What do you think is the biggest misconception...?

[mererdog]

It is an O'Henry-style irony that when preaching inclusivity of belief it is common to marginalize and demonize beliefs that are exclusive in nature.

 

I strongly suspect that the reason for this disconnect lies in the difference between tolerance and apathy. It is easy to overlook differences that do not matter to us. It is easy to allow someone to do what does not effect us. It takes mental effort to put up with the things we don't like. It is downright difficult to allow someone to do what we believe harms us.

 

There are many paths up the mountain. But some of them require swimming in lava, and some of them require knocking rocks onto the heads of the people taking the paths below you. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

It is an O'Henry-style irony that when preaching inclusivity of belief it is common to marginalize and demonize beliefs that are exclusive in nature.

 

I strongly suspect that the reason for this disconnect lies in the difference between tolerance and apathy. It is easy to overlook differences that do not matter to us. It is easy to allow someone to do what does not effect us. It takes mental effort to put up with the things we don't like. It is downright difficult to allow someone to do what we believe harms us.

 

There are many paths up the mountain. But some of them require swimming in lava, and some of them require knocking rocks onto the heads of the people taking the paths below you. 

 

I have difficulty respecting those, who spread terrorist doctrines about damnation.

[LeopardBoy]

I'm not a big fan of the "many paths up the same mountain" metaphor for religion.  I get where the sentiment comes from, but I also personally see it as an erasure of the many differences between religions.  Not all religions have the same end goal for worshippers, so not all would meet at the same summit.

 

I've also seen the metaphor used as an "inclusive" way of saying there is one monotheistic deity (who just so happens to be the god of the Bible), and other theists are all worshiping him in their own way with their own names for him.  So no matter what path we take, we all meet the same Abrahamic deity at the end.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 minutes ago, LeopardBoy said:

I'm not a big fan of the "many paths up the same mountain" metaphor for religion.  I get where the sentiment comes from, but I also personally see it as an erasure of the many differences between religions.  Not all religions have the same end goal for worshippers, so not all would meet at the same summit.

 

I've also seen the metaphor used as an "inclusive" way of saying there is one monotheistic deity (who just so happens to be the god of the Bible), and other theists are all worshiping him in their own way with their own names for him.  So no matter what path we take, we all meet the same Abrahamic deity at the end.

 

 

Yes.  Your point is a good one.  

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I have difficulty respecting those, who spread terrorist doctrines about damnation.

Yes. You are convinced that they are wrong, and that their beliefs cause harm. This does not put you in a position to easily respect them. Of course, they are convinced that you are wrong, and that your beliefs cause harm, which makes it hard for them to respect you. It isn't the ideal basis for social justice, peace, and harmony, n'est-ce pa?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yes. You are convinced that they are wrong, and that their beliefs cause harm. This does not put you in a position to easily respect them. Of course, they are convinced that you are wrong, and that your beliefs cause harm, which makes it hard for them to respect you. It isn't the ideal basis for social justice, peace, and harmony, n'est-ce pa?

 

It is a poor basis for social harmony.  However -- This is not an either or binary.

 

Should I be in terror of the Christian Hell for non-Christians?  Or should I be afraid of the Muslim Hell for non-Muslims?  I prefer a different solution.  Screw all the terrorists with their fear based doctrines.  I repeat.  All of them.

 

While I'm at it, screw all the secular minded, who can't tell the pious terrorists where to stick it.  

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Should I be in terror of the Christian Hell for non-Christians?  Or should I be afraid of the Muslim Hell for non-Muslims?

I don't know. I take it as a given that a danger can be real whether I realize it or not. And while some encourage fear of Hell as a coercion technique, others do it for the same basic reasons you would encourage a child to fear a hot stove. They believe the danger is real and they care enough about others to warn them.

[cuchulain]

15 hours ago, LeopardBoy said:

I'm not a big fan of the "many paths up the same mountain" metaphor for religion.  I get where the sentiment comes from, but I also personally see it as an erasure of the many differences between religions.  Not all religions have the same end goal for worshippers, so not all would meet at the same summit.

