navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Respect and Tolerance
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Respect and Tolerance Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2006-04-13 05:10 PM


quote:
We must respect the other fellow's religion,but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

H. L. Mencken

© Copyright 2006 Brad - All Rights Reserved
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
1 posted 2006-04-13 07:33 PM


quote:
Is one religion as good as another?  Is one horse in the Derby as good as another?

G.K. Chesterton

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
2 posted 2006-04-13 08:28 PM


quote:

I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith—it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.



-Robert A. Heinlein

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
3 posted 2006-04-13 08:45 PM



Only if the wife is actually ugly and the kids are stupid, if the wife is beautiful and the kids are actually smart one theory seems, at least to me, to have more merit than the other.

Respect and tolerance is fine when it comes to one mans belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart even when all the evidence is to the contrary, I mean nobody gets hurt by the guys theory, right?

Respect and tolerance is also fine if someone happens to hold a particular view, including religious, that doesn’t harm anyone. However should the same respect and tolerance be offered to extreme religious groups and sects that actively seek out the young and weak, almost brainwashing them, to spread their ideas and doctrines?

I don’t think religion in that sense deserves the same respect and tolerance as the mans theory that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart.

I think respect and tolerance should, in some cases, be earned or at least given in equal amounts to that which is received.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
4 posted 2006-04-13 08:58 PM


quote:

If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.


-Voltaire


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
5 posted 2006-04-13 09:20 PM


quote:
However should the same respect and tolerance be offered to extreme religious groups and sects that actively seek out the young and weak, almost brainwashing them, to spread their ideas and doctrines?

Why limit yourself to only religious groups and sects? You could just as easily be describing the Democratic/Republican (pick one) party, the KKK, Dr. Robert Atkins, Capital "What's in YOUR wallet?" One, or just about any nation or government that still appeals to patriotism to fuel military strength.

Persuasion has never been limited to religion, after all.



Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
6 posted 2006-04-13 09:52 PM




True, but religion is probably the only one that demands or expects respect and tolerance from all sides.

If I were to say the Republicans\Democrats (take your pick) were a bunch of idiots, the neutrals would shrug their shoulders the opposing party would raise a cheer and the party in question would jump to retaliate or refute the claim.

If I say that Christians\Muslims (take your pick - any religion will do) are a bunch of idiots, the Christians\Muslims, the neutrals and members of opposing religions would all jump around asking for ‘Respect’ and ‘Tolerance’.

Does this protection from all sides not afford some religious groups a respectability they don’t deserve and tolerance they haven’t earned?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
7 posted 2006-04-13 10:45 PM


People and beliefs aren't the problem with people and beliefs: disrespectful and harmful manners are.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
8 posted 2006-04-13 10:48 PM


quote:
With all these different religions, someone is going to Hell... and it's gonna be crowded.

Redd Foxx

It is a crude way of putting it; however, I feel it is straight to the point. With everyone having their own different thoughts about religion, and within the same religion different thoughts about what it means, how can anyone profess theirs to be the only true way to enlightenment? The only one that truly knows just plain isn't telling.
The way I figure it, and the way I am teaching my kids (on everything, and not just religion) I have my own thoughts and beliefs that have "enlightened" me after looking at many of the different philosophies available. I might be right, however I am more than likely wrong about it, and for me to discount(for anyone to completely discount) someone else's thoughts and beliefs as completely wrong is just plain head-in-the-sand thinking.
Everyone should be given their free reign of thought right up to the point where they tell the world they are the only ones with the answers.


"... the rest is silence"
from the song The Flesh Failures www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
9 posted 2006-04-13 11:54 PM


quote:
I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith

I would say that it is a caricature of Christianity which says that faith is blind.  Of course there have been those who say that God demands belief without any "evidence" so to speak ... those who believe that God's truth, and "our" truth stand forever separated, with a Kirkegaardian gulf in between that can only be bridged by a leap.  Only that kind of "faith" would warrant the sentiments of Mr. Heinlein.  Of course, an alternative is to say that God has given ample evidence of his truth (both in a general sense, and in the particulars of the Gospel).  This evidence ranges from the complexity and wonder of the outward creation, to the inward realities which are addressed and answered by the Christian truth (like personal sin, hope, beauty, love, death, and honor).  In short, the scriptures tell us that it's not as if God hasn't given a manifold testimony of himself both within the Judeo-Christian community and without.  


Where I think the "leap" comes in is in the area of commitment.  I intellectually believed in the truth of Christianity long before my heart was able to commit.  Why?  Because personal devotion and commitment go far deeper than the sterility of a mere intellectual belief.  It's not that I think intellect is unimportant.  I just think it's used as an excuse many times, to ward off the "leap" of letting go of control.  C.S. Lewis put it this way:  "If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference.".  So a blind "faith" without any guidance, is not at all what God demands, but rather a faith which must respond with devotion, once what Christ has done is ascertained.


As far as the quote by Voltaire, that just hasn't proven to be true.  We have more like 30 million religions than 30.  Yet multiplicity of religion has not procurred peace.  The solution to fighting and war is not to naively (or dishonestly) say "all religions are essentially the same", but rather to be peaceful in action and ideology.  It is certainly possible to believe one's religion represents the only way to salvation, and be peaceful and passivist in approach.  A martyr is way different than a murderer, though both may hold a universal outlook.


Winding my way around to the original subject, I suppose that's where we need to revisit the word "tolerance".  I'm for tolerance.  But to say that all views are the same, is forced egalitarianism, not "tolerance".  Tolerance implies that when things aren't right, they are responded to in love and patience.  But the thing is, it presupposes that there are things "not right".  The denial of anyone being wrong is far cry from what tolerance really is.  The word, as of late, has been redefined.


Repect of person, and respect of doctrine can also be two different things.  I don't respect a doctrine that I believe will lead someone away from eternal life, but that doesn't mean I can't respect the person.          


Stephen    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-14-2006 12:00 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
10 posted 2006-04-14 03:10 AM


Stephen, I know you're smart enough to know horses and religions are a bad metaphor. If I could pet religion and feed it sugar cubes, I'd have been converted a long time ago.
Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
11 posted 2006-04-14 09:49 AM


Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are not free, separate, and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way."

Thomas Mann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: MSN Daily Quotes

Regards,
Knubian

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2006-04-14 07:33 PM


I don't mind Jesus, it's his fan club I can't stand.

-someone

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
13 posted 2006-04-14 07:46 PM


Wasn't that Gandhi?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
14 posted 2006-04-14 10:04 PM


quote:
Stephen, I know you're smart enough to know horses and religions are a bad metaphor. If I could pet religion and feed it sugar cubes, I'd have been converted a long time ago.


