Open mindedness :-) :-) :-)

Geomy

Do any of you Christians like reading about other religions or spirituality outside of Christianity ?

Grim_Reaper12

I am not Christian. I think it is irrational fear of hell and hope of wine and honey which makes them to do so. They are happy in their little world

Fanny Cradock

I do like a good bottle of Malbec and honey drizzled on my toast. Tesco are offering a deal on both at the moment. Therefore, there is no God. Or something like that.

Anywho, despite the regrettable title, I do try to keep somewhat informed about other religions. Understanding something of Biblical Judaism should be important to Christians I think.

Manach

Apart from neutral books that reference the essentials of other religions such as Islam or Judaism, I'd be lucky to read one book on Catholicism per year (might vary depending on any Kindle sales). A semi-theologic/scientific themed book at the moment I'm reading is "The Righteous Mind", which looks at the basis of morality.

tf19

Be open minded, but not so open that your brain eventually falls out.
Have a look at everything would be my advice, weigh, compare and contrast.
Then choose.

Rather than reading what other people think and say about a subject, I go to the most original source I can find when studying anything.

I’ve studied the teachings, life, and example of Buddha, Mohamed, Confucius, Laozi, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. For me, far away hills always seemed greener for a while. I drifted around like a lost boat in a sea of noise.

From my studies I realised they cannot all be correct; one of them has to have the whole truth. Cherry picking their different teachings was a contradiction in terms.

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.”

In the end, I found none of them measured up to the teachings, life and example of Jesus Christ.

So I’ve simplified my studies again, to studying over and over, in detail the words and teachings of Christ. They are inexhaustible.

“No one comes to the Father, except through me” – Jesus Christ

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way that is easy leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Benny_Cake

Grim_Reaper12 wrote: »

I am not Christian. I think it is irrational fear of hell and hope of wine and honey which makes them to do so. They are happy in their little world

Nothing says open-mindedness like a sweeping remark about the motivations and beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

Not sure if the thread title is a little mischievous, what with the smilies and everything, but yes, I enjoy reading about other religions. Karen Armstrong has written some excellent books about the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam which I really enjoyed. I also have a book on my to-read list by the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard - I've struggled with anxiety for years and it's been recommended to me as very helpful. The Trappist monk Thomas Merton was a pioneer engage in dialogue with Buddhists, pointing to the parallels in practice between Christian mystics such as the Desert Fathers and Zen Buddhism, without compromising on his Christian faith.

Fanny Cradock

I have the same Armstrong book on Islam. Haven't got around to reading it yet but it's on the list. Another one gathering dust is Jerusalem: The Biography by the unfortunately named Simon Sebag Montefiore. That should be a fascinating read.

Geomy

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Nothing says open-mindedness like a sweeping remark about the motivations and beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

Not sure if the thread title is a little mischievous, what with the smilies and everything, but yes, I enjoy reading about other religions. Karen Armstrong has written some excellent books about the history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam which I really enjoyed. I also have a book on my to-read list by the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard - I've struggled with anxiety for years and it's been recommended to me as very helpful. The Trappist monk Thomas Merton was a pioneer engage in dialogue with Buddhists, pointing to the parallels in practice between Christian mystics such as the Desert Fathers and Zen Buddhism, without compromising on his Christian faith.

No it's not mischievous.
Since when is a smile mischievous...

Just wondering what some Christians think about mindfulness and other forms of spiritualism and religion.

Benny that's fear telling you my smiles are mischievous,a good old prayer and some humility is good for the soul :-)

lmaopml

Geomy wrote: »

No it's not mischievous.
Since when is a smile mischievous...
Just wondering what some Christians think about mindfulness and other forms of spiritualism and religion.

I imagine that most Christians are 'spiritual' beasts in the sense that we believe in the Holy Spirit in the Christian sense. As far as mindfulness is concerned, that is not a new phenomena, it's as old as the hills and is certainly an aspect of how a Christian will as we say 'walk' in the spirit, being mindful is part and parcel of the walk with Christ - the difference is that it is with Christ I guess!

