Read this under 'Jihad' in Wiki,and may answer your Question more directly, CGM3.

[edit] Directive of warfare
The directive of the Jihad given to Muslims in Qur'an is:[6]

“ And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]. „
—Qur'an, 4:75-76

Disbelievers will not be rewarded, do not mistake that statement as one of "kill all non-believers"
[remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers."


this statement proves jihad is the defense of islam, not conversionary tactics.
the above post makes me think you(DSTM) believe muslims to be agressive people because of the sections you highlighted, I'm not sure if you ment it that way, if so please tell my why.

"The literal meaning of Islam is peace; surrender of one’s will i.e. losing oneself for the sake of God and surrendering one’s own pleasure for the pleasure of God"-Islam.com

can,t speak for dtsm i know a couple of muslims who are not aggresive ,but the media does not or very rarely shows this what they do show is alot of muslims as being terrorists .i dont agree .
you can,t tar everyone with the same brush.

everyone has there own beliefs i am catholic(not practising)and as i have written in previous threads more people have been killed due to religious beliefs than in any world war or war ,in fact if god and/or allh re these peace loving deities why do they let so many people die in their name .religion is and will be the most debated topic of all time .

Just as one cannot blame Christianity or many practicing Christians for the abominations done under the guise of following the True Faith, so one should not blame Muslims or Islam for those who transgress the spirit of peace by clinging onto select passages and heretical interpretations.

Where one should, however, attach blame is to the choice of men of good will not to thoroughly condemn atrocities done in their religion's name, much as we blamed many German citizens who by their silence and acquiescence allowed millions of human beings to be exterminated in the last century.

Regards,
John

So true, you said it very well.

Check out this website.

http://www.faithfreedom.org

Propaganda much?
They compare Islam to Nazism, yet what they are saying is directly kin to Nazism, generationg hate and having the clear goal to eliminate Islam and it's followers.

Which "true Faith"? All religions claim to be be it.

I swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there's no hell-CTA.

I won't say im religious because i'm not! I'm an atheist and if that makes some people think bad about me i have no time for them!

But i hate how Muslims use the term religion too often...

I.E When i was working for an a electrician for a little while, he was asked to do a job by a muslim and he said he could only fit him in on the wednesday, which we saw as ok but no it was his 'Religious Day' so we asked him if we could opt for another day which was Friday but again it was his 'Religious Day' and we could not fit him in any other time as we were filled up with other jobs!

Really got me wound up did that!!

might be abit away from the topic but theres my say on things Any problems...give us a shout

I've always been fascinated by Religion and how followers act/react within their "interpretations" of their religion. I'm equally fascinated by how little these followers "understand" about how their particular "Belief System" came in to being. I attribute the latter to the practice of "Faith" in most religions, e.g., you must have faith in order to believe. With Faith, there exists no need, or desire, for "understanding" outside of the "Belief System."

I'm not a follower of Organized Religion and do not believe in an Omnipresent, Omnipotent Being to whom I must worship and thank for bestowing life upon me.

I do, however, believe in a goal that is inherent in all living creatures. This goal is to attain "Balance."

Balance within, Homeostasis and Mental Balance, and balance without, Symbiosis. The goal of an individual should be to live a healthy life, both mentally and physically, without consciously, or purposely, creating disorder in another's life.

This is what I believe Religions try to answer for. They try to set in place a "Control system" that will enable a layman follower to easily abide by and therefore attain the goal of "Balance"/Promised Land/The Holy Kingdom/Nirvana/etc.. You don't have to "understand" anything, you just need to follow the instructions. (Much like someone helping with a HJT Log, but never telling the User why you are doing what you are doing. The User never learns anything about his/her condition, but ultimately attains the promised land of a clean computer.) The problem began when "Man" decided to use religion as a tool to gain power, at the cost of others. Than the initial Message was lost. The New Testament eludes to the true nature of the initial message,i.e., Balance, but ultimately falls back into the control system ideology. The Gospel of Thomas best describes the initial message with Jesus pointing out that "He" is wherever you look. "He" referring to "Balance."

Ironically, this "Balance" already exists. It exists because Life exists. If Balance did not exist, Life would not exist. Nothing thrives in chaos. Nature teaches us this fact within an Eco-System (and, unfortunately, within War). When balance within the ecosystem is tilted, i.e., disorder created (chaos), the ecosystem begins to breakdown and death becomes more prevalent. War is the result of one or more individuals, families, countries, etc., attempting to manipulate Balance so that they prosper over the other, or at the other's expense.

