Forums → WEPR → do you respect all religions?,?
| 40 | 6677 |
I am from India so i don`t care about any religions.i dunno about other people in different countries.tell me about your opinions `~`
- 40 Replies
I respect all religons, as much as possible. I mean its very difficult to respect a satanist or FLDS member, but i try. The last thing i want to do is fail at following my own in the process. If i end up like the christians that daswiftarrow was talking about then i will have failed loving...which is a major no-no, one of the biggest, which most christians don't realize (very sad).
I, like most, try to respect all religions. I am a Christian but contrary to most belief I don't "force" my religion on anybody. All religions are accepted by faith so "forcing" my religion won't really change anything. All I do is tell a person about my religion and give them a tract. Then I walk away and if they read/heed what I say that's great, if not I say "oh well" and move on. Now does this sound like "forcing" my religion on someone?
I was a Christian but stopped going a couple of years ago. I do respect all religions because you have to see in their eyes. You can't just think that yours is the best or that some religions are crazy. Some people think that the Muslim's religion is bad but have they been in their shoes? Most people haven't so I wouldn't say that or then we'll start another religion war like in the 1200s and kill innocent people. So learn about all religions!
I respect all religions except for Scientology, as it is a mockery of a religion. However, I will respect those who get scammed by it.
Different religions are different ways of living life to get to the same point. All require you to live a good life.
Well I respect all religions except Muslims I don't think I will ever like them for killing people and blowing buildings up
The terrorists believe that God will give them 72 virgin women for being martyrs. What they don't realize is that suicide does not make one a martyr.
I was a Christian but stopped going a couple of years ago.
you should go back
The terrorists believe that God will give them 72 virgin women for being martyrs
Or something to that effect...note, terrorists, not all religious practitioners.
What is often confused here is that political agendas are imposed upon people using religion as a propaganda vehicle (both in the US as in Islamic states, think about that one). There are cells of people, significant not because of their proportion but because of the threat that they are posing and the open hostility that they represent, who do this, but for every one of these there will be those who argue that they are not being true to their faith. And who is to say who is right? Religion is a highly interpretative thing after all...
At the risk of sounding like a smart-alec, I'm going to say "define respect".
note, terrorists, not all religious practitioners.
Yes, I meant that.
At the risk of sounding like a smart-alec, I'm going to say "define respect".
You don't sound like a smart-alec. I had a page-long debate about artificial intelligence not realizing we were using different definitions of intelligence.
I define respect as showing good-will towards one, and aknologing (can't spell it) one's superiority (one respects elders), equality (one respects classmate), or the fact that you are responsible for the target (teacher respects students). The person must act appropriately depending on the type of respect.
Its hard to respect some religions, Scientology for example. But, it's not for lack of trying to understand them. I have a love of religious throught the ages. Where it came, how it started, it progression to today, and the followers mindset of the time that helps mold the system itself. Yes, mold the system. Throughout the ages, a religions starts one way and becomes something different the longer it is alive.
Islam for example is in all reality, a peaceful religion. But, some of its believers have made a call to Jihad, call to a holy fight for the short definition, because of how they feal about a paticular group or faction that they are calling it for. Not to be brash or bashing, but in several texts, english and Arabic translated, alot of the Jihads after review of it after the fact, were started nonsensically. It was for either, financial, land, power, or vengeful gains. The funny part is, there have been Christian followers that have done the same thing. They called it a holy war or a religious cleansing of a people.
The reason I ramble is because, this is not just a 'yes' or 'no' question. Respect is a value that must be earned over time through acts of goodness, loyalty, leadership, truthfullness, kindness, magnanimous acts, having pride in the right things, and, that is just how you should be acting for yourself.Respect for a religion, shouldn't just be based on what you think you know or what little you do. It should be based on 'what religon do really understand its beginnings as well as present situation'.
So with that I will say,
scientology, mormons, fundamentalists, new wave hooey - No
christianity, islam, judaism - 50%
shinto, buddhism, hindu, confusianism, some tribal, and especially pagan - yes
I only testify to the ones I've studied. How many can you say that about wholeheartedly and give a truthfull answer to?
Sorry to repost, but, I forgot to say something in the subject.
