isn't very christian to begin with. And really in the scheme of things, it isn't that important. But it is worth discussing.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year
I didn't see where this was really addressed in the thread, but perhaps someone could explain what evangelical values are opposite from Mormon values.
Mormon values include faith, hope, charity, love, family, hard work, and honesty to name a few. What are the opposites of these? What Mormon values (and even beliefs if someone wants to go there) are 'on the complete opposite end of the spectrum' from evangelicals? I guess one might be that Mormons don't believe that non-Christians will burn in hell, and I could see how that may be seen as insidious.
Not to put words or motivations into evangelicals since I am not one, but from what I understand many evangelicals have a huge problem with the book of Mormon. I've been told (by them) that the bible is the bible, and that the book of Mormon alters scripture. Many evangelicals do not like this. There are also many docterine differences and disagreements about the nature of Jesus and God as well. But I'm not an expert on either religion, by far. I just relate what I have been told.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The only explanation for that statement in which it is legitimate is for a somewhat odd definition of "Christian values", which would be "values (or more properly beliefs) about the nature of Christianity".
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The only explanation for that statement in which it is legitimate is for a somewhat odd definition of "Christian values", which would be "values (or more properly beliefs) about the nature of Christianity".
Absolutely.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Which is why I view it as an illegitimate and ignorant statement that smacks on bigotry. I don't think I've ever heard someone say values when they meant beliefs- the two are distinctly different concepts that I would expect a college educated pastor to be able to differentiate between.
Granted, there are many doctrinal differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. But values? I cringe whenever I hear that statement made in regards to atheists as well. It's kind of disturbing that people will publicly make comments like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...I'm caught in a paradox.
I, personally, have a hard time with a set of Christian values that values exclusivity based on doctrine over the Christian values of inclusivity and care for your neighbor.
You see my problem.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmmm...I'm caught in a paradox.
I, personally, have a hard time with a set of Christian values that values exclusivity based on doctrine over the Christian values of inclusivity and care for your neighbor.
You see my problem.
You can disagree yet tolerate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
At least in Mormonism, the doctrine of exclusive access to the priesthood (the power to perform saving ordinances) does not exclude other people from having the truth; or from being "saved."
And Mormons who don't care for their neighbors are definitely not "saved," despite being members of the true church.
Exclusivity it not valued over charity and brotherly love, in other words.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Something I thought of while reading stihl1's 1:10 post -- is it possible they're using "values" in the organizational "mission-vision-values" sense? We've all been treating the statement as if values = moral values, but it wouldn't have to, necessarily. In the mission-vision-values sense they could easily have a value such as "we value the Bible as uniquely the authoritative Word of God and only book of scripture" or something that would make the LDS "open canon" directly opposed to that value.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You didn't think I was referencing Mormans in my post, did you, Scott? I really wasn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe he thought you meant Mormaids?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I thought you were referenceing marmalade. You can imagine my confusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just trying to refrain from inadvertantly disparaging Scott's manhood:
Shhhh...Noeman . The marmalade talk is for private.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
This thread is almost to 4 pages in 7 hours--definitely the fasting moving thread I've ever read.
Any of you old people remember anything that beat this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good cod, yes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I remember one thread which OSC-fan started which went to several pages in half an hour.
It was extremely amusing, it a train wreck sort of way.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
"OSC I Challenge Thee" grew pretty quickly. Not sure exactly how quickly, but still. It's easily the fastest growing thread we've had on the OSC side of the river.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wasn't around for that one, but the "New Ender Novel Decided On" grew extremely fast late that night that OSC started it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Good cod, yes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Most of the students are LDS and hate the message he was peddling.
To be fair, you should have said that most of the students are republicans and hate the message he was peddling. I know many LDS people who appreciate Michael Moore's message. In fact "hate" is far more incongruent with the LDS faith than anything in Michael Moore's message.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I think one could correctly compare it to someone telling you you're not a proper American or a patriot if you disagree with the government. I for one believe it's every American's right or duty to disagree if they believe so. Yet so many people will jump on you for not supporting the President or the war, etc and tell you that you are not American or patriotic. If one believes themselves to be an American, and is proud of that, then it can be offensive to be told you're not.
From a catholic standpoint, I believe I'm christian, I believe that any faith believing in Jesus is christian. Yet to be told that I'm not a christian by another christian faith IS offensive to me, whether or not I allow that to affect me. And frankly, it's not going to affect my beliefs either way. Yet to be told what I believe isn't christian, when the very basis of what I believe being a christian is involves tolerance and understanding, does offend me. And to compound that with, from my experience with evangelicals at least, ridiculous intolerance and outright ignorant prejudice is very offensive to me.
Amen Stihl!! As I said in the earlier thread. Jesus is the only one who has the wisdom or the right to judge who is and is not Christian.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I'm so disgusted with the Republican candidates and the pandering to evangelicals that I want to hurl. It's sickening how many evangelicals know what's best for me and how I must live my life.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't see a problem with that myself Hitoshi, as it is the right of all people in the United States to make the nation in their own image. It sickens me that there are so many liberals who do the same with me and my life.