Benny that's fear telling you my smiles are mischievous,a good old prayer and some humility is good for the soul :-)

Ditto!

Terrlock

I am very open minded, testing all things and holding on to what is Good.

Festus

Geomy wrote: »

Do any of you Christians like reading about other religions or spirituality outside of Christianity ?

there is nothing wrong with reading fiction, and yes if the author is good it can be enjoyable. Personally I'm a fan of the classics

SoulandForm

Geomy wrote: »

Do any of you Christians like reading about other religions or spirituality outside of Christianity ?

I do. I think it helps you understand Christianity better.

The Church Fathers drew on people like Plato and Aristotle in order to find human expression for Christ's Revelation.

Geomy

For all we know, the Christian message and teaching s could be totally misinterpreted, or misunderstood.

Turn the other cheek, walk away or take another blow....

If you're right hand offends thee cut it off, stop that acting out on bottom line behaviour, or turn on the con saw and cut you're right hand off...

Anthony De Mellow has good books about understanding and awareness.

Rumi was a good teacher also.

John Donoghue, and John Moriarty our fellow Irish mystics also had a good message.

That saying that Jesus said about only through him will one get to heaven, sure there's many people living a good lifestyle as good as any Christian. ...maybe he meant if you live a good lifestyle and take inventories every now and again and say sorry when you feel you're wrong.

Spiritual progress is much easier than spiritual perfection....

We're you all 100%good Christians today, ah aaaa no ye weren't ;-)

The writing's in the New testament more than likely express the personality of the writer rather than what Jesus expressed.

Geomy

Geomy wrote: »

For all we know, the Christian message and teaching s could be totally misinterpreted, or misunderstood.

Turn the other cheek, walk away or take another blow....

If you're right hand offends thee cut it off, stop that acting out on bottom line behaviour, or turn on the con saw and cut you're right hand off...

Anthony De Mellow has good books about understanding and awareness.

Rumi was a good teacher also.

John Donoghue, and John Moriarty our fellow Irish mystics also had a good message.

That saying that Jesus said about only through him will one get to heaven, sure there's many people living a good lifestyle as good as any Christian. ...maybe he meant if you live a good lifestyle and take inventories every now and again and say sorry when you feel you're wrong.

Spiritual progress is much easier than spiritual perfection....

We're you all 100%good Christians today, ah aaaa no ye weren't ;-)

Maybe the writing's in the New testament more than likely express the personality of the writer rather than what Jesus expressed.

Can anyone add to this

Fanny Cradock

If you want to support your position from a specifically Biblical perspective then fire away. It could produce some interesting conversations. Aside from this there is much to say because you aren't making an argument. You are just saying "maybe what was really meant was...".

Geomy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you want to support your position from a specifically Biblical perspective then fire away. It could produce some interesting conversations. Aside from this there is much to say because you aren't making an argument. You are just saying "maybe what was really meant was...".

Im not good at argument....
I think a lot.
Wonder what if....

It's the whole burning in hell thing that gets on most people's nerves.

Fanny Cradock

Geomy wrote: »

It's the whole burning in hell thing that gets on most people's nerves.

Not sure what nerves has to do with it. As a proposition hell is either true or it isn't.

(And please bear in mind that within Christianity there are a number of views on what Hell actually is. Broadly speaking these are a very literal "fire and brimstone" understanding. Universalism (see Rob Bell for more). And annihilationism.)

tommy2bad

tf19 wrote: »

Be open minded, but not so open that your brain eventually falls out.
Have a look at everything would be my advice, weigh, compare and contrast.
Then choose.

Rather than reading what other people think and say about a subject, I go to the most original source I can find when studying anything.

I’ve studied the teachings, life, and example of Buddha, Mohamed, Confucius, Laozi, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. For me, far away hills always seemed greener for a while. I drifted around like a lost boat in a sea of noise.