Hush, I can't argue with that.  Most people (including myself) want to "take the reigns", and have a tame and submissive religion that we can direct.  But if you've ever read "The Horse and his boy", there's a horse named Bree who tells a boy named Shasta not to touch the reigns, and to throw away his spurs, even though he's allowed to ride.  There are also horses in the wild that will never own a saddle.  Those are just small pictures of how true religion can be very much like equestrian wildness and beauty.    


quote:
I don't mind Jesus, it's his fan club I can't stand.


I'm not making light of the sins of the Church.  But like it or not, he seems to have identified himself very closely with that "club", even taking their sins, faults, and inadequacies upon himself.  And the moment one professes admiration, or any degree of devotion ... the "fan club" has just grown, and then the question of one's own accountability comes into play.  Not to mention that the sins of the Church are still the residual sins of the world, of which even the wise Mahatma was guilty.  (as much as I respect him)
  

Stephen.
    

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
15 posted 2006-04-15 02:22 PM


There is one thing I know about every belief that is truly believed in: that belief is true.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
16 posted 2006-04-15 02:53 PM



quote:
There is one thing I know about every belief that is truly believed in: that belief is true.


I truly believe you’re wrong.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
17 posted 2006-04-15 03:40 PM


"I truly believe..."


How can I argue with that?  
That tells me that you have a true belief.  Just because I don't believe the same doesn't mean that it is false.  But since it is true seems to confirm what I know so far: every belief, that is truly believed in, is true!


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
18 posted 2006-04-15 04:08 PM


Actually Essorant, that only tells you that he truly has a belief ... which is very different from having "a true belief". His belief cannot confirm yours if it contradicts it.  And even if his is true, that doesn't mean that ALL beliefs are true ... in fact it can't be if it is directly a refutation of what you believe.  Truth by definition is exclusive.  

So it actually confirms his belief rather than yours.  

You've told me several times (even recently I think), "I disagree".  That belies that you don't really believe your own philosophy.  But I know one thing, that in order to be consistent with your view, you can't even refute what I've just said.    

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
19 posted 2006-04-16 12:10 PM


"Actually Essorant, that only tells you that he truly has a belief ... which is very different from having "a true belief"."


There's no difference in meaning to me between "he truly believes" and "he has a true belief"  "he weakly believes" "he has a weak belief" "he strongly believes" "he has a strong belief"  Belief is substantiated by believing.  That is why it is called "belief" to begin with.  Although your belief is different from others, for larger literature-hoard, greater majority, and more propogation, that doesn't mean it is truer than anyone else's.  Other people believe in other religions just as truly as you believe in yours, that is, they have a belief just as true as yours, by believing which they hold sacred, in Nature, universal oneness, in divinity, and perhaps without a belief in any God/god at all.  That they don't have a bible, a majority of populations, nor advertise their religion and make mission to convert anyone, doesn't mean their religion or belief is anything less a religion or belief.  But when someone says that some belief is false, I think that is a bad manner.  Why and how should anyone dare to say or treat someone elses belief as false instead of true, when belief implies expressing the truth of one's own heart, and that truth in one person in something may be just as true for something very different in another?  Such a manner becomes disrespectful if hung upon and should be spoken against, but I don't think it is ever right to speak against anyone's belief, and certainly not  anyone for being a believer in that belief.

"His belief cannot confirm yours if it contradicts it. "

I think it can if it is true.  
I said that every belief that is truly believed in is true.  
What reason should I have to believe his belief is false, especially when he says it is true?   If someone says he has a true love for choclate, are you going to say that love is false, just because you don't have a love for choclate?  No.   Why then say someone doesn't have a true belief in something, just because you don't have a true belief in the same thing?  I don't think his love for choclate is going to take away your love for cheese.  Nor is his belief in Zeus going to take away your belief in Christ.  If someone can't feel well about his or her belief without calling other beliefs "false" what does that say about his/her manners in respect to beliefs?  

"Truth by definition is exclusive."

I don't think they are "exclusive".
They are just different shapes of the same thing.  A man and woman are different shapes of a human, in a wider sense, they are different shapes of an animal, in an even wider sense they are a different shape of the Universe.  That doesn't seperate them from the universe, but it distinguishes as a true and special part of the Universe.  I think different shapes of truth are similar.  
Every difference is a variation of the same thing.

"You've told me several times (even recently I think), "I disagree"."

When I say "I disagree" that is because I disagree with a specific statement or manner.  By no means am I trying to say your belief is "true" or "false"  
I already know it is true.


"That belies that you don't really believe your own philosophy."

How is it right for you to tell someone else what his or her belief is or is not?  
I don't think it should be much different if I said you believe in Zeus intead of Christ, despite everything you ever said.

  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
20 posted 2006-04-17 07:33 PM


Essorant:
quote:
There's no difference in meaning to me between "he truly believes" and "he has a true belief"


Suppose I borrowed John's Ford truck yesterday.  But Sam wasn't around to know the details.  Martha on the other hand, was with me when I borrowed it.

"Sam truly believes, though wrongly, that I borrowed John's Schwinn bicycle.  But Martha has a true belief that I borrowed John's Ford Truck."


The same thing also applies to "weak" and "strong".  Someone can weakly believe that their loved one survived a car accident, and yet that belief could be true.  But someone's belief that the sun revolves around the earth, is very weak in light of the discoveries of Copernicus.  Someone can strongly believe that they are Jesus Christ, and not be.  But the argument that Jesus Christ existed is a very strong one.  


If you deny the differences here, you have just denied not only the world of grammar, but also the world of men, potatoes, and cats in which you live from day to day.  If it comes between reality and philosophy, go ahead and ditch your philosophy.  Some philosophical ideas are just wrong, despite the fact that they can seem so enchanting.  And the idea that every proposition is true, is one of them.  

and I truly believe what I'm saying here  ...     So how can you argue?


quote:
But when someone says that some belief is false, I think that is a bad manner.


But what if someone truly believes it is a good manner?  Your retreat from true and false, into questions of good and bad, does not prevent you from drawing the line.  You're still drawing lines of belief, even if they are twice removed.  You still have to ask whether or not your estimation of what is "bad" is true.  If not, you're only giving me autobiography, not philosophy.  


quote:
but I don't think it is ever right to speak against anyone's belief, and certainly not  anyone for being a believer in that belief.


Caught ya.  You just spoke against my belief ... because I truly believe that it is sometimes right to speak against someone's belief.  And you do too, or you wouldn't have done so.  


quote:
If someone says he has a true love for choclate, are you going to say that love is false, just because you don't have a love for choclate?


Of course not.  You're talking totally subjective now, concerning taste.  But wouldn't you admit that that's a different kind of question than asking whether or not that brown stuff is actually chocolate or not?  


