What I am personally intolerant of is people of any belief system who feel a need to bash the core beliefs of others

Again, I think that we need to define the 'core beliefs' before we can decide who is bashing what.

I agree with/feel an affinity with the message of love, compassion and tolerance. I believe that THAT is what the core of Christianity is, not the hatred and intolerance that is so often displayed. However, that's MY belief. Someone else's belief of what the core message is may be totally different.

What I am personally intolerant of is people of any belief system who feel a need to bash the core beliefs of others. That is intolerance at it's worst and is hardly indictive of an intelligent and tolerant person although many who do this claim to be exactly that.

Intolerant of intolerance? Sounds like JFJ.

I don't believe in the supernatural. I've never seen anything that could be considered supernatural. Most things that a lot of people claim to have seen and believe to be supernatural have rational explanations, but they're so closed-minded and unwilling to know anything that doesn't fit with what they need to believe, they dismiss the rational in favor of superstition.

Intolerant of intolerance? Sounds like JFJ.

Yeah I know it's an oxymoron to say the least. I thought of that as I typed it, but it does pretty well sum it up nicely.

Again, I think that we need to define the 'core beliefs' before we can decide who is bashing what. I agree with/feel an affinity with the message of love, compassion and tolerance. I believe that THAT is what the core of Christianity is, not the hatred and intolerance that is so often displayed. However, that's MY belief. Someone else's belief of what the core message is may be totally different.

I agree that some people of various beliefs are highly judgemental and intolerant of the beliefs of others, which was the point of my previous post. As far as defining the core beliefs of others, I feel it's irrelevant with regard to respecting the beliefs of others. Or, to put it a better way, respecting people's rights to their own beliefs whether we understand them or not.

It's good to try and understand the beliefs of others, but it isn't good to denigrate the beliefs of others or to generalize about people of a certain belief. To do so makes one a lesser person. I feel that applies to all people regardless of their particular belief system.

"but they're so closed-minded and unwilling to know anything that doesn't fit with what they need to believe, they dismiss the rational...

I know Atheists that fit into that same mold.

In the end, this has become about critiqueing other people's religious beliefs, from someone who is supposed to be "the middle path" and prides herself on practicing a religion that doesn't judge.

Forgive me if it seems a bit... to use her word for Christian literalists, silly.

Forgive me if it seems a bit... to use her word for Christian literalists, silly

Actually I took that word from one of your quotes.  Just following your lead, Baker....

 

In the end, this has become about critiqueing other people's religious beliefs, from someone who is supposed to be "the middle path" and prides herself on practicing a religion that doesn't judge.

I'm sorry if that's what you've come away from this thread thinking.  Here I was thinking that we were having a discussion.

I know Atheists that fit into that same mold

Unless you're saying you know some Atheists who have been confronted with undeniable evidence of the supernatural, I don't think your statement is relevant to mine.

Unless you're saying you know some Atheists who have been confronted with undeniable evidence of the supernatural, I don't think you statement is relevant to mine.

Maybe it's only me, but one can be closed-minded even on non-supernatural subjects. For example, Bakerstreet made many great points about how literalism doesn't equal intolerance, and Chakgogka has shown that there are bad apples among all religious groups, yet some people will continue spouting: "Christian literalists are teh evil!"

There are jackass atheists just as there are jackass Christians. A black and white view of people is quite irrational and usually based on hatred and/or pride.

Besides, what people consider rational varies among people. Some people believe that Christianity is the most logical belief out of all beliefs even though much of it conflicts with the "experts." Some people believe are Buddhists even though Star Wars Episode 3 has "disproved" Buddhism. Some people consider atheism to make sense even though I have not heard a reasonable natural theory on the beginning of all existence. Perhaps the most rational belief is solipsism. I can't find any holes in it and life does have this surreal feel to it much like my dreams do!

one can be closed-minded even on non-supernatural subjects

Of course, but we're supposed to be discussing the supernatural! JEEZ! Are you and Baker trying to take this thread even more off-topic than it already is?