The survival of our species is dependent upon the continued existence of Balance. The idea of Balance is much like Russian Nesting Dolls (one doll inside another, inside another, etc.). As an individual, you must attain Balance within yourself, known as homeostasis and mental balance. Without this balance an individual will be unhappy/unhealthy, either consciously or unconsciously. The Signal Flags of an unhappy individual, and therefore unbalanced, are many, but here are a few: Depression, Anger, Contempt. It stands to reason that an individual who is truly happy within, has no reason to be depressed, angry, or contemptuous of others.

The individual fits into the Immediate Family unit, which fits into the Extended Family unit, which fits into the Neighborhood, which fits into the Town, which fits into the City, which fits into the State, which fits into the Country, which fits into the World, which fits into the Galaxy, which fits into the Universe, which fits into ??? It all starts with the individual. Without individual Balance, Immediate Family balance is not attainable. Without Immediate Family, Extended Family balance is not attainable, and so on.

Individual Balance is by far the most important to attain. It is only through Individual Balance that all other forms are possible.

That is the first time that I have put my ideas about this topic in writing. Sorry if I rambled. I welcome any input/suggestions/comments.

Just one comment. I generally agree with your thoughts, except in the matter of depression. I've been battling it for years. Drugs, and certain mental & physical exercises I've learned, can bring me up to what, in "normal" (I use the term loosely) people would be considered moderate depression. The depression stems from a physical defect in my brain. It can be treated, but there is no cure (yet, anyways). I'm not talking about a case of the blues, or being "down". Those are short-lived phenomena. This is constant. I don't think I know what "truly happy" is, since I've lived under a cloudy sky all of my life.

There are times that not jumping off of a bridge into traffic is a major accomplishment.

MattV,

I'm not sure what you have disagreed with?

I understand what you are saying. You have actually reiterated my point regarding Balance, and Depression as a Signal Flag of an unhappy person. The "Signal Flags" aren't necessarily a condition in which a person has control over. Like Depression, Anger and Contempt seem to be present in people without them realizing. The difference is that Depression is a state of self-awareness (I'm no good, I'm not worthy, etc.) where Anger and Contempt are states of awareness of others (What a Jerk, I hate him, Look at him rubbing it in!), how they have wronged "you". They all ultimately come back to how they "affect" you, but Depression is more personal, making you more aware of it's existence.

Depression is a state of imbalance, chemical imbalance to be precise. When the chemicals within our brain/body go out of Balance, or out of homeostasis, we see a change in our demeanor. Too much testosterone and we get overly aggressive. Too much estrogen and we get overly emotional. Not enough serotonin and norepinephrine and we get an overwhelming sense of depression. (I don't mean to assume that you don't already know this. It just helps me to get my thoughts out in a sequential order)

Doctors generally prescribe a myriad of drugs (as you already know) to a clinically depressed patient, in hopes of reconstructing order within the brain, chemically. Dosages will be increased and decreased, some drugs discontinued, others initiated. It's all in an attempt to restore the chemical balance that we were born with. Exercising is huge with controlling depression. The irony is that if you are depressed, then you won't feel motivated to exercise. People who are depressed and are still able to get themselves out to exercise are very strong people indeed.

Depression is a Signal Flag of something other than just a chemical imbalance within the body. The chemical imbalance was created by something else, some act or experience of that individual (I am not including imbalances brought about by physical trauma such as Traumatic Brain Injuries). It could be as simple as an only-child of a single, depressed mother, living in a neighborhood with no other children, growing up without ambition or dreams. Or it could be more brutal, a child physically and mentally abused by a parent everyday, for his/her entire childhood and/or early adulthood. The human body is the most remarkable organism on the planet. It is able to endure pain of levels incomprehensible to most. Many times this pain is buried deep inside our minds (psyche) so that we may continue living, without the constant remembrance of horrific circumstances. The reaction to such a survival technique is some sort of mental imbalance, however slight. It is here, at the root cause of the imbalance, that we can begin to heal. Although drugs are necessary to enable a severely depressed individual to live, it is a temporary fix and needs to be constantly applied. The individual needs to be able to produce, or rather re-produce their own chemicals. This, I believe, is done through coming face-to-face with the root cause of the imbalance, which is achieved through self-exploration to include objectively assessing ones history.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Nothing Happens For No Reason. There is ALWAYS a reason, just sometimes it is really difficult to find.