The problem is that many evangilicals are filled with hate and lack of charity. They don't view people as simply wrong, but as downright evil. What is bad is that there are so-called liberals and some athiests who are taking up the same attitudes. It might make for interesting politics, but horrible civilized dialogue.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Something I thought of while reading stihl1's 1:10 post -- is it possible they're using "values" in the organizational "mission-vision-values" sense? We've all been treating the statement as if values = moral values, but it wouldn't have to, necessarily. In the mission-vision-values sense they could easily have a value such as "we value the Bible as uniquely the authoritative Word of God and only book of scripture" or something that would make the LDS "open canon" directly opposed to that value.
As I understand it, and from what I gathered from listening to evagelical types, that is basically correct. Many of the people who believe in evangelical faiths take the bible as the absolute truth and do not do well when people start to change or disagree with it.
There is also the possibility that it was simply the misconception that people still have that mormons are polygamists, as well.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I don't see a problem with that myself Hitoshi, as it is the right of all people in the United States to make the nation in their own image. It sickens me that there are so many liberals who do the same with me and my life.
The problem is that many evangilicals are filled with hate and lack of charity. They don't view people as simply wrong, but as downright evil. What is bad is that there are so-called liberals and some athiests who are taking up the same attitudes. It might make for interesting politics, but horrible civilized dialogue.
Actually, it doesn't make for interesting politics, it turns into "I'll hate you for this" and then "I'll hate you in return for that". When we stop respecting each others opinions and have to start one-upping the other side to "get even" is where civility ends.
I see a lot of people (my brother) who disagree with the other side and start to dislike everything about the other side because of their politics. My brother is turning into a devout anti-christian, and I suspect it has a lot to do with his dislike for conservative politics, and not because his personal beliefs about faith. It is sad to me to see that, because there's a chance God will never reach him because his heart is clouded by hate for people who act in God's name. Whether or not they work with God's word.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I don't see a problem with that myself Hitoshi, as it is the right of all people in the United States to make the nation in their own image. It sickens me that there are so many liberals who do the same with me and my life.
We don't want to control your life - just your money!
And when I am in a not-very-charitable mood and somseone tells me he takes the Bible "literally", I am tempted to ask how many coats he owns. (Luke 3:11).
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
One last thought for now (I hate monopolizing posts). I thought about this for a while after I left the computer today and while discussing it with my wife, she brought something to my attention. When I explained the conversation, she said "You're not christian, you're catholic." I then had to explain to her my side, that anyone believing in Jesus is a christian. She has littel experience with the catholic church, and was raised in the evangelical side of things. So her understanding of the word christian meant people who believed like the people around her, like the evangelicals. And really, until I was exposed to her and her family I hadn't really heard of people thinking that catholics weren't christians. And that's basically when my introduction to the evangelical world began.
The word "christian" has come to take on the meaning, in today's society, of the evangelical brand of christianity. At least to the evangelicals. And it kinda takes on a different connotation than just believing in Christ. It envolves the whole behavior of that religion and the beliefs and the above discussed "values". Which is maybe the cause of believing catholics and mormons aren't christian, or maybe the result I'm not sure.
One thing is for sure, though, I never had that idea or conception of the word nor was I taught to believe that's what the word meant, and nor do I believe it now.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I don't want evangelical students to speak, but I am not complaining.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
And when I am in a not-very-charitable mood and somseone tells me he takes the Bible "literally", I am tempted to ask how many coats he owns. (Luke 3:11).
Burn! Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I don't see a problem with that myself Hitoshi, as it is the right of all people in the United States to make the nation in their own image. It sickens me that there are so many liberals who do the same with me and my life.
Yes, but does their right to make their nation fit their lifestyle trump my right simple because I'm in a minority?
And how so for liberals? I'm not the one saying, "you can't have consensual sex with a person of the same gender or marry them," or "you can't have an abortion." (Not to imply you are; I'm talking about the Pat Robertson's of the nation.) This directly interferes in my right to "the pursuit of happiness" that I can't marry whomever I choose.
I mean, how ar eliberals attempts to expand rights imposing upon you? It doesn't force you to believe it's ok, just to not try and force me to remain unwed because you think it's "wrong." I think being a homophobic, power-hungry man is wrong, but I'm not attempting to limit what people say or do with their own lives.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots--
No, I didn't think you were directing your comments precisely at Mormons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not even imprecisely. The inclination towards intolerance is not denomination-specific.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do you think that exclusivity is equal to, or necessarily leads to religious intolerance (disrespect)?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Equal to? Not necessarily. Leads to? Quite often.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Equal to? Not necessarily. Leads to? Quite often.
In the same way that recognizing differences between the sexes can "lead to" sexual discrimination?
I doubt anyone here would say that the potential for an idea to "lead to" bad behavior should be sufficient reason to reject the idea.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Actually, I've seen people say that here (at Hatrack) with respect to religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I don't agree with the notion. I do think, however, that exclusivity carries within itself the seeds of some problems: - isolationism/insularity - unwarranted feelings of superiority - lack of understanding of others - idiosyncratic vocabulary
These "ills" are also apt to meet their mates in the actions/perceptions of those who are on the outside looking in: - suspicion - spreading incorrect information - fear and more
Sadly, I think these things are at the root of many of the problems in the world today, but solving it isn't as simply as pointing fingers to say "such and such group is isolationist and should stop" or "those suspicious folks just need to listen for awhile."
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Dag.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)