Some people believe are Buddhists even though Star Wars Episode 3 has "disproved" Buddhism

Hahahaha! That's funny!

Of course, but we're supposed to be discussing the supernatural! JEEZ! Are you and Baker trying to take this thread even more off-topic than it already is

I thought we were discussing people who dismiss the rational in favor of what they need to believe. That's one reason will generalize groups into pale stereotypes based on their beliefs.

It isn't rational to say you can disprove other people's beliefs about a supernatural God, and more than it is rational to say you can disprove the existance of aliens. There are people here at JU that claim to be able to prove scientifically that God doesn't exist.

There's nothing about the "middle path" in making the statement that a literalist view is wrong, or silly, or leads to all the evils fearmongers here try to portray. I point out that non-literalist, even Atheistic types undertake atrocities against their fellow man all the time.

The point seems to be that literalism is basically flawed. My perspective is that Literalism holds the same inherant flaws as any other belief system, to be used and abused as the character of the 'believer' permits.

Again, if Buddhism is the 'middle path', I see very little but blind judgement of ideas here. Dharma, in addition to criticizing Christians, also criticizes millions and millions of bhuddists to practice Buddhism in the traditional 'Gods and demons and hell" way.

Midde path? Doesn't look like it to me. If it were so, then it seems there'd be no problem with literalists believing what they like. If this were about offenses BY literalists, I think it is obvious the problem is the offenses themselves, not the literalism.

Again, if Buddhism is the 'middle path', I see very little but blind judgement of ideas here. Dharma, in addition to criticizing Christians, also criticizes millions and millions of bhuddists to practice Buddhism in the traditional 'Gods and demons and hell" way.

Like you did when you said that you thought that the creation in 6 days theory was 'silly'?

This isn't about Buddhism anymore. This is about you being, to be honest, blatantly antagonistic and curmudgeonly.

I thought we were discussing people who dismiss the rational in favor of what they need to believe.

In the context of my statement, what they need to believe is supernatural.

In the context of my statement, what they need to believe is supernatural.

Oh, so we're not discussing people who believe in stereotypes and who are atheists because they need to believe it?

"Like you did when you said that you thought that the creation in 6 days theory was 'silly'?"

Kind of, beyond the fact that I don't espouse the "middle path", while condemning some religious beliefs and overlooking fundamentalism in my own religion. Being a buddhist, it seems like your priority would be to address buddhists who are preoccupied with demons and hell and the rest of what you would call mythology.

"This isn't about Buddhism anymore. This is about you being, to be honest, blatantly antagonistic and curmudgeonly.

It never was about Buddhism. It was Biblical criticism, and criticism of people who take the Bible as literal fact.

It won't matter if I point out that billions of biblical literalists have lived peacefully throughout the centuries. It doesn't matter to show you that all the ills you blame on it are there with or without literalism. It won't matter if I point out that biblical literalists are among the most peaceful people on earth.

What matters is that you have something you can tell people you don't buy into and feel better about yourself. We have a lot of the "Look at me, I criticise/insult Christians; I'm smart!!" people around here. I kind of feel sorry for them.

"In the context of my statement, what they need to believe is supernatural."

The concept of the supernatural is severely limited by the knowledge of the natural. Science can't explain far, far more than it can explain, and yet you just KNOW that certain things are impossible. "Supernatural" to a scientist is always one discovery away from Law.

History is full of 'rational' scientists who BELIEVED that flight, supersonic flight, space travel, and other common feats were impossible because of what they THOUGHT they know about nature.

"Are you and Baker trying to take this thread even more off-topic than it already is?"

The topic was introduced by our host when she posed Biblical literalism as some detriment to the world. Call and response, unless you want to blacklist.

Oh, so we're not discussing people who believe in stereotypes and who are atheists because they need to believe it?

No.

The concept of the supernatural is severely limited by the knowledge of the natural

History is full of 'rational' scientists who BELIEVED that flight, supersonic flight, space travel, and other common feats were impossible because of what they THOUGHT they know about nature.