MattV, I'd like to commend you on your ability to battle such a debilitating condition. I have some experience in the realm of depression and am aware of the power that it has over a person, his/her thoughts, his/her actions. Keep up the good fight, you're worth the effort!

When it's pretty obvious that Leftists are the real Nazis.

Thanks. I try to be.

According to a couple of shrinks I've seen, I seem to be one of those rare people that are born depressed. Or rather, with the defect that results in depression. Add 25+ years of alcoholism (been sober 7+ years, now*) on top of it, and it's a wonder I'm still here at all.


* I don't keep being a recovered alcoholic a big secret. I figure that if I'm open about it, then it's possible that someone else feeling lost, alone, and at the end of the line may see that there can be a light at the end of the tunnel. Along with a lot of metaphors.

MattV, ever hear of The Myers/Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)?

• Myers & Briggs Foundation
• Wikipedia on MBTI

Here's my understanding on this, in a nut-shell:

There is no such thing as being born as a "blank slate" (Tabula Rasa). When you are born, or probably way before that, you are the person who you were meant to be, your "True Self." Unfortunately, throughout life people are forced to accept things that they would not accept if they were conscious of their "True Self." This results in an "Adaptive Self," which, for survival reasons, buries the "True Self." This adaptation to your environment can start as early as birth, and probably during gestation within the womb.

The problem is that it is impossible to identify the true temperament of a person during early childhood. This presents a life of doing what your told, rather than doing what "feels right/natural." Ever hear a parent say, "I have no idea whose kid that is," or "He/she is not like my other kids, he/she is so different," "I just don't understand that kid"? Temperament is not hereditary. I child can go through their entire life never really knowing who they truly are. BUT...their body knows that there is an inconsistency between who they are and how they are (re)acting. This inconsistency (Chaos) manifests itself through many outlets: Depression, unidentifiable Anger, etc., which are natural reactions to not being able to find "the answer." Naturally, these often lead to escape mechanisms such as, Alcohol, Drugs, Suicidal/Homicidal thoughts and/or actions, etc..

The MBTI attempts to identify your "True Self" by identifying your true "Temperament." There exists much controversy regarding the MBTI (the Wikipedia link addresses this), however I personally have turned my out-look on life completely around just by being made aware of the possibility that, I am not the person that I have been trying to be all my life. It's extremely difficult to pinpoint your true temperament, due to the years of building up your adaptive self. I had to take the test, and then go over it with my therapist before landing on one that fit. My first temperament type assigned by the results of the test/survey was not the one I currently identify myself with today, an INFP. If you haven't already, I would urge you to mention the Meyers/Briggs (Temperament) Type Indicator to one of your "shrinks" and ask if they can administer the test/survey for you.

Hope this comes as some help with your fight. Congrats on the 7+ years!

Sorry to everyone else for hijacking this topic temporarily.

It may become obvious that I am particularly drawn to religious discussions. I myself believe that our Constitutional Rights allow us to practice our religious beliefs........BUT I don't see that this really happens as it should in America. I feel that Christians in particular are sneered at, jabbed at by political activists, and PREVENTED from practicing our beliefs more often than not. As a Veteran of the military, I use to become quite upset because I was NOT allowed to display my cross in uniform-YET there were religions that WERE allowed to wear their little head covers, their specially fabricated belts, etc. in uniform. WHY? And the question was never answered. Displaying a Nativity Scene has been banned around the U.S. in public places-YET, every day I see the displays of OTHER religions in public places with no one saying a word about it. Gays/Lesbians have forced the schools to teach Alternative Lifestyles...........yet, MY Conventional Lifestyle (husband/wife) is NOT ALLOWED to be taught! WHY? I am amazed at the REVERSE discrimination that has become the NORM in America.......somewhere there IS a midpoint. It is called Mutual Respect. NOT Politically Correct! You either allow ALL, or you allow NONE. You cannot allow some because an injustice was done a hundred years ago, or 10 years ago........and you are trying to compensate for it. My rights to practice my religion have been under attack for a long time...........and circumvented by those seeking to promote THEIR religions OR lack thereof. Religious Tolerance?? NOT in America...............Not Now......... It is an Ideal

I dont think you will get to heaven just by good deeds. Most religions have made it completely obvious that you need to do specific things in order to get to heaven, most of these are just methods of control by the ruling government at the time and place.

