What I am personally intolerant of is people of any belief system who feel a need to bash the core beliefs of others

Again, I think that we need to define the 'core beliefs' before we can decide who is bashing what.

I agree with/feel an affinity with the message of love, compassion and tolerance. I believe that THAT is what the core of Christianity is, not the hatred and intolerance that is so often displayed. However, that's MY belief. Someone else's belief of what the core message is may be totally different.

What I am personally intolerant of is people of any belief system who feel a need to bash the core beliefs of others. That is intolerance at it's worst and is hardly indictive of an intelligent and tolerant person although many who do this claim to be exactly that.

Intolerant of intolerance? Sounds like JFJ.

I don't believe in the supernatural. I've never seen anything that could be considered supernatural. Most things that a lot of people claim to have seen and believe to be supernatural have rational explanations, but they're so closed-minded and unwilling to know anything that doesn't fit with what they need to believe, they dismiss the rational in favor of superstition.

Intolerant of intolerance? Sounds like JFJ.

Yeah I know it's an oxymoron to say the least. I thought of that as I typed it, but it does pretty well sum it up nicely.

Again, I think that we need to define the 'core beliefs' before we can decide who is bashing what. I agree with/feel an affinity with the message of love, compassion and tolerance. I believe that THAT is what the core of Christianity is, not the hatred and intolerance that is so often displayed. However, that's MY belief. Someone else's belief of what the core message is may be totally different.

I agree that some people of various beliefs are highly judgemental and intolerant of the beliefs of others, which was the point of my previous post. As far as defining the core beliefs of others, I feel it's irrelevant with regard to respecting the beliefs of others. Or, to put it a better way, respecting people's rights to their own beliefs whether we understand them or not.

It's good to try and understand the beliefs of others, but it isn't good to denigrate the beliefs of others or to generalize about people of a certain belief. To do so makes one a lesser person. I feel that applies to all people regardless of their particular belief system.

"but they're so closed-minded and unwilling to know anything that doesn't fit with what they need to believe, they dismiss the rational...

I know Atheists that fit into that same mold.

In the end, this has become about critiqueing other people's religious beliefs, from someone who is supposed to be "the middle path" and prides herself on practicing a religion that doesn't judge.

Forgive me if it seems a bit... to use her word for Christian literalists, silly.

Forgive me if it seems a bit... to use her word for Christian literalists, silly

Actually I took that word from one of your quotes.  Just following your lead, Baker....

 

In the end, this has become about critiqueing other people's religious beliefs, from someone who is supposed to be "the middle path" and prides herself on practicing a religion that doesn't judge.

I'm sorry if that's what you've come away from this thread thinking.  Here I was thinking that we were having a discussion.

I know Atheists that fit into that same mold

Unless you're saying you know some Atheists who have been confronted with undeniable evidence of the supernatural, I don't think your statement is relevant to mine.

Unless you're saying you know some Atheists who have been confronted with undeniable evidence of the supernatural, I don't think you statement is relevant to mine.

Maybe it's only me, but one can be closed-minded even on non-supernatural subjects. For example, Bakerstreet made many great points about how literalism doesn't equal intolerance, and Chakgogka has shown that there are bad apples among all religious groups, yet some people will continue spouting: "Christian literalists are teh evil!"

There are jackass atheists just as there are jackass Christians. A black and white view of people is quite irrational and usually based on hatred and/or pride.

Besides, what people consider rational varies among people. Some people believe that Christianity is the most logical belief out of all beliefs even though much of it conflicts with the "experts." Some people believe are Buddhists even though Star Wars Episode 3 has "disproved" Buddhism. Some people consider atheism to make sense even though I have not heard a reasonable natural theory on the beginning of all existence. Perhaps the most rational belief is solipsism. I can't find any holes in it and life does have this surreal feel to it much like my dreams do!

one can be closed-minded even on non-supernatural subjects

Of course, but we're supposed to be discussing the supernatural! JEEZ! Are you and Baker trying to take this thread even more off-topic than it already is?

Some people believe are Buddhists even though Star Wars Episode 3 has "disproved" Buddhism

Hahahaha! That's funny!

Of course, but we're supposed to be discussing the supernatural! JEEZ! Are you and Baker trying to take this thread even more off-topic than it already is

I thought we were discussing people who dismiss the rational in favor of what they need to believe. That's one reason will generalize groups into pale stereotypes based on their beliefs.

It isn't rational to say you can disprove other people's beliefs about a supernatural God, and more than it is rational to say you can disprove the existance of aliens. There are people here at JU that claim to be able to prove scientifically that God doesn't exist.

There's nothing about the "middle path" in making the statement that a literalist view is wrong, or silly, or leads to all the evils fearmongers here try to portray. I point out that non-literalist, even Atheistic types undertake atrocities against their fellow man all the time.

The point seems to be that literalism is basically flawed. My perspective is that Literalism holds the same inherant flaws as any other belief system, to be used and abused as the character of the 'believer' permits.

Again, if Buddhism is the 'middle path', I see very little but blind judgement of ideas here. Dharma, in addition to criticizing Christians, also criticizes millions and millions of bhuddists to practice Buddhism in the traditional 'Gods and demons and hell" way.

Midde path? Doesn't look like it to me. If it were so, then it seems there'd be no problem with literalists believing what they like. If this were about offenses BY literalists, I think it is obvious the problem is the offenses themselves, not the literalism.

Again, if Buddhism is the 'middle path', I see very little but blind judgement of ideas here. Dharma, in addition to criticizing Christians, also criticizes millions and millions of bhuddists to practice Buddhism in the traditional 'Gods and demons and hell" way.

Like you did when you said that you thought that the creation in 6 days theory was 'silly'?

This isn't about Buddhism anymore. This is about you being, to be honest, blatantly antagonistic and curmudgeonly.

I thought we were discussing people who dismiss the rational in favor of what they need to believe.

In the context of my statement, what they need to believe is supernatural.

In the context of my statement, what they need to believe is supernatural.

Oh, so we're not discussing people who believe in stereotypes and who are atheists because they need to believe it?

"Like you did when you said that you thought that the creation in 6 days theory was 'silly'?"

Kind of, beyond the fact that I don't espouse the "middle path", while condemning some religious beliefs and overlooking fundamentalism in my own religion. Being a buddhist, it seems like your priority would be to address buddhists who are preoccupied with demons and hell and the rest of what you would call mythology.

"This isn't about Buddhism anymore. This is about you being, to be honest, blatantly antagonistic and curmudgeonly.

It never was about Buddhism. It was Biblical criticism, and criticism of people who take the Bible as literal fact.

It won't matter if I point out that billions of biblical literalists have lived peacefully throughout the centuries. It doesn't matter to show you that all the ills you blame on it are there with or without literalism. It won't matter if I point out that biblical literalists are among the most peaceful people on earth.

What matters is that you have something you can tell people you don't buy into and feel better about yourself. We have a lot of the "Look at me, I criticise/insult Christians; I'm smart!!" people around here. I kind of feel sorry for them.