From my studies I realised they cannot all be correct; one of them has to have the whole truth. Cherry picking their different teachings was a contradiction in terms.

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.”

In the end, I found none of them measured up to the teachings, life and example of Jesus Christ.

So I’ve simplified my studies again, to studying over and over, in detail the words and teachings of Christ. They are inexhaustible.

“No one comes to the Father, except through me” – Jesus Christ

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way that is easy leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Why would one of them have the whole truth and the rest have only part of the truth?
Isn't it possible that none of them have the whole truth? Possibly all of them have all the truth thats needed with a load of cultural baggage attached?
Yes I guess I'm open minded on things.

Juza1973

Geomy wrote: »

Do any of you Christians like reading about other religions or spirituality outside of Christianity ?

It is something that you can do, just for curiosity.

Geomy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not sure what nerves has to do with it. As a proposition hell is either true or it isn't.

(And please bear in mind that within Christianity there are a number of views on what Hell actually is. Broadly speaking these are a very literal "fire and brimstone" understanding. Universalism (see Rob Bell for more). And annihilationism.)

Come on Fanny who wants to go to hell ?
According to the ten commandments we're all going to hell, including yourself. ..

sbsquarepants

I'm not sure it's all that possible to be religious AND open minded, Surely the very basis of any religion is "here is what to believe - if you don't believe you're out" Hardly conducive to self questioning navel gazing now is it?

Fanny Cradock

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not sure it's all that possible to be religious AND open minded, Surely the very basis of any religion is "here is what to believe - if you don't believe you're out" Hardly conducive to self questioning navel gazing now is it?

Undoubtedly there are some religions and religious institutions and individuals that would discourage questions. In some respects this is broadly evident in Evangelicalism. And I think it is weaker for it. However, I wonder why you doubt that it is possible to be both religious and open minded. Not all religions or denominations are as dogmatic as you would have us believe. Read up on Anglicism. It's a broad church in what it allows it's members to believe. Even within Christian scholarship there is a massive range of views on what people believe about the fundamental tenets of the faith. This is also evident at grass-root level when you find that Christians belonging to the same denomination (even the same church) will have differing views on theological and social matters.

Zombrex

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not sure it's all that possible to be religious AND open minded, Surely the very basis of any religion is "here is what to believe - if you don't believe you're out" Hardly conducive to self questioning navel gazing now is it?

Most cults and religions, including Christianity, tie belief and acceptance of the religious doctrine and leaders as prerequisite for receiving the benefits of the religion. Don't believe/agree with our teaching. Well then you aren't getting all these wonderful things.

This isn't a coincidence, there are strong psychological reasons for this. There is an interesting series about Rome on BBC at the moment that discusses why early Christians didn't denounce Christianity to save themselves, even if they knew no one took such a statement seriously. The theory was that the promise of eternal life was more important to these Christians, it was a promise that the Roman gods couldn't fulfil, and holding on to this promise by pleasing God was more important than death to these Romans

tommy2bad

Indeed Zombrex, but isn't that the point of religion? to hold something more important than yourself ? Yet you say it like it's a bad thing.

georgieporgy

Zombrex wrote: »

Most cults and religions, including Christianity, tie belief and acceptance of the religious doctrine and leaders as prerequisite for receiving the benefits of the religion. Don't believe/agree with our teaching. Well then you aren't getting all these wonderful things.

This isn't a coincidence, there are strong psychological reasons for this. There is an interesting series about Rome on BBC at the moment that discusses why early Christians didn't denounce Christianity to save themselves, even if they knew no one took such a statement seriously. The theory was that the promise of eternal life was more important to these Christians, it was a promise that the Roman gods couldn't fulfil, and holding on to this promise by pleasing God was more important than death to these Romans

Isn't it also interesting why present day christians are no different than those early christians?

http://findingjustice.org/islam-to-christianity-convert-beheading-shown-on-egyptian-tv/

sbsquarepants

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I wonder why you doubt that it is possible to be both religious and open minded. Not all religions or denominations are as dogmatic as you would have us believe.