 

I've also seen the metaphor used as an "inclusive" way of saying there is one monotheistic deity (who just so happens to be the god of the Bible), and other theists are all worshiping him in their own way with their own names for him.  So no matter what path we take, we all meet the same Abrahamic deity at the end.

It has been said that differences should be celebrated.  I think that "many paths" argument erases that, as well.

[cuchulain]

A danger can be real whether realized or not, but not every realized danger is real. 

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

A danger can be real whether realized or not, but not every realized danger is real. 

It would be nice if life were simpler, wouldn't it? Everything the way it seems. Everything we think is true, true. It would be nice. Kinda boring, though.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

I don't know. I take it as a given that a danger can be real whether I realize it or not. And while some encourage fear of Hell as a coercion technique, others do it for the same basic reasons you would encourage a child to fear a hot stove. They believe the danger is real and they care enough about others to warn them.

 

 

I refuse to be terrorized into submission.  Grow a spine.  Take a stand.  I can be killed.  Fear is optional.  

[mererdog]

14 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Grow a spine.  Take a stand. 

You seem to be trying to bully me into standing up to people you feel bully you. Its kind of gross. Am I missing something?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

You seem to be trying to bully me into standing up to people you feel bully you. Its kind of gross. Am I missing something?

 

Not at all.  Why would you want to take a stand against terrorism?  Or terrorists?  You are under no obligation to take a stand.  None at all.  

[mererdog]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Not at all.  Why would you want to take a stand against terrorism?  Or terrorists?  You are under no obligation to take a stand.  None at all.  

I am a pacifist. I take a stand against violence every day. I have no special hate or fear of terrorists. I don't believe in a lesser evil, remember? It is normal for pacifism to be misconstrued as cowardice, however, so you aren't exactly breaking new ground by calling me spineless and trying to shame me into attacking someone. Water under the bridge.

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

It has been said that differences should be celebrated.  I think that "many paths" argument erases that, as well.

"We should embrace diversity because we are all the same, really." - A high school teacher I saw on the news one time...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 7/27/2017 at 5:56 PM, mererdog said:

I am a pacifist. I take a stand against violence every day. I have no special hate or fear of terrorists. I don't believe in a lesser evil, remember? It is normal for pacifism to be misconstrued as cowardice, however, so you aren't exactly breaking new ground by calling me spineless and trying to shame me into attacking someone. Water under the bridge.

 

I was speaking of Damnation doctrine as terrorism.  The stand I was urging you to take is mental.  Did you think I was telling you to take up arms?  

[mererdog]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Did you think I was telling you to take up arms?  

Not directly. However, current mores say the proper way to respond to terrorism is with violence. So to call someone a terrorist is to encourage violence against them. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Not directly. However, current mores say the proper way to respond to terrorism is with violence. So to call someone a terrorist is to encourage violence against them. 

 

 

Please.  We are both beyond mob mentality.  I know you are.  It is still possible to take an intellectual stand against mental illness.  Of course, that now leaves me open to the accusation of calling religion "mental illness."  It's not true, but I expect it.  

[mererdog]

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Please.  We are both beyond mob mentality.  

This is a public forum. I am not the only one reading your words. You are not the only one reading mine. When you use dangerous rhetoric to demonize others, I feel obligated to speak fairly and attempt to humanize those you have demonized. If for no other reason than the fact that it makes it less likely that others will pile on and turn this into a topic about why Christians are bad people.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

This is a public forum. I am not the only one reading your words. You are not the only one reading mine. When you use dangerous rhetoric to demonize others, I feel obligated to speak fairly and attempt to humanize those you have demonized. If for no other reason than the fact that it makes it less likely that others will pile on and turn this into a topic about why Christians are bad people.

 

I was talking about the people who spread the terrorist doctrine of Damnation.  That leaves out all the non-terrorist Christians who don't spread this evil doctrine.  Who do not insist that everyone else is going to Hell.  Also,  all the non-terrorist Muslims.  

 

The goal of terrorism is to get others to submit through fear.  That is the essence of Damnation doctrine.  The rest of us do NOT -- repeat NOT -- need to respond with violence.  The occasional odd -- "Piss off" -- is an appropriate response.  If we can stiffen the old spine to "resist".   Or are you afraid to be rude to the people who threaten you with Perdition?