I work as a Registered Nurse.  And we take a lot of lab specimins, including collected stool.  (I don't want to gross anyone out here, but bear with me).  I played a joke on a secretary once, by putting some melted Reeses chocolate in a specimin cup, and setting it on the desk for her to key the lab into the computer (the usual protocol).  Needless to say, I wasn't very tidy.  I purposely smeared chocolate on the bag and a little on the desk.  She was quite irate, when she saw, right in front of her, what she thought was something other than chocolate.  For more than a few seconds, she truly believed that that lovely chocolate was fecal matter.  I still have lumps to prove it!.  But does that mean that it actually was?  No, she was wrong.  Well ... maybe more than anything she was wronged.  But she was still wrong.


I know, I know, that was rather naughty of me.  I am an avid prankster, I must admit.  She didn't take it so bad after she found it was really good 'ol chocolate.  She rather enjoyed the snack.  


quote:
How is it right for you to tell someone else what his or her belief is or is not?



How right is it for you to tell me it's not right for me to tell you you're not right??  


quote:
I don't think it should be much different if I said you believe in Zeus intead of Christ, despite everything you ever said.



It doesn't surprise me that you can't grasp the difference between a historical personage, and a mythological personage, if you haven't acknowledged the foundational difference between true and false.  Arguing the difference between Zeus and Jesus Christ is easy enough, but if your framework is mistaken, then arguments will be wasted.  


Don't misunderstand me, I don't deny there is truth present, even in wrong assertions.  For example, I believe your conclusion is wrong, but much in your premise is right.  Just because someone believes that it is possible to have wrong conclusions, doesn't mean that they see no shades of grey, no nuances and subtleties of truth in all views.  It's just that the truth in certain premises isn't always weighty enough to redeem the faulty conclusions that may follow.


Stephen.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
21 posted 2006-04-17 08:57 PM


quote:
Belief:  When you want to believe in something you also have to believe in everything that's necessary for believing in it."
Ugo Betti, Struggle Till Dawn

Footnote: I read a lot on all of you in Philosophy, and other discussions, and in your poetry...but I could never hold a candle to your intricacies in this forum. Yet, I find you all fascinating. That is my belief.  Write on.


Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
22 posted 2006-04-18 07:53 AM


Quote:
------------------------------------------
"He who bears the interests of humanity in his breast, that man is blessed."

Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi
------------------------------------------

Source: MSN

Regards,
Knubian

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
23 posted 2006-04-18 11:20 PM


Stephanos,

Suppose I borrowed John's Ford truck yesterday.  But Sam wasn't around to know the details.  Martha on the other hand, was with me when I borrowed it.

"Sam truly believes, though wrongly, that I borrowed John's Schwinn bicycle.  But Martha has a true belief that I borrowed John's Ford Truck."


The deed that you borrowed the truck, and not the bicycle doesn't make Sam's belief false.  His belief is still true and right to sincerity.  If he said otherwise than what he believed, that would not be his true belief.  When he meets more facts, his belief about it shall most likely change, that is, if he believes differently for them.  But nevertheless it shall be his belief, true and sincere in his own way of believing, and to his best judgement.  It has no obligation to live up to facts that it doesn't have, know about, or if does, aren't what he believes in.   To say that his own belief is obligated to something beyond his own believing after whatever knowledge he has, is saying that his belief should not be his own anymore, but should be someone elses, some that believes only in one kind of way according to one kind of knowledge.  Most likely Sam may believe you and Martha after you say the fact is otherwise than what he believes and say what actually happened.  But that doesn't mean he will.  And if he doesn't that shall not make his belief any less true.

The main distinction is that a belief is up to the believer.  It is personal and up to him. It is his heart that fills its truth, not any one elses.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-19-2006 12:07 AM).]

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
24 posted 2006-04-18 11:27 PM


Mike
quote:
I don't mind Jesus, it's his fan club I can't stand.

-someone

hey, I said that a long long time ago!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
25 posted 2006-04-19 01:41 AM


Essorant:
quote:
The deed that you borrowed the truck, and not the bicycle doesn't make Sam's belief false.



Are you saying I did borrow the bicycle then ... even though I didn't?  


quote:
Most likely Sam may believe you and Martha after you say the fact is otherwise than what he believes and say what actually happened.  But that doesn't mean he will.  And if he doesn't that shall not make his belief any less true.


Then we have a different definition of "true".  You are making up your own.  What I mean by "true" is whether or not Sam's belief correlates with external facts.


quote:
The main distinction is that a belief is up to the believer.
  

I never said that belief wasn't in some sense "up to" the believer.  But the question of whether or not that belief is actually true, is often quite independent of the believer.  If a statement is soley about something external, why do you say that nothing external determines it's truth?  You're confusing truth value, with volition perhaps, or maybe sincerity.  But volition and sincerity, are separate issues.


I can be sincere and still be wrong.  If I sincerely believe that my car runs on Molasses rather than Gasoline, that doesn't mean that it's a true belief.  The determining factor is what happens when the key is turned.


I'll ask you again Essorant.  Why don't you believe someone can be sincerely wrong?  You wouldn't be so accomodating to a Taxi driver's opinion that you wanted to go south, when you really wanted to go north would you?  I'm sure you would turn him around, however politely.  Your philosophy doesn't work in real life.  


And I'm not even talking yet about what is the proper reaction to error in others, whether it be patience and kindness, or austerity.  So don't bring up the moral properness of being nice and respectful, as a support for your view.  So far as you and I are concerned, we haven't even reached that question yet.


So back to that bicycle that I never borrowed ...  Is sam right, regardless of the facts?


Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
26 posted 2006-04-19 07:54 AM


Essorant, when are you going to send that $5,000 you owe me? I know you have it. It's been over a year since you borrowed the money, and your failure to pay me back reflects very poorly on your character. Pay up, Bud.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
27 posted 2006-04-19 02:36 PM


"Are you saying I did borrow the bicycle then ... even though I didn't? "

No, I'm saying that Sam's belief is true despite the fact that you borrowed something else than what he beleived.  

It was true for the truth and facts of what the belief itself had, what he truly believed, and knew was a true possibility, not "false" for not correlating to a fact he couldn't know to begin with: what you actually borrowed.

Presence in the belief:

The truth of believing
The truth of a possibility.
The strength of both.

Absence:
The knowledge of exactly what you borrowed.

It is the presence of its own truth and strength in the belief in something itself, that makes the belief true. That is both the truth and strength, and the true possibility believed in, make the belief true.  Whatever was absent from the belief does not define the belief itself.  There is no way that Sam could believe in what he didn't have: the knowledge of what actually was borrowed, even if he guessed the same thing that was .  It would still be the same thing, in the act of believing: a belief in a true possibility based on his best judgement, and knowledge of other things and strengthened by believing.
There is no way he could know that his belief were incongruent with what actually was borrowed.  And if he could know that his belief were thus, that would essentially take away the believing and replace it with certain knowledge, and therefore in no way believe in the possibility, that the bike was borrowed, instead of the actual fact that the truck was borrowed.  But the actual fact was not part of his act.  Therefore it does not make his believe false.  He didn't believe in any wrongness or falseness.  But he simply believed in a possibility, that is something all beliefs do.  To me the incongruency of the belief with the fact of what you did, doesn't make the actuality of his belief false or wrong anymore than the incongruency with Sam's belief makes the actuality of what you did false or wrong.  