Are you saying maybe God isn't supernatural?

you just KNOW that certain things are impossible

I'm not completely convinced one way or the other. As long as I don't see evidence, I'm skeptical. Maybe you should read my Virgin Mary Tour article and all the replies.

If what He does was easily explained and replicated then we, someday, could make ourselves God's through technology. What do you think cloning is?

Sorry to come up so late, but these comments reminded me of a joke.
The scientists discover how to bring a man to life from dust. They talk to God and say:
"Hey! We've reached divinity! We know how to create a man ourselves without your help!"
God says:
"Okay then, lets do this. I'll create a man, and you can create yours, and we'll compare the results"
As scientists gather some dust God says:
"T-t-t-t! Go get your own dust!"

"Are you saying maybe God isn't supernatural?"

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

If you limit the natural to only those things you can observe and comprehend right now, then the basic workings of the universe are supernatural. Everything that exists is "natural". "Supernatural" is just tag to poo-poo anything you opt not to buy into, as though your current awareness is all there is.

That's why it sounds so obtuse and close-minded when you say something like:

"I don't believe in the supernatural. I've never seen anything that could be considered supernatural."

That's the same attitude sported by people who refused to believe the earth was round. A round earth was dubiously supernatural to them, because it defied what they could see with their own eyes.

You have the benefit of living in a scientifically advanced society. 1000 years ago most everything you witnessed would have been supernatural to you. In 1000 years there's no telling what will be commonplace that we now consider supernatural.

I think it is funny that Bibilical literalists are being painted as close-minded, and no one catches it when someone says "I don't believe in the supernatural."

1000 years ago most everything you witnessed would have been supernatural to you. In 1000 years there's no telling what will be commonplace that we now consider supernatural.

I agree. You seem to be ignoring this:

I'm not completely convinced one way or the other. As long as I don't see evidence, I'm skeptical.

I guess you still haven't read my Virgin Mary Tour article.

"Oh, this is futile."
"No it isn't."

1000 years ago most everything you witnessed would have been supernatural to you. In 1000 years there's no telling what will be commonplace that we now consider supernatural.

I agree. You seem to be ignoring this:

I'm not completely convinced one way or the other. As long as I don't see evidence, I'm skeptical.

I guess you still haven't read my Virgin Mary Tour article.

"Oh, this is futile."
"No it isn't."

"As long as I don't see evidence, I'm skeptical."

Your personal beliefs really don't matter to me. I just take issue when people form a little sewing circle and start yammering about what is wrong with Christians, or Fundamenatlists, or Literalists, especially under the guise of asking a biblical question.

It comes off as another Myrrander "Here, answer these unanswerable questions so I can childishly laugh at you." article. I really thought Dharma wanted an answer, but evidently she was just waiting for someone to admit there wasn't an answer so she could start bashing literalists.

People bitch about me taking it off topic, but the author took it off topic when she started making rash generalizations about people.

1000 years ago most everything you witnessed would have been supernatural to you. In 1000 years there's no telling what will be commonplace that we now consider supernatural. I agree. You seem to be ignoring this: I'm not completely convinced one way or the other. As long as I don't see evidence, I'm skeptical. I guess you still haven't read my Virgin Mary Tour article. "Oh, this is futile." "No it isn't."

Hey Icon....your "Monty Python" is showing. "I believe we're having an arguement". "No we're not".

I really thought Dharma wanted an answer, but evidently she was just waiting for someone to admit there wasn't an answer so she could start bashing literalists.

Yeah, Baker, that was it. Yep, you're right. You know what my intention was because you can read my mind. Whatever.


I got answers, but I had further questions.....like if it's the 'royal we' scenario, how come it's not used anywhere else in the bible? I even went to www,torah.org and asked a rabbi....but that ws on saturday, shabot, so I haven't got answer yet.

I asked questions, got answers, and gave my opinion. If I wanted to 'bash' literalists I'd have done it in a much more blatant way than this.