All the so called 'taboo' religions like wicca, satanism, voodoo, and the such. These are a different kind of thread for debate all together, because they represent what I guarantee most of you, myself included, don't think about when we think of religion. So...
At the risk of sounding like a smart-alec, I'm going to say "define respect".
Respect is a value that must be earned over time through acts of goodness, loyalty, leadership, truthfulness, kindness, magnanimous acts, having pride in the right things, and, that is just how you should be acting for yourself.
I define respect as showing good-will towards one
This is a perfect example to what I am saying; different definitions lead to different outcomes. According to Ichibon's definition, I can only say I respect Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I can say I don't respect Scientology. However, there will be no belittling of any other religion, which complies with my definition.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not to be contrite. I just get tired of some shmo who has never done the research to say, "I think jews are stoopid, and mulims can kiss my a** hehe."
Respect is a value that must be earned over time through acts of goodness, loyalty, leadership, truthfulness, kindness, magnanimous acts, having pride in the right things, and, that is just how you should be acting for yourself.
Interesting! Very interesting! Because the above is what I would consider the empirical basis of respect (i.e. "based on this evidence I say this", as opposed to the principled basis of respect (e.g. "respect your elders is a rule". I prefer this because IMO, respect is necessarily experiential i.e. respect is something necessarily held by one person for another, it cannot exist in itself.
Discussion of religion too can be divided into two streams, (to take the Christian vernacular), the parts that deal with the acts and deeds (e.g. "love thy neighbor", "follow Jesus' example" and the principles (e.g. "the Christian way is the righteous way".
Not to say there's necessarily a divide between the two but at least in terms of rhetoric, you can quite easily observe the differences.
Thus it is possible to judge religions not on their principles (tricky due to interpretative variations and bounds of definitions within various religious doctrines), but on what this religious vehicle has been used for, just how effective it is in the light of a separate moral judgment of good and bad. In this way, judgments that Scientology should not be respected because it has done more harm than good whereas Buddhist 'religion' (more properly philosophy) can be respected because its history has been, compared to most religions, very peaceful, can be justified.
For my part I do particularly respect the Buddhist philosophy ('religion' here is a derivative practice formed from the ritualistic lifestyles...as well as multicultural appropriations!) simply because I'm given to thinking along the lines of particular schools of thought (particularly Zen). That said, I've seen communities devoted to studying the Buddhist way of thought that have consisted almost entirely of wank and drama. Nobody's perfect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not to be contrite. I just get tired of some shmo who has never done the research to say, "I think jews are stoopid, and mulims can kiss my a** hehe."
I just backing up my point from before. That post had nothing to do with your post which I found very intersting.
[url=ok i will also agree that muslims are bad.but i am telling that all muslins are not bad!!!]....no they are bad yes they r..true.true.
i respect any ones beliefs on anything. i might disagree with some but all deserves respect. And for the people who dont respect Muslims just because a small portion of them are resorting to terrorism, doesnt mean all of them dont deserve respect. Nazi's were German, so are all Germans evil? Some white people enslaved blacks, are all white people evil? Some people kill, so are all people evil? Some Muslims killed, so do a lot of others belonging to other religions, that doesnt mean that the religion is bad. I have a Muslim friend who calls those people "The Bad Muslims" and thats what they are, a bad portion.
i respect any ones beliefs on anything.
A paradox then: would you respect a belief that holds no respect for you?
In a way, I think that the difficulty of respecting everything gives rise to a common condition for respect: reciprocity.
I mean this in a way that's independent of the consideration that generalisations are not necessarily true for all, as SkullZero's post mainly concerns itself with:
Nazi's were German, so are all Germans evil? Some white people enslaved blacks, are all white people evil? Some people kill, so are all people evil? Some Muslims killed, so do a lot of others belonging to other religions, that doesnt mean that the religion is bad.
But while I'm at it, this starts going towards identity politics. There are a number of ways to deal with variances in a group- to treat them as one and the same, to make a principled qualification, or to dissociate. To call somebody of your own faith a bad example is one such way, but is obviously subject to criticism from those who believe "you ought to embrace your brethren", and those who say "they are not bad examples, they are simply not examples at all."
Which is better?
Thread is locked!