"Then we have a different definition of "true".  You are making up your own.  What I mean by "true" is whether or not Sam's belief correlates with external facts."

I already mentioned in the "Belief and Science" thread that when I say "true" I do  mean "actual" My reasons are posted in that thread Stephanos, and also mentioned above too.  The external facts simply don't "incriminate" or prove that the belief itself is wrong or false.  One can't believe in something he or she doesn't know about, such as a incongruity with facts.  The incongruity of facts is simply an incongruity of facts, not a falseness or wrongness that is believed in or defines the belief.  


"If a statement is soley about something external, why do you say that nothing external determines it's truth?

But when you are speaking about someone's belief Stephanos, you are no longer talking about an impersonal statement or phrase or description, nor something external, but instead something that is always internal, spiritual, and personal.  Instead of saying "this or that is wrong" or "this or that is false"  You say "your belief is "wrong"  

You are blaming the innocent act of believing in something as being the wrong.
Instead of a wrong that is not believed in.
It is basically the same as saying "you believe in wrongness"

It is like saying someone that believes in someone because that person shows respect today, has belief that is wrong or false or in the evil itself, if that person believed in shows disrespect and is harmful tomorrow.   Or if one can't see an ice patch under the snow, so trusts there is soft snow as he stepped in so far, that if there is an icepatch his belief is false.  

I don't believe that people believe in anything false or wrong.  But that doesn't mean people don't fall among wrongs, despite the true and good beliefs they have.  That's what happend with Adam and Eve in the bible, that's what happens to them today as well.  Adam and Eve don't believe in wrongness.  But that doesn't mean they don't fall into it.

"But volition and sincerity, are separate issues. "

I can't agree with that at all.  Volition and sincerity are two most important truths of every belief.  As truths therefore they define the belief as true.

What is aloof and not even known by the belief, however, is the actually fact of what happened.  Therefore how, does that fact, determine the belief at all?
  
"I'll ask you again Essorant.  Why don't you believe someone can be sincerely wrong?  You wouldn't be so accomodating to a Taxi driver's opinion that you wanted to go south, when you really wanted to go north would you?  I'm sure you would turn him around, however politely.  Your philosophy doesn't work in real life."

I am not willing to call randomness belief, Stephanos.  If you pick something out randomly, you are not picking it out by belief, but picking out by chance.  Therefore saying "north" "south" etc, has no substance to me.  It is just a random guess, not a belief.  Even if you say a random guess may be a belief, it doesn't stand for sincere or strong one.  

"So back to that bicycle that I never borrowed ...  Is sam right, regardless of the facts?"

Sam is not right or wrong.  He is human.

The belief is not right or wrong.  It is true.

What about the facts though?

Sam believed that you borrowed something else than what you did.  That is a difference that includes no wrongness or falseness.  A belief can't be blamed for not being the same as a fact, or a certain knowledge of fact, because if it were the same I don't think it would even be a belief anymore.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-19-2006 04:36 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
28 posted 2006-04-19 02:59 PM


"Essorant, when are you going to send that $5,000 you owe me? I know you have it. It's been over a year since you borrowed the money, and your failure to pay me back reflects very poorly on your character. Pay up, Bud."

But if you believe in that, that constitutes the spiritual truth of your belief,  not the actuality of another fact, such as owing money.  
Your belief is true.  But that doesn't mean your saying or argument is.    



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
29 posted 2006-04-20 12:04 PM


quote:
Your belief is true.  But that doesn't mean your saying or argument is.


Now you are forced to separate saying and belief, because like Ron and I, you too see the necessity of factual truth somewhere.


Only one problem with that, what if a person believes what he says, or believes in his argument?  Then inadvertently you've just admitted that his belief may not be true.


Why?  For honest people, what is said, or argued, is synonymous with belief.
  

Really I think this argument is pretty well over, since it's obvious you're only left with semantical sleight of hand ... as the last desparate moves before checkmate.  One final question though ... Can you define "true" in the sense that we are speaking of?  What does true mean?


Stephen

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
30 posted 2006-04-20 12:31 PM


quote:
But if you believe in that, that constitutes the spiritual truth of your belief,  not the actuality of another fact, such as owing money.

I just noticed what you're doing here.


You're only refusing to admit that beliefs may be about mere facts.  Ron just mentioned a belief ABOUT owing money.  And you just told him that it's not really about that at all, but rather about something spiritual.  In which case you're only correcting him, rather than describing his belief. Because his belief was stated quite otherwise by him (with no fuzziness).  It was about the fact of owing money.  


Go ahead Essorant.  It won't hurt really.  Tell him he's wrong.  That you don't him any money.  Correct him and tell him, that you owe ME the money.  At least I believe you do, so that makes it true.    


Stephen.

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
31 posted 2006-04-20 06:09 AM


Quote:
--------------------------
The arrow belongs not to the archer when it has once left the bow; the word no longer belongs to the speaker when it has once passed his lips."

Heinrich Heine
---------------------------

“Truth exceeds belief!.. and one is truly not the other, yet the belief that something is true has brought about many successes as well as failures”

Myself

Regards,
Knubian

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
32 posted 2006-04-21 01:27 AM


I believe you owe money.

You owe money.


Same thing?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
33 posted 2006-04-21 01:35 AM


"You're only refusing to admit that beliefs may be about mere facts.  Ron just mentioned a belief ABOUT owing money.  And you just told him that it's not really about that at all, but rather about something spiritual.  In which case you're only correcting him, rather than describing his belief. Because his belief was stated quite otherwise by him (with no fuzziness).  It was about the fact of owing money"


Stephanos,

I didn't mean Ron's belief wasn't about owing money, but that it (the fact of the belief) doesn't constitute the fact or actuality of owing money itself.  


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
34 posted 2006-04-21 09:28 AM


Nothing has changed, Essorant. You still owe me $5,000. If you don't resolve this issue, and do so in fairly short order, your reputation and character are going to be forever marred. Pay up.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
35 posted 2006-04-22 09:20 PM


You may write it in a Holy Bible if you will.  But it may not make me believe it.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
36 posted 2006-04-23 01:01 AM


Essorant,

Of course not, because you know it's not true that you owe Ron money.  That was Ron's point.  Even if Ron really believed this, his belief would not merit the same response as a "true" statement would.


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
37 posted 2006-04-23 10:43 AM


How can Ron believe in a falseness that he doesn't even know about?  
If he truly believes what he says, it is because he truly believes in trueness, and the specific thought, saying, statement, appears to be true, therefore he uses it.  How does that make his belief in the wrong?  What belief doesn't do the same?  Once he knows there is a wrong, his belief shall change.  That is because it is true and good, not false.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
38 posted 2006-04-23 12:30 PM


I understand what you mean, Essorant. At least, I do.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
39 posted 2006-04-23 02:24 PM


Ess:
quote:
How can Ron believe in a falseness that he doesn't even know about?