True some religions are more dogmatic than others and even within the same religion some sects are more strict than others - but at it's core every religion says here is the "truth" - and that truth is beyond question and obviously beyond change (otherwise it wasn't true to begin with) That's what i mean by not open minded.
Religion is very often compared to science in it's outlook - scientific ideas are open to constant revision and every so often they are turned completely on their head with the advent of new evidence. It's entirely concievable for the entire scientific world to do a complete 360 and say we've been wrong for the past 100 years - here's the real story. Can you imagine any church doing that? That's the definition of open mindedness.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed Zombrex, but isn't that the point of religion? to hold something more important than yourself ? Yet you say it like it's a bad thing.

Well I would say the point of religion is to manipulate people into doing the things you want by telling them that if they do they will get the wonderful things that only your religion can provide, and if they don't they will face a much more negative alternative.

But we will probably disagree on that point ...

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

Isn't it also interesting why present day christians are no different than those early christians?

Well the rules haven't changed, so the incentive is still there. As an atheist I see this as a huge shame, but there you go I guess.

Fanny Cradock

sbsquarepants wrote: »

True some religions are more dogmatic than others and even within the same religion some sects are more strict than others - but at it's core every religion says here is the "truth" - and that truth is beyond question and obviously beyond change (otherwise it wasn't true to begin with)

Well now you are shifting the goalposts and talking exclusively about the nature of religion whereas before you stated that you doubt if it is possible for individuals to be religious and open-mined. If you are willing to agree that at least some religions allow for a plurality of views on any number of issues (social, moral and theological) and recognise that they have also shifted their official teachings over time then what else are you looking for? By way of example I've already mentioned the Anglican Communion which has, inappropriately, I think, appointed people like John Shelby Spong to positions of power.

Why do you consider that a calim to exclusive truth is an example of closed mindedness? Also, if you define open-mindedness as the willingness to take a 360 degree turn on any issue then it turns out that your definition is deliciously self defeating. No doubt a a small mistake but funny nevertheless.

sbsquarepants

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well now you are shifting the goalposts and talking about the nature of religion whereas before you were making a claim that you doubt it is possible for individuals to be religious and open-mined. ?

Shifting goalposts?
How are the nature of religion, and the nature of the religious not interlinked?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why do you consider that claiming something to be exclusively true is an example of closed mindedness?

Is that not self evident. Take an extreme example for the sake of clarity - Creationism. Surely the accepted evidence disputes their "truth" yet they won't aknowledge it.

Zombrex

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is that not self evident. Take an extreme example for the sake of clarity - Creationism. Surely the accepted evidence disputes their "truth" yet they won't aknowledge it.

It is the problem when you have "truth" arrived at from something other than reason and evidence. You will inevitably run into conflict if the answer arrived at from reason and evidence contradicts with the truth you arrived at yourself by some other method. (which is why the notion that there is no conflict between religion and science is frankly laughable)

At this point it becomes clear if someone is genuinely open minded or not, or whether they are only open to supporting their own pre-held beliefs.

Fanny Cradock

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Shifting goalposts?
How are the nature of religion, and the nature of the religious not interlinked?

What exactly do you mean by the the nature of religions and the nature of nature of the religious? First, you have to define what religion is, then you'll have to explain the second part of the centence.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is that not self evident. Take an extreme example for the sake of clarity - Creationism. Surely the accepted evidence disputes their "truth" yet they won't aknowledge it.

No, it's not self-evident.

Also creationism isn't a religion. It's an interpretation that is held by some denominations and some individuals. That people sometimes refuse to look at the evidence or are slow to change their mind is not a function of religion per se. People can be very slow to change when their cherished beliefs are at stake. As it stands there are innumerable examples of denominations and individuals who have moved from an 6-day/ old earth interpretation to to that of accepting evolution (at least on some level).

sbsquarepants

I know creationism isn't a religion, but it is a religious idea. No one claims Durkans or McInerneys built the world in 6 days complete with en suite and randomly sprinkled fake fossils - they claim god did. Some people, quite incredibly in this day and age, still cling to this belief despite everest sized mountains of evidence to the contrary. That's an extreme example of religion causing closed mindedness is it not?
Religions, all religions that i can tell, start with the conclusion and then work backwards - that is never going to lead to anything approaching truth or discovery.
A similar example would be roughly 50% of americans rejecting evolution on purely religious grounds, in fact it could really only be rejected on religious grounds because no other ground would support it.

Fanny Cradock

Can you tell me what is the nature of religions and the nature of nature of the religious? This seems important if you are going to claim that there is something within religion that makes it antithetical to "open-mindedness" which again would need to be qualified further.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I know creationism isn't a religion, but it is a religious idea. No one claims Durkans or McInernyes built the world in 6 days complete with en suite and randomly sprinkled fake fossils - they claim god did. Some people, quite incredibly in this day and age, still cling to this belief despite everest sized mountains of evidence to the contrary. That's an extreme example of religion causing closed mindedness is it not?
Religions, all religions that i can tell, start with the conclusion and then work backwards - that is never going to lead to anything approaching truth or discovery.

Again, my point is that people reject otherwise compelling evidence for any manner ideological reasons. Some of these reasons may be supernatural in nature, others may not. For example, Fred Hoyle opposed the Big Bang theory in favour of a steady state theory. This was in part because he did not like the metaphysical implications that a starting point suggested. Hoyle's irreligious beliefs (and by this I broadly mean his atheism) played a role in how he interpreted the evidence.

sbsquarepants

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you tell me what is the nature of religions and the nature of nature of the religious? This seems important if you are going to claim that there is something within religion that makes it antithetical to "open-mindedness" which again would need to be qualified further..

As far as i can tell, it is the nature of religion to say here is waht happened - if you want to be in our club you must believe this. You must accept it on faith, even if evidence suggests otherwise. If you don't believe it you are wrong at the very least, you may be expelled from the club and you may infact burn in hell for all eternity. That is the very opposite of open mindedness. Or am i missing something?
I can't say i don't believe in the virgin birth and call myself a catholic. I can say i don't believe the big bang theory and call myself a physicist.
(I would, in fact, be lying if i called myself either, but you get my point:))

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, my point is that people reject otherwise compelling evidence for any manner ideological reasons. Some of these reasons may be supernatural in nature, others may not. For example, Fred Hoyle opposed the Big Bang theory in favour of a steady state theory. This was in part because he did not like the metaphysical implications that a starting point suggested. Hoyle's irreligious beliefs (and by this I broadly mean his atheism) played a role in how he interpreted the evidence.

I'm not too sure i follow your point. Atheism is not really a belief - it's an abscence of a belief, i don't really see how that could be argued to be an influencing factor on anything.
If i hear something go bump in the night i don't automatically think it's a ghost (because i don't believe in them). But it is wrong to say it's this non belief that powers my train of thought, it is instead my actual belief that there must be a more rational explanation (the wind, a cat, a homicidal burglar to name but a few). I'll grant you, it's a little bit of semantics alright- but it's an important bit i feel. A lack of a belief can't motivate anything - it doesn't exist, only an actual belief can.

Fanny Cradock

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As far as i can tell, it is the nature of religion to say here is waht happened - if you want to be in our club you must believe this. You must accept it on faith, even if evidence suggests otherwise. If you don't believe it you are wrong at the very least, you may be expelled from the club and you may infact burn in hell for all eternity. That is the very opposite of open mindedness. Or am i missing something?
I can't say i don't believe in the virgin birth and call myself a catholic. I can say i don't believe the big bang theory and call myself a physicist.
(I would, in fact, be lying if i called myself either, but you get my point:))

Yes, I think you are missing something. But we are at an impasse. You have defined faith in a way that I think is unacceptable. Christianity is defensible and a case can be made for the veracity of its truth claims through the use of evidence - be this philosophical, historical, experiential or whatever in nature. What you seem to have done is bypass all the arguments Christians have made and repeated the "New atheist" doctrine of pitting faith against reason and evidence.

I personally don't know of any Catholics who have been expelled from the Church for denying the virgin birth. Do you? But even if they had been expelled for not believing in the virgin birth so what? What do you think would happen to the physicist employed by MIT who announced in class that she could no longer place her confidence in the reliability and usefulness of mathematics? In other words, she denied the validity of an essential axiomatic component of her field. I think she would be soon out the door and with good reason. What about the Greenpeace activist who believed that we should extract all the resources from the planet and to hell with the environmental damage? I don't see any decision to turf these people out as being automatically problematic. In fact, it's probably a good thing. Nor do I see why religion should be treated differently.

All this said, there is a huge amount of variation and debate within Chrstianity in terms of theology and social/ moral issues. This I would have thought is one definition of open-mindedness. So often this is used against us ("30,000+ denominations, eh? You guys :rolleyes: can't even agree on the basics. Pfft!") and now it seems - at least in your eyes - that we aren't allowing enough of it. Damned if you do...

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not too sure i follow your point. Atheism is not really a belief - it's an abscence of a belief, i don't really see how that could be argued to be an influencing factor on anything.
If i hear something go bump in the night i don't automatically think it's a ghost (because i don't believe in them). But it is wrong to say it's this non belief that powers my train of thought, it is instead my actual belief that there must be a more rational explanation (the wind, a cat, a homicidal burglar to name but a few). I'll grant you, it's a little bit of semantics alright- but it's an important bit i feel. A lack of a belief can't motivate anything - it doesn't exist, only an actual belief can.

We can go around the mill on this and still not totally agree. I happen to think that atheism actually entails more than just non-belief both in terms of what belief-systems are often associated with it (e.g. Secular Humanism, philosophical naturalism, scientism) and also in terms of things like the nature of existence and purpose. In fact, some atheists even believe believe that in an atheistic universe we can still embrace teleology. Other views like Alex Rosenberg's very curious beliefs about the nature of reality (see his debate with William Lane Craig if you want to know more) ultimately rests on his atheism.

So while I agree with you in part, I also disagree with you in part. But as we probably aren't going to agree with me on this I think that I'll leave it there*. If you are willing we should leave it at agreeing to disagree. Final word to yourself, of course.

(*I've possibly mentioned all this in the past anyway but no idea when)

Geomy

I was talking to a Bahai today.
They seem to have a nice way about them.
The lady said to me we all have different personalities, likes and dislikes etc
If something that you read makes feel bad or not good inside, its not coming from God to you. ...
All that hell fire and brimstone is for the fanaticism types and today Jesus wouldn't be teaching that rubbish, shes right that doesn't go down well in today's society...
As for nonbelivers that's their own business :-D

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

Well I would say the point of religion is to manipulate people into doing the things you want by telling them that if they do they will get the wonderful things that only your religion can provide, and if they don't they will face a much more negative alternative.

But we will probably disagree on that point ...

Kinda like the rules of the road Zombrex :-)

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

Kinda like the rules of the road Zombrex :-)

bah, the RSA doesn't even promise you dinner with Gay Byrne, let alone eternal paradise

CerebralCortex

Geomy wrote: »

I was talking to a Bahai today.
They seem to have a nice way about them.
The lady said to me we all have different personalities, likes and dislikes etc
If something that you read makes feel bad or not good inside, its not coming from God to you. ...
All that hell fire and brimstone is for the fanaticism types and today Jesus wouldn't be teaching that rubbish, shes right that doesn't go down well in today's society...
As for nonbelivers that's their own business :-D

Such a fickle character this God fella.

sbsquarepants

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You have defined faith in a way that I think is unacceptable. Christianity is defensible and a case can be made for the veracity of its truth claims through the use of evidence - be this philosophical, historical, experiential or whatever in nature. What you seem to have done is bypass all the arguments Christians have made and repeated the "New atheist" doctrine of pitting faith against reason and evidence.)

Sorry i've been away from the computer for a few days. I think we will definitely have to agree to disagree here. I wouldn't class there as being any evidence available to back up the claims of any religion, christian or otherwise. Plenty of stories, annecdotes, claims and so on but no "evidence" whatsoever. If evidence requires faith, it's not evidence it's conjecture at best.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I personally don't know of any Catholics who have been expelled from the Church for denying the virgin birth. Do you? But even if they had been expelled for not believing in the virgin birth so what? What do you think would happen to the physicist employed by MIT who announced in class that she could no longer place her confidence in the reliability and usefulness of mathematics? .)

No, i don't know of any to be honest (there may not be any, it's just something i picked off the top of my head as an example) But doubting that a sacred virgin magically concieved a god child and saying you no longer believe that 1 +1 = 2 are not in any way analogous. The physicist could claim basically anything and provided she had some sort of proof or at least could point at why she thought this (and it wasn't some made up nonsense) she'd be just fine - in fact if it was a truly outrageous claim and it turned out to be true she'd probably get a noble prize, not her marching orders!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We can go around the mill on this and still not totally agree. I happen to think that atheism actually entails more than just non-belief both in terms of what belief-systems are often associated with it.)

I can see what you mean but technically that's not atheism. Atheism, as i understand it anyway, is only a lack of belief in any gods, any beliefs an individual person has are called something else.

Geomy wrote: »

I was talking to a Bahai today.
They seem to have a nice way about them.
:-D

What's a bahai? Is that a religion?

tommy2bad

sbsquarepants wrote: »

{Mighty big snip}



What's a bahai? Is that a religion?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bahai

SoulandForm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What's a bahai? Is that a religion?

Its a strange break away group from Shia Islam. Their prophet writes in this overly florid 19 th century manner. They are very pro-Zionist and appeal to middle class western eccentrics.

Benny_Cake

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What's a bahai? Is that a religion?

http://www.bahai.org

They originated in 19th century Iran. Nice people for the most part, very committed to peace and interfaith relations. They have a liberal reputation but some of their social views are a little old-fashioned. They're spread across the world now, but in Iran they suffer from appalling persecution and discrimination. The fact that their world headquarters are in Haifa, Israel (which is purely coincidental) has been used as a smear against them.

Fanny Cradock

I think that a number of the Argentinian national team are of the Baha'i faith. If you ever get the chance I would recommend visiting the Lotus Temple in New Delhi. It's stunning.

sbsquarepants

Looks fairly amazing alright!:)

Lady Chuckles

I love reading about other religions and other cultures. Ancient and new.
I love philosophy and psychology and I think science is awfully intriguing

My own way of life (as a Christian) is to educate myself as much as I can, keep an open mind and not judge. It's not my place. And it's far more fun to try to understand

Christianity, to me, is to love and care. Without passing judgement on others.

tommy2bad

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I love reading about other religions and other cultures. Ancient and new.
I love philosophy and psychology and I think science is awfully intriguing

My own way of life (as a Christian) is to educate myself as much as I can, keep an open mind and not judge. It's not my place. And it's far more fun to try to understand

Christianity, to me, is to love and care. Without passing judgement on others.

Well what do you know, someone gets it!

onlinenerd

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well what do you know, someone gets it!

Well there is also a deeper meaning to Christianity too.:cool:

hinault

I can recognise a person of good will from a different faith and none.
Indeed there are many goodliving and fine people who do not share the same religious faith as me.

I don't need to read the tenets of their belief however.

Geomy

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well what do you know, someone gets it!

It's amazing how many Christians are asleep. .

A lot of them just don't get it do they. ...