Cows, can I ask you a real question without you getting all biblical on me? How do you know that Christ will get you into heaven? What if you had been born in Saudi Arabia and been raised muslim? Would you still know that Christianity is the right way? Or is the religion that people take based mostly on location in the world and upbringing? Being raised in saudi arabia, would you not be as fervent a muslim as you are a christian?

Nothing personal, but my understanding of that can be summed up in one word - crapola.

There are two groups responsible for all of the things you mention. The "Christians" (not to be confused with Christians) and the Liberals. Christians are misunderstood and treated with suspicion and distrust because of the behaviors of "Christians". The rest of it, including the ongoing suppression of the Christian faith, is due to the fact that Leftists/Liberals/Democrats have been allowed to run amok since the sixties. And the agenda of the Left is nothing less than the complete destruction of The United States of America!! If anyone wants to see the direction that the Left is being allowed to push the U.S. in, then read Orwell's "1984".

Back in the spring of '06, when potential candidates were still testing the waters, Billary gave a speech in Manchester, NH, in which she all but came out and announced that her "vision" for America is socialism. Or communism, whichever term you prefer. And now she's the Dems. favorite for President!

A Billary administration will see the people that have actually worked for what they have, slowly stripped of what they have earned, only to see it handed out to the "entitled" ones that refuse to lift a finger to do a damned thing for themselves. Or anyone else. Hell, we've already got fifteen or twenty million foreign criminals living off of hard-working Americans in addition to the parasites that were already here.

When I compare the America of today with the America of my youth, it sickens me. Because no one really seems to give a damn about it.

The title of this thread is Religious Tolerance.

So I will make my simple comment:

There is not now nor has there ever been religious tolerance.
In a perfect world, everyone would respect the beliefs of others,
there would be no fighting and wars between the various religions.
But it isn't a perfect world, so we have to deal with the intolerance.

Again, another who I just don't believe understands. Religions were created as a means to make war. Tolerance was never in the minds of those who created it. They use religion as a tool to control their own population, by striking fear into them, saying that if they don't follow the religion they will burn in hell for eternity. I ask the religious fanatics of the current age,"Show me the miracles." they cant. "Show me the proof of Jesus WITHOUT using the bible (an obviously biased piece of literature)." they can't do it. What reason does anyone have to believe in any religion besides the fear that it instills. I for one can say that if God (in any form, jesus, whatever) walked among us and performed miracles, I would be an instant believer and give up everything in my life just to follow the one true god. But you know what, it hasn't happened, and I don't expect that it ever will. Does God want to remain a mystery to me?

Contrary to what you think, ryan, I do understand.
And you made my point even stronger.
People talk about religious tolerance, some even profess
to be tolerant, but in the end no one is.

yeah, i'm not arguing whether you think there is religious tolerance or not in fact, i'm not even arguing, though I apologize for coming off a little arrogant and aggravated. I only meant to comment that I don't think that mainstream religions (christianity, muslim, etc) were ever meant to be tolerant, and for anyone to expect such a thing is an intentional act of ignorance.

With this I must disagree. I tolerate religion and a lot of other things I don't like, or that are just plain wrong. And so does everyone else. One definition Webster's has for tolerate is "to put up with". The reason that we put up with religious crapola and all of the rest of the BS we are inundated with each day is simply because there is not anything else we can do about it.

Tolerating the BS is not synonymous with liking it.

Yes, you as a sane individual are tolerant. But, the nature of most religions is intolerance. This is clear from the religious wars that have taken place in just this generation, but if you take all of man's history as your sample, then there is really no argument against the fact that most religions are intolerant.

I dissagree with your statement Ryan, just because there have been wars over religion doesn't mean that the religions are at base, intolerant. I believe it is the radicals in most religions that corrupt it and twist it to fulfill their own sick agendas which may include promoting intolerence, that start the wars. Take a look at the 3 major religions of the world: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, where does it say in their holy passages "you must kill everyone who doesn't believe in what we do?"

I believe all Religions breed intolerence,in some form.Found these articles, a good read,and support my view.
I would have agree with your views,'Ryan' Not only the Koran, as the Bible is also guilty of breeding intolerence towards non-believers.
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/terrorist2.html

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html

Exodus 22:20:

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed.

Couldn't that mean that their "soul" will be destroyed? If indeed this passage is proof of intolerance :Then why don't normal Christians go around killing people who don't believe in God or Their God? Isn't one of the ten commandments in Christianity: "Thou shalt not kill.", also from what I've witnessed: most Christians are taught to treat others nicely despite their own beliefs.

Which leaves the main question of this proof you provide: Why are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, ect. co-existing in not only America but other areas of the world? Does this mean that these followers are not "True" followers of their religion? If not then what can we claim is "True" religion?

Maybe the different sects and different interpretations of the bible just represent the levels of saneness within the church. The most insane people are the radical zealots, while the sane people are always trying to save lives, because they realize the importance.

There are a lot of people that are quite accepting of people with beliefs other than the ones they hold. Religious people are no more - or less - intolerant than most people are concerning race, for instance. The institutions of religion are what promote intolerance. "Convert or be doomed" is a basic tenet of religion. It is the duty of the proponents of almost any religion to recruit others into that religion's control, under threat of some punishment to be meted out after they die.

How anyone capable of independent thought can't see religions for the ludicrous inventions that they are defies logic.

I just want to point out that this is only YOU're opinion. How you try to equate racial intolerance with religious intolerance is beyond me. Your race is a set of specific traits determined by your genes handed down from your ancestors, to your parents, to you, that you have no control over. A religion is something that is created to control people, and those who create it have all the control. They aren't the same. For you to equate the race that someone is born with, to the religion that they choose to submit to, disgusts me.

I agree with your opinion that religion is a ludicrous invention, but you've made a mistake in assuming that the religious intolerance is not sprung straight from the individuals that submit to the religions. These people with their lack of self guidance, their hate for other religions, fear of hell and death, fear of everything that will happen if you do not submit, belief of fairy tales, and their choice to put their religion above the most important thing in this world, the human life. These people are weak and many could not survive without their religion, because they've been so misled and trapped by their world cultures and their parents, that they cannot escape, they don't escape it, they don't realize that they need to escape. They are fools. Now lets see, how big is catholocism these days? I don't even know. All these fools give the pope his power, he can sit on his stupid chair and anything he says is the word of god. Please, give me a break. And even the pope may be a trapped soul, who knows. There is no way of knowing how much he knows about the catholocism scam. Maybe he really believes he is God on earth.

And you don't hold one single individual fool responisble? What about those during the crusades who killed in the name of God, and didn't question a thing? Do you not hold them personally responsible for any of it? Oh, well then the Nazis may have well claimed to be a religion, just so if they got caught for exterminating the jews, then all of the people who did any killing would be absolved, cause they were only following their religion, right?!?! No. wrong. I don't think you are right. The individuals who submit to religions that breed violence and intolerance, are just as guilty. I mean are they sitting there seriously thinking, "After I kill a couple more of unbelievers, I'm going to heaven."? HOw absurd.

Individuals who are fools deserve to be judged as such.

Excellent Post, 'Ryan'. My thoughts exactly,and no doubt many other Members,think likewise, who have bothered to think for themselves,and realize Religion is nothing more than control over the Masses.To me, Religions also are nothing more than Tax free big business. Take the Church of Scientology for an example. The Vatican Bank is one of the wealthiest in World.Wouldn't be if they genuinely gave the money to help the poor and starving,instead of hording the money,innocent Catholics give,believing their hard earned dollars are going to help the needy.

I wasn't, though there are so many striking parallels between the two that it could be argued that racial intolerance has become a religion for some.

What I said is that individuals are no more or less likely to be intolerant of followers of other religions than they are to be intolerant of those of other races.

My mother is a true blue Southern Baptist. I was raised in the small New England town that I live in now. The two families that were our nearest neighbors were devout Roman Catholics. And my mother and the ladies of those two families were the best of friends. These three women, though of faiths that have not always been the most amiable toward each other, accepted each other for who they were; the differences in their respective religious doctrines didn't bear on their relationship.

The institutions of religion have intolerance of other religions as part of their basic doctrine. Individuals, however, can choose whether to follow that doctrine or not. I am white. I am also an Atheist. I have friends that are of many different religious and racial/ethnic backgrounds. We are friends because we choose to be. As for those that would try to tell us that we are wrong to be friends, we scoff at them.

The only one responsible - the only one that can be responsible - for the decisions and actions of an individual is that individual. And that is simply a fact.

When i was in college, i knew two muslims, and befriended both. One was a woman, and one was a man, but hopefully you do not take the sex of these individuals as that which influenced their actions.

The woman helped me out a lot during my freshman orientation, and was kind, peaceful, and fun to be around. Occasionally she would speak about Allah, but never said anything to show any bias, and insisted that Allah was not biased towards any race.

The man was quite different. He was a funny guy, hence why i became his friend, but sometimes his jokes were in poor taste. He would make fun of the accents the Indian people had. He was sexist, and would often talk about how stupid having a girlfriend was, when you could have "girls." After all, in his opinion, they were meant for no other purpose than sex. He was violent, and would often laugh at death or the misfortune of others. He scared me, and i stopped being his friend.

I believe that the bias we often see in muslims is not because they follow Islam, but because of the culture and society that developed in the Middle East. Changing a person's perspective is a long and tedious task. Changing a people's perspective is even more difficult. As such, it will be a long time before we see and end to that form of bias, but at least we can take comfort in the small victories for peace and friendship.

men/women of god = terrorist

Ghandi,Mother Theresa, Billy Graham = terrorrst. You lost me..

I have been lost for so long in theologian discussions and debates that I no longer participate.

I think this is true, to an extent. So Islam is either a religion of violence, or a culture of violence is using the religion as a tool to justify barbaric acts. The question then remains; what is to be done about this? Should efforts be made to try and contain the barbarians, or should they simply be destroyed? Where is the line to be drawn? Can the barbarians be contained, or is destruction the only option? These are real questions and real problems facing the world today. And the idealistic dream of everyone understanding and getting along with one another is just that - a dream, and will never be any more than just a dream. No single country has ever realized that dream, let alone the entire world.

So, how do we act, and when do we act? Should action be taken to resolve the barbarian problem now? Or should we wait until a port city somewhere in the world disappears in nuclear fire? And if we wait, what might be the outcome? Will there be nuclear reaction to such an event, rapidly spiraling out of control?

The barbarians are at the gate. What do we do?

Perhaps it is the topic that starts with Question X, moves to Y and Z, then re-starts... A, B, C...

I have been tempted to post a reply before but became so confused after reading through the thread that I decided to give up! By chance seen this thread come up again... well thought might just add a thought.

I don't know if anyone has suggested this before but it would be better (in my view) when a topic is started, we should stick only to the TOPIC. Again this might be controversial as some people will argue what is and not part of the topic. Topics should also have some sort of expiry, so that we do not revive dead topics which had been forgotten for several years or those that deal with issues which are no longer relevant. It also becomes easy for people to follow the topic without endlessly having to read the thread (and worse ending up on a different topic than the originally intended one). People can provide some sort of conclusions without having their ideas re-stated and reinforced... i.e. 'I am the last one to win' doesn't happen. I would also suggest that anyone who posts a reply must at least answer the original question rather than follow the last posted question.


As I said, these are just some personal thoughts, and would appreciate if there are any agreemeents or disagreements...

Regards,
Juha

Because theologians never have any evidence for anything, unless you count the bible. hahahahahahah. lol. lmao. ridiculous.

That would be one way to stifle the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Seriously, though - drift happens. As far as confusion goes, discussions concerning religion are perhaps the most confusing and sometimes heated. Frankly, it speaks well of the people participating in them here that they've been kept as cordial as they have.

As to the topic, "Religious Tolerance", there isn't really a lot to say on the subject. There is a lot to explore, however, concerning religious intolerance. Which may not have been the intent of the thread starter, but is the direction the thread seems to have taken. As long as the subject has become one that has relevance, does it matter what the original intent was?

And thus you have made your argument, and it is now a factoid for others to use as evidence.

I have found a great tolerance of other people's religious beliefs. Most if you trace back to the origins, have much in common with others. Not to be tolerant of others, is only proof of ones own ignorance.

I don't really think that that is ok. Because Christians argue that the whole bible is completely true and actually happened. So, in an argument about science or religion, they immediately enter a conversation where they assume that others will see their bible as a book based completely on factual and historicaly accurate material, hence they find that their fairy tale story somehow should make sense to everyone, and they just don't realized how idiotic it all sounds, or that they would simply have fallen victim to a different religion had they been born in a different time or place in history. Example: Born in Saudi Arabia. You're parents likely raise you to be an obedient muslim child. You grow up to be an obedient muslim adult. End Example. And these Christian arguers, in an argument about Christianity or science, will never allow any of their book to be challenged in any way, therefore an argument between Christianity and science really is not possible.