It's not the falseness that he doesn't know about, but rather it's the truth that he doesn't know about.  It's that very lack of knowledge which is helping him to believe a falsehood.  The very definition of falseness is characterized by that irksome disassociation with the facts.


A more pertinent question would be:  How can Ron's belief be true, if he doesn't know that you actually owe that money to yours truly?        


quote:
f he truly believes what he says, it is because he truly believes in trueness


All you've really said here is that 1) Ron has a belief and 2) that he believes in trueness as a concept.  But that's descriptive of even those who are wrong in their beliefs.  


Bart believes the moon is made of blue cheese, rather than dust and rock.  Three things are obvious to me here:  1) Bart "truly" has a belief, 2) Bart believes in trueness as a concept, else he wouldn't choose one thing in opposition to others.  and 3) I'm not chomping at the bits to go and open a Salad Bar on the moon.


quote:
. . . and the specific thought, saying, statement, appears to be true, therefore he uses it.


Yes ... the keyword: APPEARS to be ...  Why do you deny that there can be a discrepancy between appearance and actuality?  Are you telling me that you don't believe that optical illusions can cause auto accidents?  


quote:
How does that make his belief in the wrong?


Not one of the things you mentioned makes his belief wrong.  What makes his belief wrong, is the fact that you don't owe him that sum of money which is rightfully mine.        


quote:
Once he knows there is a wrong, his belief shall change.


But isn't it his belief which was "wrong", and not the independent fact.  That his belief needed to change in order to conform to something outside of itself, is proof that it wasn't true.  If it was true already, why the need to change?


quote:
That is because it is true and good, not false.



It changed because it is true and good?  No it changed to become true and good ... otherwise there would have been no need to change.  But once changed, once in conformity to facts, it has become true.  


JCP:
quote:
I understand what you mean, Essorant. At least, I do.


I understand what he means also.  But I disagree with him.  Do you mean that you merely understand what he means, or that you agree with what he's saying?  If you agree I'd be interested to hear your defense of the idea that no one can ever be wrong, or think false propositions.  


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
40 posted 2006-04-23 02:37 PM


Alas, I've got the Sisyphus Syndrome it seems.  But there's one cure for that, actually ... rock skipping!  I'm walking to the shore even now.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
41 posted 2006-04-23 11:55 PM


Yes, you better go, but try not to get in too deep.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (04-24-2006 12:03 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
42 posted 2006-04-24 05:28 PM


I go nuts reading this thread.

Doesn't it really come down to conflating two uses of the word 'true'?

sincere belief

accurate belief


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
43 posted 2006-04-24 09:16 PM


Yes Brad, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.  I'm more talking about the distinction between accurate and inaccurate belief, which is what Essorant is seeming to deny.  I've already conceded, many times, the importance of sincerity. My problem is not when someone uses a term with another sense of meaning.  My problem is when someone denies any other meaning, or the validity of another meaning in it's context  ... even when painstakingly explained.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
44 posted 2006-04-24 10:40 PM


Hey Stephanos,

Have you read Gulliver's Travels yet?

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
45 posted 2006-04-25 12:25 PM


JCP,

I have only read excerpts.  But I'm aquainted well enough with the story line.


If you've got something to say about Gulliver's travels, then don't let the fact that I haven't read it, stop you from what you want to say.  I use literature frequently, to make philosophical points, regardless of whether others have read.    


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
46 posted 2006-04-25 02:02 AM


"It's that very lack of knowledge which is helping him to believe a falsehood. "


Lack of what knowledge?  
Do you know something he doesn't know about his own money affairs or not?  Or my money affairs?  Please enlighten us if you do, so we can settle this affair more smoothly    


"A more pertinent question would be:  How can Ron's belief be true, if he doesn't know that you actually owe that money to yours truly? "

Are you saying his belief is supposed to be a knowledge about what is in question instead of belief?  

"Yes ... the keyword: APPEARS to be ...  Why do you deny that there can be a discrepancy between appearance and actuality? "

Because if something appears good and seems good, I believe it is.  How and why shouldn't I?
There is no reason to believe something is false if it doesn't at all seem and appear to be.  How can my belief be false when I go by everything something seems and appears to be?  Likewise if everything in Ron's accounting-books appears and seems to suggest that I owe him money, how and why is he or his belief wrong for believing thus?   How can a belief be false for believing in a potentiality of truth, by surrounding knowledges?  Isn't that what believing is about?  If you expect someone to know the actuality in question instead of believe in a potentiality, aren't you demanding knowledge instead of belief?  What do you need to believe in, if you know everything?


"What makes his belief wrong, is the fact that you don't owe him that sum of money which is rightfully mine. "

Prove it!

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-25-2006 03:01 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
47 posted 2006-04-25 11:13 AM


quote:
Likewise if everything in Ron's accounting-books appears and seems to suggest that I owe him money, how and why is he or his belief wrong for believing thus?

You're assuming way to much here.  Of course your explanation works with the best examples, because that which is best supported by evidence typically turns out to be true!  But to be sufficienty explanatory, your idea has to work with ALL examples, even the worst case scenarios.  Let's look at a not-so-good example, where it may appear to Ron to be true, and yet still lack sufficient evidence:  What if, after Ron's ledger showed he's $5000 short, someone else deceitfully suggested to Ron that it was YOU who owed him the money.  Ron, being gullible and forgetful like he is, simply believes it without sufficient evidence.


The mistake you're making Essorant, is in assuming that every thing which is believed has sufficient support in reality.  If that were the case there wouldn't be criminal courts, insane asylums, or even wrong answers on school tests.


quote:
Prove it!


My point exactly!  It's not enough for you, that I merely believe something.  There must also be a correspondence to reality, else you rightfully don't want to believe me.  The fact that you say "Prove" proves that some things are true and some things are false.   Why would you have a determining test of proof, if all things believed were already true, by virtue of their belief?


Ron, excuse me for insulting you for no better reason than my illustration.          

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
48 posted 2006-04-25 12:38 PM


"The mistake you're making Essorant, is in assuming that every thing which is believed has sufficient support in reality.  If that were the case there wouldn't be criminal courts, insane asylums, or even wrong answers on school tests."

If he believes in something, that says there is sufficient support to lead him to believe in it.  What other support does a belief need to live up to?  
How is it right to say that his belief is wrong or false, when it is the belief he has, and a belief based on the sufficient support to make him believe?  

"The fact that you say "Prove" proves that some things are true and some things are false."

My argument was never to say somethings aren't "false"  But to say that beliefs aren't one of them.  
People's beliefs are true because they are true to believing and true to something sufficient to make them believe.  They can't be expected to live up to facts and actualties they don't have.  Nor are they false for not having them.  


