i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
I stressed due regard, because that's the core of the definition. It can be worded "due regard for the beliefs of others"; perhaps I should have been clearer. The definition doesn't include "property", for example; yet, 'respect' is also due regard for the property of others. Just because isn't included in the definition, it doesn't mean it's ruled out.
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
It could, but you would lose. There is simply too much evidence against that thesis.
Agreed. The point I made was that Weinberg's statement is a gross oversimplification. And I responded with another one, that you could promptly pinpoint as invalid.
Is it really in keeping with the meaning of the word "respect" to use it in connection with beliefs?
In the context of this discussion, I will stick with this definition of "respect", from the Oxford dictionary: "Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others".
That being said, to which particular "Christian-themed belief of that particular individual" are you referring when you ask your question? Christianity is a collection of many different and often conflicting and internally incoherent beliefs. In point of fact, there is no way you could even come up with any definitive listing of what Christian beliefs are and are not.
Oub, I think you're missing my point with the example I gave. It's not a discussion about the merits of flaws of Christianity in general. Agreed, they're a set of incoherent beliefs. The point is about the particular belief of that individual, which can even be a uniquely particular interpretation of Christianity. The same irrational belief in Jesus and in heaven that doesn't adhere to reality (one angle of evaluation of its merit) is in fact the same belief that drives him to be a humanitarian (another different angle of evaluating the merit of his belief). So, my question remains. Is this man's belief worthy of RESPECT? (because that's the OP's original subject)
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
Eden, are you conflating beliefs with actions?
That's not my intention. I'm merely offering an example of how a belief can be evaluated according to two different angles: How close it adheres to reality ; and how beneficial it may be to mankind.
You only tell the good, positive side of the story--the humanitarian believer--while ignoring the fact that there have also been many atrocities committed by religious zealots who acted according to their beliefs
My point with the example given isn't if Christianity in general is a belief system worthy of respect; rather, if the Christian-themed belief of that particular individual is worthy of respect or not. It's not even very relevant if his faith is Christian or of other religion. I only gave that example out of familiarity.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
As Cofty would say, "bullocks" - because, by the same token,conversely, it can be argued that for evil people to do good things, it takes religion.
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
But still, Cofty, how would you characterize that person's belief? Respectable, or not?
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
It has been proposed here that a belief is only respectable as long as it's backed up by evidence; at the same time, it has been proposed that a belief is respectable in the exact measure that it benefits mankind.
Let's then imagine that a rationalist meets an evangelical Christian whose faith in Jesus moved him to start a hospital for the poorest among the poor in a third-world country. How is the rationalist to approach the faith thinking of that Christian?
On one hand, we have a faith-thinking that does not adhere to reality: The evangelical Christian cannot provide solid evidence for the inspiration of the Bible; that the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels ever existed or even said what he is purported to have said; he cannot reconcile without contradiction his belief in a God of love and the existence of evil in the world; he is blind to the contradictions of the Scriptures and discards all Bible accounts where God is shown to act with cruelty or condone violence. All he believes (even against evidence on the contrary) is that Jesus taught that his followers should help their fellow human being; and such good will someday grant those believers access to everlasting life in heaven.
And yet, on the other hand, it is this same irrational faith (irrational because isn't backed up by evidence) that motivates him to do something that unquestionably is a worthy service to mankind. How, then should one approach such belief? What matters most? That his beliefs aren't adhering to reality and cannot be backed up by any form of evidence? Or the fact that his beliefs drive him to pay a service to mankind?
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
Since I haven't seen Viviane accusing someone else of being a liar on this thread, I conclude that you're referring to me. It's not acceptable that you carry on with such malevolent accusation when :
a) I backed up with evidence the point I was making; and
b) I demonstrated why It was entirely appropriate that I wrote that "you insisted", and, therefore, there was no lie at all.
c) It was plain to see that so much fuss created about such an insignificant matter wasn't about principles, it was about assassination of character.
Since you insist on denigrating me without justifiable cause, I must insist that you retract your accusation publicly. I don't make light of my good name. And, at the end of the day, if you won't, one of us will leave this forum.
Eden
now that district overseers have been deleted, now that bethelites are being devalued and increasingly dismissed, now that special pioneers are being deleted in u.s., and maybe elsewhere gradually.
who would have ever thought?.
yet, now what is the value to be a regular pioneer to the org?
Regular pioneers are free labor powerhouse with zero responsibilities for the Organization. What's not to like?
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
My mother is 80 and in the early stages of Alzheimers. She doesn't understand why I don't go to the meetings anymore. She keeps asking me to go with her, and I repeatedly have to say no. When she tries to play the emotional card on me, I simply say that "there are some things I don't agree with anymore", and leave it at that. Why on earth would I go and attempt to destroy her cherished earthly paradise hope? Why would I attempt to reason her out of believing in God? Wouldn't that be insensitive and cruel? If anything, I perhaps might feel entitled to get back at her for raising me into this awful cult where I've spent 40 years of my life, but what good would it do?
Eden
so bethelites are being decreased...bethel homes even sold off.... special pioneers no longer being funded.. magazines getting smaller and published less frequently.. building work stopping or being reduced.. no large conventions and renting of venues.. etc.... so, money is not coming in anymore to cover the "expenses"??.
didnt the first ever watchtower said that when this occurs, it would be evidence of god no longer blessing the activity....
oh, and throughout the years, we have constantly been told that the "growth of the org and the projects such as buildings and contributions" etc were evidence of gods blessing.... .
OrphanCrow is right. It has to do with the fundamental question: "Who am I?"
Most Witnesses were devoid of their own unique identity and compressed into a mold, the WTS mold. When asked the question "who are you?", they have little more to say about their identity than: "I'm a Jehovah's Witness". Therefore, they don't know how to go on about their life without that fundamental framework:
What friends will they have outside the Organization?
What will they talk about outside the Organization?
How will they fill their time outside the Organization?
What hope for the future will they have outside the Organization?
What purpose life has outside the Organizaion?
This is a huge chasm to contemplate. So they rather rationalize away the current changes within the Organization and swallow whatever spin the Governing Body puts on it.
Eden
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
I really don't care that you lied about me or whether or not you accept it. I've done my part.
No, only in your imagination you have. A half-hearted apology is no apology at all. You were entirely out of line and calling me a liar and a hypocrite was entirely uncalled for and you haven't apologized for that, quite the opposite, you insisted on it. Besides, you avoided the main point of discussion and instead you chose to focus on an wholly insignificant detail and made a big fuss out of that. The very thing you often accuse others of doing, you're entirely capable of doing also.
Eden
