<p>In that spirit I suppose you are all for Christian and Muslim evangelism. </p>
<p>After all, as you say,
Very well said.</p>
<p>"I do not believe that Christians or Muslims believe that their religion is the “only” way to god; but in the main, the “best” way to god. Mainstream Islam and mainstream Christianity both believe that there are ways to god outside the dogma of their own discreet and wondrous faiths.</p>
<p>I am also certain that the same applies to Judaism"</p>
<p>That is not completely true. The same does not necessarily apply to Judaism. Non-Jews have to follow the 7 Laws of Noah and if they do it is considered equal to when the high priest entered the temple during Yom Kippur-the Day of Atonement. A non-Jew who follows the Laws of Noah can lead an equally spiritual life, and to them Judaism should not be considered the “best” way to God.</p>
<p>Allmusic…</p>
<p>I think that was a bit of a slap at hereshoping. When people have firmly-held beliefs (religious OR political), should we ask them to never act on these? If we firmly believe in The Right to Choose, should we not do everything possible to make that the law of the land? If we firmly believe in The Right to Life, should we not do everything possible to make that the law of the land.</p>
<p>Saying that the religious right is fascist is over the top, imho, even though I sometimes think so myself. But as I do so often, I turn the tables and take the opposite side of the coin to see if what <em>I</em> am saying makes sense.</p>
<p>I do NOT want to turn this into an abortion debate, but will use it just as an example. We would all agree that terminating the life of a one-year-old is wrong, and we would ALL be up in arms doing anything to prevent that from happening. People DISAGREE on terminating the life of a fetus in the first trimester. For those who think that both are wrong, at least their position is consistent. For those who think that it’s wrong to terminate a life in one case, but OK in another, then the question is: when does it switch from OK to wrong?</p>
<p>A second question would be to ask under what circumstances would it be right? Because it might be the wrong sex (a la China and India)? Because DNA testing has shown that it might have a crippling disease? Because the baby won’t be tall enough and handsome enough? Should the right to choose be total?</p>
<p>I am not a Right-to-Lifer, but the position seems consistent, and fighting to ban this termination seems to logically follow. Are those people trying to impose their religion on all of us? Does that make them fascist?</p>
<p>I will gladly defer to any practicing Jew, on all things “Jewish”.</p>
<p>I do, however, believe that any particular Jew believes that their religion is the “Best” way to god–some people are just not Jews. The religion is therefore, perhaps not the best way for a non-Jew; but that is a distinction that cuts the other way and does not flatter the beliefs of the non-Jew.</p>
<p>If I am wrong, in advance, I will stand corrected.</p>
<p>If you are saying that if you are born Jewish or converted to Judaism, the “best” way to God is following Jewish law, yes that is correct.</p>
<p>If you are not Jewish however the “best” way to God, from the perspecive of Judaism that is, is following 7 Noahide Laws.</p>
<p>Regarding evangelism- an inlaw has fun with the Mormons and other evangelizers who come to her door- she trys to convert them to Hinduism, extolling the virtues of Lord Krishna. If the evangelizers would listen to other beliefs as much as they express their own I could convert them to mine. FS, the fact that you are so insulted by opposing views shows your insecurity with your views.</p>
<p>digmedia-erase your post! The ---- issue, inconsistent to kill criminals also… it’s bad enough to have internal relious debates when the issue is atheism versus theism, big can of worms just spilled. </p>
<p>Thanks posters who have entered with “devil’s advocate” ideas to get people to think. I’m having too much fun, I better go scrape the little bit of snow we finally have before dark…</p>
<p>Wis75,</p>
<p>Beautiful #460 post!</p>
<p>The bottom line is tolerance and respect for others’ beliefs (or “non-beliefs”), is it not?</p>
<p>many many many Christians and Muslims believe their way is the only way, otherwise why have names for those that don’t believe in their path?</p>
<p>and why do many Chrisitians feel the need, in fact the directive to proslitize and convert</p>
<p>guess the history of Christian missionaries and the financial support was just a myth</p>
<p>American history was one of conversion of the heathens…but heck, we will just ignore that little bit</p>
<p>if it is not the Best Path, why bother “fixing” the non believers?</p>
<p>you do not need to fix what you do not think is broken, but history has shown us otherwise when it comes to Christians and converting others</p>
<p>Why bother trying to convert and save people if you respect their path?</p>
<p>CGM, perhaps instead of being angered at those trying to convert you, look at them from a different position. Take for instance Catholics. If the missionary is Catholic he must really believe in Catholicism, he must really feel that what he is doing is right and that it will help people live a better life, so he decides to share his message with you. Out of the kindness of his heart, he want to share with you what he feels will only help, not hurt, you. Listen to what this man has to say, because he is ultimately looking out for you, if you want to know more ask him for more. If not, respectfully decline. </p>
<p>I feel its difficult to hate these people for keep your interests close to their hearts.</p>
<p>“I do not believe that Christians or Muslims believe that their religion is the “only” way to god; but in the main, the “best” way to god. Mainstream Islam and mainstream Christianity both believe that there are ways to god outside the dogma of their own discreet and wondrous faiths.”</p>
<p>I was responding to the idea of 'best" path to God idea and that mainstream Christians respect others paths</p>
<p>I was just showing that not so in History- otherwise why convert if they respect the path of others?</p>
<p>It may be a we respect your path, BUT, come to our side instead…that is not repsect</p>
<p>So my post was not about hate at all, it was about facts…why have the word blasphemy, heathens, etc…if not to put down others paths?</p>
<p>and if their interests are to “fix” me for something I am comfortable with, well, that shows there disdain for me doesn’t it…</p>
<p>and if the “help” is to save me from his version of hell, no thanks</p>
<p>Know, CGM, you misunderstand. There desire to “fix” you is not about disdain. When your parents told you to do something or not to do something or discussed their morals with you, its not because they have disdain for you but because they have your best interests at heart. Missionaries obviously do not care for you as much as your parents cared for you(I am making an assumption here), but they do care for you and want to show you an alternative path, a path they feel will make your life better and more enjoyable to you. If they had disdain for you, CGM, they would not be trying to hep you.</p>
<p>“and if the “help” is to save me from his version of hell, no thanks” </p>
<p>I could not have said it better myself. If you do not want to listen to what they have to say, no thanks is a polite way to decline.</p>
<p>Our society is filled with people trying to convert others, and it isn’t just Christians. Every even-numbered year, around October, you can open your mail, turn on the TV, or even answer a knock at the door to find someone trying to convert you to Republican or Democratic, or convince you that a particular measure is right or wrong. Many discussions get quite heated. When people believe strongly in something, and it makes a difference in society, they will try to convert others. That doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t respect the person they are trying to convince; they just believe their way is best.</p>
<p>What is voting, if not an attempt to force your beliefs upon others? Whichever group has the most votes forces its proposed law, or candidate, upon the rest of the country, state, etc. I don’t know why some only consider it wrong when those proposing the law use religious reasons for it. Almost any law passed will upset somebody, who will feel others are forcing their ideas on them. Passing a law against smoking in public places? Smokers may be offended. Banning trans-fats? Many will argue they should have freedom of choice about what to eat. Land use planning laws? Some will argue they should have total control over their own land.</p>
<p>Our country is filled with evangelists, and many of them are NOT evangelizing for a religion. Why single out one type as wrong?</p>
<p>a poster made a comment about Christians, and I was responding</p>
<p>as well, many people claim we are “christian” nation, and that is why Christians are more often discussed than other religions</p>
<p>but you see, if you can’t see the difference between voting and religious faith, there is the problem</p>
<p>they are so different and to equate them to me is scary</p>
<p>and of course it means they do not respect the persons religious choice if they try and convert them…if they did respect it they wouldn’t try…I am not trying to convert anyone, I just want religion out of government, law, science and the like</p>
<p>if someone tries to convince me to change parties, aren’t they saying their party is better? yes, I agree that is a type of conversion, but when God is thrown in the mix, along with saving someone, the idea of damnation, and going to heaven, and the like, it is a different kettle of fish altogether</p>
<p>The issues of politics and religion-= changing peoples minds are very different…when God is thrown into the mix, along with faith, that is not the same argument that smoking hurts people and other medical issues</p>
<p>As for using religious reasons for a law, if you can’t see the difference, you have made my points for me. YOUR religion is very different from mine and my mothers, so to lay claim that God is behind the law, well,t hat’s your God…</p>
<p>THank you for making my points for me…</p>
<p>cgm, Just because one person votes for, or proposes, a law for religious reasons, doesn’t mean you can’t vote for or against it for NONreligious reasons. If I vote against the death penalty for religious reasons, does that make it wrong? Should I have to set aside my deepest beliefs when I vote? Martin Luther King, Jr. had religious reasons for many of his beliefs and actions. Does that make them wrong?</p>
<p>Perhaps CGM and her fellow a-theist apparatchiks could propose a law that would require all voters to swear that they are not voting based on any deeply held beliefs, but rather on the swishy political fashions or hot-topics of the day…I mean, after they scrap together the legal proscription championed by the little Napoleon of science, R Dawkins, that would codify religious edification as child abuse.</p>
<p>…have any of you considered state run re-education camps; Chairman Mao had big success with this in the last century, as did Stalin, amongst many other little a-theist totalitarians:</p>
<p>As to religious freedom:
People of faith, theists, are now at quite a premium in the former states of the Soviet Union and China…North Korea as well. </p>
<p>As Borat would say:
Great success!</p>
<p>The government should be concerned about issues which protect and improve society. Some legitimate political decisions will involve our religious or moral beliefs. I don’t object, but I do think we should use all restraint in unnecessarily restricting personal freedoms. My concerns are the numerous instances where those with strong religious beliefs want to impose their beliefs on others. We refer to these individuals as self-righteous and the term has negative connotations for good reasons. From many of the comments on this forum, it seems clear we have some participants with no sensitivity to the rights of others. It is not OK to impose your beliefs on others when there is no legitimate governmental issue. Being in the majority is no excuse for insensitivity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it follow therefore that the Christian-led anti-slavery movement was conducted by a lot of self-righteous people?</p>
<p>from Wikipedia:</p>
<p>Christian abolitionism
Throughout Europe and the United States Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movements. Many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by a Christian faith, and a desire to see the theoretical Christian view that all people are equal made a practical reality. Prominent among these was William Wilberforce. In Britain and America Quakers were active in abolitionist movements.</p>
<p>Christian advocacy of slavery
However other Christians were as vociferous against abolition, citing the Bible’s acceptance of slavery as part of the normal condition. Throughout history, passages in the Old Testament of the Bible were used as justification and guidance in the keeping of slaves. Many other Christians interpreted scripture as an endorsement of slavery and argued for its preservation:
“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
“Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.” Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor</p>
<p>Given the recent popularity of a literal interpretation of the Bible, I guess we know which side modern day Evangelicals would support.</p>