"Why would you have a determining test of proof, if all things believed were already true, by virtue of their belief?"

I didn't mean that beliefs being true froze them in time from change.  Beliefs change too.  
Proving something is not proving that a belief is "false" but instead it is proving that proof is true.   And with further proof and knowledge, further beliefs shall come too.  


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
49 posted 2006-04-25 12:41 PM


Consider this:

A woman says to a man that he is the only true lover in her life.  And she treats him in a way that makes him feel in no other way than that he truly is when they are around each other.

However at the same time she has another relationship with a man and tells that other man that he is the only true lover in her life.  And she treats him in a way that makes him feel in no other way than that he truly is when they are around each other.

The two men don't suspect at all that she is seeing another man.  But on the contrary, as she treats either man respectfully and lovingly when she is around him his belief grows stronger everyday.

How and why is the men's belief false at any stage for believing what the woman says and does truly seem to be?


hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
50 posted 2006-04-25 04:10 PM


Essorant-

Like Stephen, I work in healthcare (I graduate nursing school on May 5th... finally!).

Anyway, this weekend I cared for an elderly woman who was actively having hallucinations. It is unclear to me whether she is mentally ill or suffering from dementia- it really doesn't matter. The point is, she truly believed there were people in the room with me, watching me wash her. She also truly believed that "those guys" were throwing cigarette butts in a sensitive area of her anatomy. (The reality is, she has a diaper rash).

Would you go along with these beliefs? Would you say "Well, I don't see these people, but they must be watching you and seeing you naked." or "There are no burns on your bottom, but I'm sure the men will come back with more cigarettes."

Not only is it highly erraneous, but it is psychologically damaging to allow this patient to suffer from her delusions and hallucinations, especially when she responded with an "Oh, really? Okay." When I explained to her that there was nobody in the room, or that there was no smoking in the hospital. Of course, she later persisted in her "beliefs," but if even a momentary correction can give her peace of mind... who am I to not correct it.

When you are in the real world, you realize there are certain things you do... From a practical standpoint, certain things are true and untrue, I don't care how much spin you want to put on it.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
51 posted 2006-04-25 04:43 PM


Ess:
quote:
A woman says to a man that he is the only true lover in her life.  And she treats him in a way that makes him feel in no other way than that he truly is when they are around each other.  However at the same time she has another relationship with a man and tells that other man that he is the only true lover in her life. . . The two men don't suspect at all that she is seeing another man.  But on the contrary, as she treats either man respectfully and lovingly when she is around him his belief grows stronger everyday.  How and why is the men's belief false at any stage for believing what the woman says and does truly seem to be?


It's false precisely because each man believes that he has her exclusive love and respect ... while in actuality she is a cheat, and lying to both men.  


Does that make them blameworthy, or insincere?  Maybe or maybe not.  Maybe they've been deceived so artfully that they can't be blamed at all for their erroneous belief.  Or perhaps in their intense desire for companionship, they've chosen to ignore certain "signs" and be in a self-wrought denial.  I'm open to both of those possibilities, since they both happen in real life situations.  


But remember Essorant, we haven't even gotten to that question yet.  I'm still trying to establish with you that despite sincerity or culpability, beliefs can be really right or wrong, true or untrue.  It doesn't matter to me if you want to call it "knowledge" rather than "true belief".  For knowledge always involves belief.  So a wrong belief might also be called false knowledge.


Amy,

Congrats on Nursing School.  It thought you were already done.  It SEEMED like too much time had passed, for you to still be in nursing school.  But I was wrong.      

  
Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-25-2006 05:21 PM).]

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
52 posted 2006-04-25 06:20 PM


Yes, congratulations Amy.

BTW, Stephen, does that make your belief that she had already graduated false?

Pete

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
53 posted 2006-04-25 07:30 PM


Yes, it does.


Stephen.

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
54 posted 2006-04-26 06:36 AM


I think you can believe something hard enough that truth doesn’t matter at all in some cases - as with Amy’s entry, a perfectly good illustration.  

Or say the recent case of the father whom believed that his eight year old daughter was possessed of satan and killed her.  Was this true?  How are any of us to know for sure.  

What is the type of “proof” a defense attorney would need to prove his client was right and just in taking his own child life?  There is no where to get the type of “evidence/proof” needed to prove his client’s innocence, therefore, the attorney’s job becomes making the jury “believe” his client is insane, or insane at the time of the murder, which is a lot easier than proving his “belief.”  

But what if the man is really not insane?  We who call ourselves sane… will choose within ourselves what to “believe” regardless to a outcome of a jury.  There is already a debate among my family and in-laws that this father may be using this satanic thing to cover up a string of violent acts, but nothing like that has come to light - yet, it‘s just what some “believe.”

The whole thing boils down to “belief,” not necessarily the truth or always something that is “provable“… although you do make some good points.  

Regards,
Knubian

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
55 posted 2006-04-26 02:35 PM


quote:
Or say the recent case of the father whom believed that his eight year old daughter was possessed of satan and killed her.  Was this true?  How are any of us to know for sure.


There are certain things we can know for sure, though.  In spite of the possibility of demon possession (which I believe is a real possibility), a person who kills an eight year old child is more likely the one influenced by Satan.  Murder is clearly prohibited in scripture, and men more often find wild excuses for it, than justification for it.  Also in looking at this, one should consider what the goal of demon possession is.  In it's simplest expression, it's aim is the destruction of a human life.  And if such is the case, then murder of a possessed child would only help toward that terrible end.  Scripturally speaking, exorcism is only possibility of deliverance for a demoniac child.


I'm not saying that I think for a moment that this child was really demon possessed.  But even if so, that wouldn't justify the action of murder.  So there are particulars which are anything but certain to us, but there are also revealed things that we can trust to cast light upon many situations.    


Stephen.    

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
56 posted 2006-04-26 07:47 PM


I understand what he means also.  But I disagree with him.  Do you mean that you merely understand what he means, or that you agree with what he's saying?  If you agree I'd be interested to hear your defense of the idea that no one can ever be wrong, or think false propositions."  

~ I am not sure if Ess means that "no one can ever be wrong," but I could be wrong about that.   

~ From what I am getting out Ess during this debate is that there are truths that can't be known, and these types of truths lead to either one's disbelief or another's belief.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
57 posted 2006-04-27 12:17 PM


There is only one thing wrong in the world: Bad manners.  

From the littlest insult to the cruelest deed.

Not people.  Not beliefs.

Bad manners.

That's the beginning and end of it for me.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
58 posted 2006-04-27 01:11 AM


But Essorant,

Manners (just another word for actions really) are often based upon beliefs.  

However, I agree with you that kindness and respect are very very important.

Stephen.  

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
59 posted 2006-04-27 02:28 AM


Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Class is an aura of confidence that is being sure without being cocky. Class has nothing to do with money. Class never runs scared. It is self-discipline and self-knowledge. It's
the sure footedness that comes with having proved you can meet life.

--Ann Landers

Source: Words of Success;
Funds for writers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respect and tolerance is an issue that tugs at the heart of a persons’ soul.  It is patience and diligence, yet suffering the heart and mind to allow even the most un-grasping of ideals, words, opinions and knowledge to be vented by fellow persons.

Myself

Regards,
Knubian

Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
60 posted 2006-04-27 04:38 AM


Quote:
Stephanos
_____________
And if such is the case, then murder of a possessed child would only help toward that terrible end. Scripturally speaking, exorcism is only possibility of deliverance for a demoniac child.
_______________

My point here is, who is to know what was truly in this man’s heart, or that the little girl really was possessed?  How are we as bystanders, information gathers… those who believe and don’t believe to know the truth?  Do we wait to see someone’s head spinning around like on the exorcise, do we trust what others tell us, or do the fact that it can and have happened before guide our judgment of the situation?

It’s not a question of do possession exist, but whether a question of do we “believe” the father, why, and what “evidence/proof” he may have to prove to us that he himself is qualified to determine whom is possessed, or why not seek professional help.  After all, if he can determined that someone is possessed, then he should know that they need a exorcism.

Now let’s say if he and maybe four or five others killed the girl while performing their version of an exorcism, it is more believable of an intent not to kill, but to exorcise… that becomes believable.  I mean what’s his defense - “we were in the room, and she started crawling up the wall onto the ceiling… growling like a dog… foaming at the mouth… speaking in languages he didn’t understand… so I killed her?!”  

His “belief” is not going to hold water!  This is not like the “money senerio” you, Ron and Essorant was discussing.  That was a harmless debate on belief.  But this is something of a more sinister nature.  If this guy can get off, based on his “belief,” then how many more people can just based on their “belief…” kill?

Hay wait, I do have a few family members I’d like to exorcise off this planet, because “I believe” they truly are possessed!” lol

Regards,
Knubian

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
61 posted 2006-04-27 04:44 PM


Do people believe in doing evil?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
62 posted 2006-04-27 08:39 PM


Essorant,

I know from personal experience that it is possible to believe that doing evil is really good ... and vice versa (that's actually a very concise definition of sin).  Or worse, to believe that it doesn't matter anymore whether moral good and evil even exists.  People believe those kind of things, at various times in their life.


Stephen.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
63 posted 2006-04-27 09:52 PM


Evil rarely comes with a name tag, and when one looks in a mirror, evil won't cast a reflection either. Indeed, most only recognize evil as evil when someone else is doing it. Usually someone we don't much like any way.



Knubian
Junior Member
since 2006-03-25
Posts 35
Louisiana, United States
64 posted 2006-04-28 01:29 AM


Quote:
-------------------------------
"The true lover of knowledge naturally strives for truth, and is not content with common opinion, but soars with undimmed and unwearied passion till he grasps the essential nature of things."

Plato

Source: MSN;
Daily Quotes
_______________________________


Quote:
Ron
------------------------------
when one looks in a mirror, evil won't cast a reflection either.
______________________________________


I equate this with Christ speaking on “seeing the toothpick in another’s eye, but missing the beam in our own.”  

Speaking from personal experience, I have hated something or someone strong enough before, to let myself go to the evils that I believe plague mankind, but being so full of hate, I failed to see my own responsibility in why the hate existed in the first place.  

I believe that deep in the pit of one’s self, where love has seemed to have separated itself from all other aspects of our lives, yet we can see no reliable truth, or a redeemable explanation of our hurt can be found, we blame and accuse others.  I also believe that other factoring shortcomings of life breed in this place and lend support to the blame and accusations and can cause that hate to turn to evil thoughts and later on if no help is found… to evil deeds.  

I think I was fortunate enough to hold my hate at evil thoughts, and subsequently being grasped hold to by my spirit before spiraling out of control… I was able to lay foundations to love something or someone other that myself.  But I also think that there is spacious ideology between hate and evil thoughts where a person can redeem peace and balance.  

Nor do I believe that they both are one in the same.  You can hate something or someone and not think evil of it or them… and still function in a productive; yet self-hampered way.  I think the evil thoughts comes with isolating one‘s self in that illusionary world hate and then allowing the hate stir in the same pot, thus becoming potentially evil deeds.


Regards,
Knubian

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
65 posted 2006-04-29 11:03 AM


Back to the original quote of this thread:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

~ That is what so many people do... and it makes me sick. Why?

Isn't that essentially lying to a person's face?

~ Why not just flat out tell that heathen, he is going to hell in a handbasket? If that is what you believe.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2006-04-29 01:34 PM


Because telling someone he or she is going to hell is offensive, and if someone continue to do it, he is willingly offending and harassing that person.   Go ahead and believe it.  But when you declare it in someone's face, you are no longer just believing it, but you are willingly directing it at a person, and offending them.  Honesty doesn't justify that disrespect.


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
67 posted 2006-04-29 01:50 PM


So, than you are saying it is better to lie to someone's face or is there a middle ground to take?

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
68 posted 2006-04-29 08:10 PM


There is a middle ground to take.


Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
69 posted 2006-04-29 08:11 PM


quote:
Honesty doesn't justify that disrespect.


Yes, it does. Honesty doesn't justify changing the subject or changing the rules.

The difference isn't just in manner of speaking, it's also in when and where you do that speaking.

Example:

In a discussion on evolution, it does little good to scream, "You are all going to hell!" -- it's actually kind of funny when it happens.

If, however, there is a discussion on one's belief, wouldn't it be polite to tell the truth? In this case, of course, the manner of speaking becomes very important, not because you want to lie, but because you want it to matter.

Don't forget, one sign of respect is, in fact, telling the truth.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
70 posted 2006-04-29 08:32 PM


Thankyou for the clarity Brad.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
71 posted 2006-04-29 08:43 PM


Believing someone is going to hell and publishing it as a declaration and statement about someone, in a society, such as at Passions, are two different things.  Believing is believing, and it may be done without giving anyone the finger.  When you stick the "you're going to hell" finger up at someone however, that is no longer just expressing a belief, that is publicly picking on someone with your belief.  It is not much different than spitting in someone's face.  You are not even talking about beliefs anymore, but you are personally isolating someone out, and making a judgement, that is not even yours to to make.  Since when does any man get to decide who is going to hell and who is not?   Do you know the whole man you are judging from head to toe of his soul?  Then who are you to try to declare what the fate of that soul shall be?  Furthermore, what is the virtue of telling someone he is going to hell?  Hell, according to its modern connotations, suggests eternal damnation, without any hope or way out.  It is the final end.  Period.  When one tells a person he or she is going to hell, that is not inspiring that person with any help to any good end, but instead making it out as if that person is now damned to the worst end from the point that is personally decided on, by the new Almighty god, Man, trying to judge the eternity of a soul, by an inch of this life.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
72 posted 2006-04-29 10:19 PM


But Essorant,

That's a misuse.  That's the difference between someone making fun of a crippled child, and a physician telling the parents of child that he or she has a crippling disease.  


I don't know of any Christians who jeer at individuals, and tell them that they are definitely going to hell.  I do know of many fine and respectful Christians who have told me that hell is a certainty without the Gospel, and a real possibility for individuals including myself, and have been bettered for it through believing the truth.  


I think we all agree that truth in any instance may be abused and wielded injuriously.  But that belief gets confused with the belief that it is disrespectful to ever bring up the possibility of forfeiting God's salvation, heaven, the promises, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life (which is only the possibility of hell negatively stated).  And frankly I don't know which you are saying.  Sometimes it sounds like the one, and other times it sounds like the other.  If you're merely saying there is a right way, and a right heart, with which to communicate certain truths, then I am with you.  If you're saying that something difficult like the real possibility of damnation should never be communicated at all, then I can't agree.  So which is it?  Maybe you could clarify for me.


Stephen.  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
73 posted 2006-04-30 11:05 AM


"I don't know of any Christians who jeer at individuals, and tell them that they are definitely going to hell."

~ Live in the Bible belt for a while, there one will find many christians who do just that.

"I do know of many fine and respectful Christians who have told me that hell is a certainty without the Gospel, and a real possibility for individuals including myself, and have been bettered for it through believing the truth."

~ Whose truth? This goes back to what I believe Essorant was talking about... You don't know what is the truth, and won't know until after you die.

~ When christians used to tell me that I was going to suffer forever in a hellfire for not believing in their interpretations of a book written, translated and edited, over 2000 years ago, I would actually laugh and eventually feel pity for them.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (04-30-2006 11:50 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
74 posted 2006-04-30 06:11 PM


quote:
Whose truth? This goes back to what I believe Essorant was talking about... You don't know what is the truth, and won't know until after you die.

Christians believe many things about "life after death" on the authority of one who has died, and rose again.  Are you telling me a blind man can't know when to stop walking based upon someone else's authority/ ability?  


And I'll also remind you that in another thread you just recently said:

"... it is bestowed upon me by the Spirit of God, to know with certainty, that the majority of ALL the HUMANKIND will BE SAVED. That includes most likely everyone on Piptalk"

You can't keep using relativistic arguments, and revelatory statements.  The two don't mix at all.  It's not a good consistency, if you know what I mean.  So which is it?


Stephen.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
75 posted 2006-04-30 08:15 PM


"Christians believe many things about "life after death" on the authority of one who has died, and rose again.  Are you telling me a blind man can't know when to stop walking based upon someone else's authority/ ability?"

~ What does a blind man and walking have to do with a christian's belief about life after death? Have you died and returned to tell us your known truth?    

"And I'll also remind you that in another thread you just recently said:"

~ You are taking my words out of context. If you are going to post one of my numerous quotes, you are going to have to perform much more research and provide to all who are reading with many other quotes to keep what I say in context... yet, you tell me that is what I do with regards to the Bible.

"You can't keep using relativistic arguments, and revelatory statements.  The two don't mix at all."

~ So you say as if what you say is indeed factual, but in reality is your interpretation and is of your opinion.

"It's not a good consistency, if you know what I mean.  So which is it?"

~ You have set up a straw man, and I am not biting.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
76 posted 2006-05-01 07:55 PM


quote:
What does a blind man and walking have to do with a christian's belief about life after death?


Not knowing where you are going, or what is going to happen, has similarities with being physically blind.  The analogy is simple enough to understand.


quote:
Have you died and returned to tell us your known truth?


Of course not.  That's why I used the analogy of a blind man taking someone else's word for it.

quote:
You are taking my words out of context. If you are going to post one of my numerous quotes, you are going to have to perform much more research and provide to all who are reading with many other quotes to keep what I say in context...


I can certainly make a full case, using your quotations.  But I'm not going to, simply because everyone here has read similar replies of yours many times over.  It would be interesting to ask for a show of hands on how many other pipsters think you are significantly inconsistent in your argumentation ... constantly using relativism to debunk other's views, and naked absolutism to bolster your own.  With a work as large and multi-layered as the bible, providing context is more needed, since more than a few have only taken a precursory glance at its texts.  But when the audience is already very familiar with the text, (as is the case with your posts here in philo 101) it's not as necessary to extensively quote.  But believe me, I could.

For weeks I've been asking you to honestly look at what I percieve as a gaping inconsistency in your approach.  Maybe you could explain in what way I've taken you "out of context".  Whenever I tell you that you're taking scripture out of context, I at least try to explain why.
    
How is the "flesh" of your arguments different than the "straw" I've given back to you as your own?  I'm open to listen.


Stephen.

kif kif
Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439
BCN
77 posted 2006-06-03 10:05 AM


Fantastic thread, people. I'm interested in the conversation about belief-systems, and what is True. Belief is not Knowledge, Truth, but I think that different beliefs can bring the same Truth, as long as we remember our beliefs are essentially just opinions. If we follow the right ones, there is a twinkling of Knowledge...? Of course, belief can be wrong!

(The woman, who was hallucinating...my Auntie went through something similar when she was dying. I decided then, that my beliefs should be taken care of properly through life, so when it came to my mind losing touch with my body, it might be less frightening.)

I think all religions are in place for the same reason-safety in numbers. Faith is personal- personal connection to The Universal.

I've been cat-called all the heatheny names under the sun by a supposed Christian, and told in no uncertain terms that I was going to hell, but I think that was more to do with a lack of faith, than a wealth of it, and yes, it was funny.

Who knows, eh? I'm thinking of Plato's cave analogy. When the man left the cave of flickering shadows dancing on the wall, and saw The Real Sun for himself, the thought of going back, to convince the others rapt in the lookalike reflection, of The Real Sun must have been a moral dilemma!

Who would believe him?
As for Respect and Tolerance. Well, they're qualities that can be squashed by their opposites.
Could you respect and tolerate a religious/political group who violently invaded your Country, and outlawed your language and culture? Or, could you tolerate a man enforcing rule his wife, and subjegating her through psychological bullying? It's how we've shaped The World (it's only lately that equality has been given back to people other than 'important white men'). I find it difficult to get over that, and end up respecting and tolerating the disrespectul, and intolerant!?!

ps; I do believe that giving an honest opinion is very mannerly. What's the point of communication if we refuse to communicate, either by stroking someone's hair, and telling them they're right when they sound wrong, or pig-headedly continuing invective against another's opinion, even if, deep down, it might be right? Then, there's the 'saying nothing about hate-speech' and passing that off as Tolerance...grrr!

[This message has been edited by kif kif (06-03-2006 10:47 AM).]

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Respect and Tolerance

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary