A couple of days ago an article on Gather re-told the story of the birth of Christ in a manner that was vulgar and verged on the obscene. I am a devout Hindu and Christian beliefs are nowhere near the sphere of my emotions, and yet I felt hurt by the tone of the article. I felt even more hurt because a number of readers lauded the style of the writer.
I am as modern as most people in today’s world and hold freedom of opinion very high. Yet, I find it difficult, even by the most strenuous stretching of imagination, to bring such writings within the ambit of freedom of expression. A religious symbol such as a Hindu idol or the Quran or the story of the birth of Jesus are the joint property of all those who cherish them. Attacking them is like entering a temple or a church and trying to destroy it. If you do not like to go to a temple, don’t go, but don’t cause damage to it, because it is deeply connected with someone else’s emotions.
Doing serious historical research to prove that Jesus Christ was born in such-and-such manner would be freedom of expression, but just holding up a religious symbol and causing damage to it while the onlookers giggle at your act is vandalism, not freedom of expression.
A religious symbol is the bridge between the devotee and his God. When you attack that bridge, you are acting like a terrorist.
The justification given for the scoffing attack on the tradition may be that the tradition does not fit modern logic. How does it matter if it doesn’t? As a man living in the world of modern science, I know that the stories about the elephant-god Ganesha or the monkey-god Hanuman are likely to be untrue. When I stand in front of an idol of Hanuman, the question of whether Hanuman actually existed has no relevance for me. He is a connecting link between me and the Supreme Soul which created and is sustaining this world. Hanuman is a bridge, a symbol of the attributes of Ishwarah.
The religious feeling is the thing, not the symbol. Once I was traveling on a village road on a dark evening. Lights were off due to a breakdown. At a distance I saw at a bend on the road what looked like a small temple --- the type of small temples that you often find on the roadside in India. All I saw was the flame of a lamp. The rest was created by my imagination --- an idol of a Hindu deity with the lamp in front of it. I felt very religious, closed my eyes and prayed. After a short while, my car had traveled closer and the “temple” turned out to be a grocery shop.
Was there anything wrong with my feeling and my prayer? The flame of the lamp is a miniature of the vast energy that permeates the galaxies. This energy is one of the attributes of Ishwarah. In the environs of a temple, the flame of the lamp becomes a symbol of this energy and we bow before it. We bow before it because we cannot bow before the galaxies. The flame is a symbol. Its value lies in our mind, not in the object itself. To the Hindu the lamp flame in the temple has a different meaning from what it might have for a non-Hindu. The same I believe is with the birth of Jesus Christ. The birth and its story have a meaning for a Christian. Therefore, the important thing is not how it actually occurred, but the effect it produces on the mind of a devout Christian.
Therefore, to scoff at the religious symbols venerated by someone else is not freedom of expression but an attack on something that belongs to someone else. If your ideas must be treated as your property, why shouldn’t your emotions? If a person who tries to destroy your ideas is wrong, why isn’t he who tries to destroy your emotions?
Again, I wish to emphasise: there is nothing wrong with serious historical research. Such research is intended to bring out the Truth. But should scoffing at religious symbols not be condemned?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 136
If you will notice on that article, it is a choice few memebers who dominate the comment section. You will see these members in a little pack on many articles where they make fun of other people. They are the Gather bullies. Just like on the playground at school, it is best to just try and keep your distance from them. You see, they thrive on attention whether its negative attention or positive. It is the "look at me, look at me!" mentality of a child that you are witnessing. Sad isn't it?
I know I will always be a good person and I also know there will always be evil amoung us. I will never accept that a man abducted, beat, raped and burried alive that nine year old girl because of God given free will. Where did the God given free will of the little girl come in? No loving God would have allowed that to happen. Try to put yourself into the mind of that young girl as she experienced the horror. No loving God would allow that to happen.
I understand your need to protect your beliefs, religions, Gods. It is man we need to understand more fully, more specifically the mind of man. Today we have men and women who prey on children getting reprimanded or slapped on the hand by our justice system. We have priests who molest children and politicians victimizing children. We have powerful people protecting powerful people and we have 9 year old girls who never get justice. We then wonder why people can be so mean and evil. We've allowed it in the name of religion. We're to blame.
Gentle Hugs..........
Marilyn
Dear e.f. The questions you have raised are very fundamental; the most important of these is: why should there be evil in a world created by an all-powerful God who we believe is benign. I have my opinions, but not an answer. If I were to give my opinons about this question, I will have to write a book. (I have an ambition to write one some day).
So far as people posing to be religious and committing cruelty is concerned, your argument would be valid that treating certain things as sacred and beyond questioning makes it possible for some to hide behind this protection and cause harm. I say, let none be sacred and beyond question.
My only argument is: in our eagerness to create laughs and because we are not capable of creating mature jokes, let us not deprive religious symbols of their supreme value in human life.
I agree that a lot is done out of superstition. Where will you find better examples than in my country, India? Again, as I said, these issues will involve us in long discussions and will need a whole book (at least, one). But, I request you to weigh the positive effects of religion and the negative and draw up a balance sheet. My balance sheet shows me millions of God-fearing people who can be trusted, who are gentle and whose life has meaning. I don't mean that a non-believer cannot be good and gentle. Yet, I strongly blieve that faith gives a deeper meaning to life than non-faith.
Is religion an opium? Well, as I said, the question is too big to answer here. My brief answer is: it need not be.
Finally, I appreciate and respect you for the faith you have in your non-faith. It is much better than non-questioning faith.
A couple of days ago an article on Gather re-told the story of the birth of Christ in a manner that was vulgar and verged on the obscene. I am a devout Hindu and Christian beliefs are nowhere near the sphere of my emotions, and yet I felt hurt by the tone of the article. I felt even more hurt because a number of readers lauded the style of the writer. ITHINK IT IS BOTH FREEDOM AND LICENCE.
I am as modern as most people in today's world and hold freedom of opinion very high. Yet, I find it difficult, even by the most strenuous stretching of imagination, to bring such writings within the ambit of freedom of expression. A religious symbol such as a Hindu idol or the Quran or the story of the birth of Jesus are the joint property of all those who cherish them.I AGREE Attacking them is like entering a temple or a church and trying to destroy it. NOT SO IT DEPENDS HOW THE "SATIRE" IS CONVEYED. DOES NOT ONE RELIGION MAKE A MOCKERY OF ANOTHER SOMETIMES - AND WHO DEFINES WHAT IS TO BE A RELIGION - PROBABLY SOME OF THE MOST DREADFUL SINNERS AROUND.If you do not like to go to a temple, don't go, but don't cause damage to it, because it is deeply connected with someone else's emotions.HOWEVER CAN NOT GOING TO A TEMPLE IN A PLACE WHERE A CERTAIN RELIGION IS REVERED NOT BE BE CONSTRUED AS INAPPROPRIATE TO THE POINT OF "SCOFFING"?
Doing serious historical research to prove that Jesus Christ was born in such-and-such manner would be freedom of expression, but just holding up a religious symbol and causing damage to it while the onlookers giggle at your act is vandalism, not freedom of expression. IF MY HISTORICAL RESEARCH PROVED THAT JESUS MARRIED A WOMAN OF DISREPUTE AND HAD A BABY TOGETHER - OR IN ALL SERIOUSNESS TRIED TO COMPARE EARLY CHRISTIANITY AS A CULT WHERE WOULD THE STATUTE OF "CAUSING DAMAGE" VERSUS "SINCERE FACT FINDING" {ALBEIT IN IGNORANCE} END -WHERE IS THE LINE, WHO DEFINES THE LINE. wHICH RELIGIONS ARE TO BE INCLUDED. JIM JONES PROBABLY REALLY BELIEVED WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS RIGHT SO DID DAVID KORESH - HOWEVER THEY WERE "NUTS".
A religious symbol is the bridge between the devotee and his God. When you attack that bridge, you are acting like a terrorist.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN I EAT PORK AND IM OUT WITH A JEWISH FRIEND - OR WORSHIPPING GOD THROUGH JESUS RATHER THAN MARY. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH - A VALID RELIGION - WAS FOUNDED ON THE WHIM OF HENRY THE EIGHTH WHEN THE POPE WOULD NOT GRANT HIM A DIVORCE - SO HE SPLIT FROM ROME AND DECLARED THAT THE SOVEREIGN OF ENGLAND WOULD BE THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH. HE DEFINITELY SCOFFED AT ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND MADE HIS OWN RELIGION FOR HIS CONVENIENCE.
The justification given for the scoffing attack on the tradition may be that the tradition does not fit modern logic. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE CASE -IT IS JUST THAT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS - A WHOLE BILLION OR MORE VARIETIES - THEIR SCOFFING AT ONE RELIGION - HOWEVER DISTASTEFUL OR IRREVEREND MAY BE THIER RELIGION - OR THEY MAY WISH TO CONVEY THEIR SENTIMENT [AS YOU DO HERE] TO OTHERS IN THE ONLY MANNER THEY KNOW HOW - OR IN A MANNER WHICH PLEASE THEM MOST.How does it matter if it doesn't? As a man living in the world of modern science, I know that the stories about the elephant-god Ganesha or the monkey-god Hanuman are likely to be untrue. When I stand in front of an idol of Hanuman, the question of whether Hanuman actually existed has no relevance for me. He is a connecting link between me and the Supreme Soul which created and is sustaining this world. Hanuman is a bridge, a symbol of the attributes of Ishwarah.I UNDERSTAND THIS AND SO DO MANY OTHERS - BUT AGAIN MANY OTHERS WILL NOT - SOME MAY SCOFF AND SOME MAY BE RESPECTFUL BUT IT BOILD DOWN TO THE SAME THING. OTHERS MAY SAY YOU ARE DISRESPECTING THEIR RELIGION AND THE BIBLE AS AN IDOLATOR. WHILE I UNDERSTAND" IT AINT WHAT YOUDO ITS THE WAY YOU DO IT!!" AND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY THIS WE MUST ALSO RESPECT OTHERS RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND LICENCE; IF NOT HOW WILL WE EVER LEARN TO UNDERSTAND IF WE DO NOT LISTEN TO ANOTHERS PERSPECTIVE AND PRE-JUDGE BASED ON WHAT WE MIGHT FEEL ARE BAD MANNERS OR CHIDES.
The religious feeling is the thing, not the symbol. I UNDERSTAND THAT - IT IS LIKE LOVING A GIRL - THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT GIRLS IN THE WORLD AND MY WIFE MAY BE PRETTIER THAN YOURS BUT PLEASE DO NOT DISREPSPECT HERE AS I WILL DEFEND HER WITH ALL MY MIGHT.[READ WIFE OR HUSBAND HERE - SORRY IF THAT WAS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT]Once I was traveling on a village road on a dark evening. Lights were off due to a breakdown. At a distance I saw at a bend on the road what looked like a small temple --- the type of small temples that you often find on the roadside in India. All I saw was the flame of a lamp. The rest was created by my imagination --- an idol of a Hindu deity with the lamp in front of it. I felt very religious, closed my eyes and prayed. After a short while, my car had traveled closer and the "temple" turned out to be a grocery shop.
Was there anything wrong with my feeling and my prayer? NO!! HOWEVER MANY A TRUE WORD MAY BE EXPRESSED IN JEST AND MANY NOT OF YOUR BELIEF MIGHT SAY - JUST AS WE MIGHT SAY TO ALL WHO WORSHIP - MAY WHAT YOU WORSHIP AND THE GOD YOU PRAY TO NOT TURN OUT TO BE A MISTAKE OR A GROCERY SHOP. ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOUR GOD IS A GROCER - SO WHAT!!The flame of the lamp is a miniature of the vast energy that permeates the galaxies. This energy is one of the attributes of Ishwarah. In the environs of a temple, the flame of the lamp becomes a symbol of this energy and we bow before it. OTHERS MAY SEE A FLAME AS HELL OR PYROMANIA OR DEVIL WORSHIP - We bow before it because we cannot bow before the galaxies. The flame is a symbol. Its value lies in our mind, not in the object itself.
SUCH CAN BE THE FUELED EMOTION OF MANKIND'S CONDITION – A SPARK MAY EASILY BE EXTINGUISHED BY THE FLAP OF A BUTTERFLY'S WING, NONETHELESS WHEN FUELLED APPROPRIATELY AND CONSUMING WHAT IT ENCOUNTERS IT MAY EQUALLY LEAD TO A BLAZE AND IN TURN AN INFERNO.
To the Hindu the lamp flame in the temple has a different meaning from what it might have for a non-Hindu.
THERE YOU HAVE IT - PERHAPS WHAT YOU READ THOUGH WRITTEN IN ONE LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY SOME MAY BE MISINTERPRETED BY OTHERS AND/OR VIEWD DIFFERENTLY, ITS ALL A QUESTION OF PERCEPTION.
WHEN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS IN HARMONY WITH OUR SOUL AND THAT VERY SOUL IS AS ALIGNED TO OUR HEART IT WILL STAND IN SUCH RELATION TO THE COURSE OF OUR ACTIONS RELATED TO ANY EVENT THAT IT WILL CREATE AN EMOTION AND CONJURE UP A FEELING.
WHILE NO SEEMINGLY CONCERTED EFFORT SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED ATTAINMENT AND FULFILLMENT OF THOSE EMOTIONS ARE IMMEDIATE.
DELAYED EMOTIONAL DISPLAYS SEEMS TO CAUSE SOME FORM OF STRESS ON BOTH THE MIND AND THE BODY AND THE SYNERGY AND "AT-ONE-NESS" WITH THE EGO WILL BE IN FLUX.
INCONGRUETY IN THE PARADIGM INVOKES THE NEGATIVE OF THE CONGRUOUS MORE HARMONIOUS SCENARIO DISCUSSED AT THE ONSET.
IN THE EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE EMOTION THE CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE EMOTION WILL CONSUME THE OBJECTS AND SUBJECTS IT ENCOUNTERS AND ENVELOP THEM IN ITS RADIANCE; SOMEWHAT LIKE A FIRE CONSUMING ALL MATTER THAT FALLS INTO IT.
The same I believe is with the birth of Jesus Christ. The birth and its story have a meaning for a Christian. IT DOES - AND THERE ARE MANY CHRITIANS WHO WILL UNDERSTAND THE FLAME AND HINDUISM. Therefore, the important thing is not how it actually occurred, but the effect it produces on the mind of a devout Christian. WELL YOU SEE FOR SOME IT IS THE ESSENCE - KNOWING THAT WHAT HAPPENED IS THE TRUTH - SOME REQUIRE PROOF RATHER THAN ULTIMATE FAITH.
Therefore, to scoff at the religious symbols venerated by someone else is not freedom of expression but an attack on something that belongs to someone else. I CAN SEE YOUR POINT BUT DONT TAKE IT TO PERSONALLY - YOUR GOD[S] WONT!!If your ideas must be treated as your property, why shouldn't your emotions? I UNDERSTAND - HOWEVER THEY ARE NOT JUST Y-O-U-R- IDEAS THEY ARE SHARED IDEAS AND A BELIEF, YOU DONT HAVE THE CORNER ON HINDUISM, NOR DOES ANYONE. If a person who tries to destroy your ideas is wrong, why isn't he who tries to destroy your emotions? ITHINK SOME MAY TRY NOT TO DESTROY THE IDEA - HOWEVER ITMAY BE VIEWED AS SUCH - SOME MAY JUST WISH TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER DSIDE OF THE EQUATION OF ARGUE THEIR POINT. -IF A MOCKERY IS MADE OF YOU PERSONALLY FOR BELIEVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN AND HOW YOU EXPRESS AND CONVEY IT - WELL THEN THATS ANOTHER MATTER.
Again, I wish to emphasise: there is nothing wrong with serious historical research. Such research is intended to bring out the Truth. I AGREE!!
But should scoffing at religious symbols not be condemned?NO! WHERE IS THE LINE - AND WHEN CAN WE EXPECT THE SPANISH INQUISITION. NO NO AND NO - I RESPECTFULLY HAVE TO DISAGREE HERE. i WILL NOT LAUGH AT HINDU OR MUSLIM OR THEIR BELIFS NOR AT CHRISTIAN OR CATHOLIC OR JEW BUT WHAT OF THE MOONIES OR THE SCIENTOLOGISTS, OR THE MORMONS, OR THOSE WHO PERHAPS DO NOT BELIEVE OR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE SUN [ THE BRIGHTEST FLAME OF ALL ] IT WOULD TAKE US BACK TO THE DARK AGES - ALSO THESE DAYS ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE BEING CONDEMNED FOR THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS LET ALONE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PERHAPS IN 1000 YEARS FROM NOW IF YOU ARE NOT FOR A CERTAIN DOMINANT CAUSE OR PART OF IT - EVENTHOUGH YOU ARE RESPECTFUL KIND AND REVEREND - YOU MAY BE CONDEMNED BECAUSE NON PARTICIPATION MAY BE VIEWED AS SCOFFING. IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO BUILDING ANOTHER FORM OF DISCRIMINATION. I AM STRAIGHT- HETEROSEXUAL, HOWEVER I DO NOT CONDEMN GAY PEOPLE OR OTHERS FOR THEIR PENCHANTS AND HOW THEY WISH TO "SWING" HOWEVER WHILE I DO NOT LIKE THE SIGHT OF TWO SAME SEX PEOPLE LOCKING LIPS AND TONGUES IN PUBLIC OR IN FRONT OF MY CHILD - DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHASTISE THEM FOR IT - ABSOLUTELY NOT. LIKEWISE IF A HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE MAKE OUT IN FRONT OF MY CHILD I MIGHT BE OFFENDED BUT IF WE ARE IN A PUBLIC PLACE - UNLESS ITS LEWDNESS - WHAT CAN I DO. UBNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFICULTY IN DEFINING A LINE THERE ARE NO LINES AND SOME MALEVOLENTS MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT TO HURT SOMEONE ELSE - HOWEVER THAT IS NOT RELIGION THAT DRIVES OR CUASEDS THEM TO DO THAT - IT IS A LACK OF RELIGION AND PROBABLY A LACK OF BELIEF IN THEMSELVES. SATISH DONT WASTE PRECIOUS TIME WORRYING ABOU THIS -NOR CRITICISE THOSE WHO MIGHT "SCOFF" IN YOUR EYES. PREACH THE POSITIVE OF YOUR RELIGION AND SPREAD THE LOVE.
YOU ASKED ME TO READ AND COMMENT ON YOUR ARTICLE - SO I DID - SOME HERE "believe" THAT SENDING OUT THOSE MASS MAILERS IS WRONG - SHOULD YOU BE CHASTISED FOR THAT? EMM NO.
TAKE CARE - WITH SINCERE GOOD WISHES AND UTMOST RESPECT FROM ONE HUMAN TO ANOTHER. LUDOLF R GROLLE.
As for your article, it was a very good one, and you were able to express how you felt without being critical of what the others were doing. It truly is sad that people have to feel that they need to attack one another and make rude comments and ridicule others beliefs. I don't understand or see the need for people to attack other so much. We all have a right to our own beliefs, be they Christianity, Hindu, or anything else. I do value my own beliefs as a Christian, but I'm not going to tear down someone elses.
WHEN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS IN HARMONY WITH OUR SOUL AND THAT VERY SOUL IS AS ALIGNED TO OUR HEART IT WILL STAND IN SUCH RELATION TO THE COURSE OF OUR ACTIONS RELATED TO ANY EVENT THAT IT WILL CREATE AN EMOTION AND CONJURE UP A FEELING.
WHILE NO SEEMINGLY CONCERTED EFFORT SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED ATTAINMENT AND FULFILLMENT OF THOSE EMOTIONS ARE IMMEDIATE.
DELAYED EMOTIONAL DISPLAYS SEEMS TO CAUSE SOME FORM OF STRESS ON BOTH THE MIND AND THE BODY AND THE SYNERGY AND "AT-ONE-NESS" WITH THE EGO WILL BE IN FLUX.
INCONGRUETY IN THE PARADIGM INVOKES THE NEGATIVE OF THE CONGRUOUS MORE HARMONIOUS SCENARIO DISCUSSED AT THE ONSET.
IN THE EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE EMOTION THE CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE EMOTION WILL CONSUME THE OBJECTS AND SUBJECTS IT ENCOUNTERS AND ENVELOP THEM IN ITS RADIANCE; SOMEWHAT LIKE A FIRE CONSUMING ALL MATTER THAT FALLS INTO IT.
WAS WRITTEN FOR A PAPER I AM WRITING ON PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN AND MARUC AURELIUS ANTONIUS BUT RECALLED IT AS I WAS RESPONDING AND DECIDED TO INCLUDE PARTS OF IT - THUS IF IT DOES NOT FLOW WITH THE REST OF MY REPSONSE- WELL THERES YOUR ANSWER. SIMILARLY ALLOW ME TO APOLOGISE FOR ANY SPELLING MISTAKES OR OTHER ERRORS I JUST TYPE FASTER THAN I THINK SOMETIMES OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND? ;-))
The philosopher-poet from the Indian sub-continent Mohammad Iqbal said: "Burn the holy books; destroy the places of worship. But, never ever hurt the feelings of fellow human beings."
Thank you so much, Satish, for this nice article.
Anyone who would be offended should have been warned by the title. What I find offensive are the people who saw the title, read the article, experienced the fun mood in the comment section, and then tried to "preach" at others who don't hold their religious belief. Those who share the view of the author, as well as those who don't but enjoy the humor, are as entitled to their beliefs and choices as anyone. The duplicity in the 'religious' debate is tiresome. It is just as 'right' for some to not believe as it is for others to believe. Unfortunately, believers often seem to lack the kindness of heart necessary to understand this important life lesson.
May I ask how you think your scoffing the other author's work differs? What makes this article freedom of expression and hers not? What makes hers an attack and yours not?
NOT SO IT DEPENDS HOW THE "SATIRE" IS CONVEYED. DOES NOT ONE RELIGION MAKE A MOCKERY OF ANOTHER SOMETIMES - AND WHO DEFINES WHAT IS TO BE A RELIGION - PROBABLY SOME OF THE MOST DREADFUL SINNERS AROUND.
My Answer: The argument of article is that certain areas should be spared scoffing. I am not saying they should be spared genuine and scientific enquiry, but merely they should be spared mockery. This I say in the belief that life is sustained by certain things that give it sacredness. Whether you call it self-created illusions or values or certain fundamental faith --- once you deprive life of all these life will be no more than a "collocation of atoms, and a series of chemical interactions.
Here, the derision was not of a religion defined by dreadful sinners, but one of the most fundamental beliefs of Christians.
HOWEVER CAN NOT GOING TO A TEMPLE IN A PLACE WHERE A CERTAIN RELIGION IS REVERED NOT BE BE CONSTRUED AS INAPPROPRIATE TO THE POINT OF "SCOFFING"?
Shoud not. I have sat in churches and meditated in my own Hindu way and no one made an issue of it.
IF MY HISTORICAL RESEARCH PROVED THAT JESUS MARRIED A WOMAN OF DISREPUTE AND HAD A BABY TOGETHER - OR IN ALL SERIOUSNESS TRIED TO COMPARE EARLY CHRISTIANITY AS A CULT WHERE WOULD THE STATUTE OF "CAUSING DAMAGE" VERSUS "SINCERE FACT FINDING" {ALBEIT IN IGNORANCE} END -WHERE IS THE LINE, WHO DEFINES THE LINE. wHICH RELIGIONS ARE TO BE INCLUDED. JIM JONES PROBABLY REALLY BELIEVED WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS RIGHT SO DID DAVID KORESH - HOWEVER THEY WERE "NUTS".
In my article I have said that genuine historical research should be supported. In this regard I will repeat what I said on this forum a few days ago. I quoted from the Bhagwad Geeta where Lord Krishna says: "Untruth never is; Truth never isn't." The point is: our belief in a falsehood will not change it into a truth because untruth never is. Similarly, our disbelieving a truth is not going to change it into a falsehood, because untruth never isn't. Therefore, no seeker after Truth can question or oppose anything that brings out the Truth. False beliefs should be given up the day Truth is proved crystal clear. My quarrel here is not with truth and falsehood but of attacking beliefs in a manner that hurts or is perhaps intended to hurt.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN I EAT PORK AND IM OUT WITH A JEWISH FRIEND - OR WORSHIPPING GOD THROUGH JESUS RATHER THAN MARY. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH - A VALID RELIGION - WAS FOUNDED ON THE WHIM OF HENRY THE EIGHTH WHEN THE POPE WOULD NOT GRANT HIM A DIVORCE - SO HE SPLIT FROM ROME AND DECLARED THAT THE SOVEREIGN OF ENGLAND WOULD BE THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH. HE DEFINITELY SCOFFED AT ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND MADE HIS OWN RELIGION FOR HIS CONVENIENCE.
Does the above paragraph really relate to anything that I am trying to say? You must excuse my relative ignorance about British history.
I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE CASE -IT IS JUST THAT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS - A WHOLE BILLION OR MORE VARIETIES - THEIR SCOFFING AT ONE RELIGION - HOWEVER DISTASTEFUL OR IRREVEREND MAY BE THIER RELIGION - OR THEY MAY WISH TO CONVEY THEIR SENTIMENT [AS YOU DO HERE] TO OTHERS IN THE ONLY MANNER THEY KNOW HOW - OR IN A MANNER WHICH PLEASE THEM MOST.
If you find my style of presenting views here scoffing, I must apologise for that. I think a religion that scoffs at other religions is presumptuous and takes a very simplistic view of God. The Vedas say: "Neti, neti" which would boil down to say: no one knows. The Truth is too complex to be comprehended through the senses.
I UNDERSTAND THIS AND SO DO MANY OTHERS - BUT AGAIN MANY OTHERS WILL NOT - SOME MAY SCOFF AND SOME MAY BE RESPECTFUL BUT IT BOILD DOWN TO THE SAME THING. OTHERS MAY SAY YOU ARE DISRESPECTING THEIR RELIGION AND THE BIBLE AS AN IDOLATOR. WHILE I UNDERSTAND" IT AINT WHAT YOUDO ITS THE WAY YOU DO IT!!" AND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY THIS WE MUST ALSO RESPECT OTHERS RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND LICENCE; IF NOT HOW WILL WE EVER LEARN TO UNDERSTAND IF WE DO NOT LISTEN TO ANOTHERS PERSPECTIVE AND PRE-JUDGE BASED ON WHAT WE MIGHT FEEL ARE BAD MANNERS OR CHIDES.
My quarrel is not about listening or not listening to the others. My whole argument was: religious symbols should not be scoffed at 1) Because this hurts people's feelings 2) Religious symbols play an important role in sustaining social values and depriving them of their sacredness will do harm. 3) Doing so is not a sign of high culture.
I UNDERSTAND THAT - IT IS LIKE LOVING A GIRL - THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT GIRLS IN THE WORLD AND MY WIFE MAY BE PRETTIER THAN YOURS BUT PLEASE DO NOT DISREPSPECT HERE AS I WILL DEFEND HER WITH ALL MY MIGHT.[READ WIFE OR HUSBAND HERE - SORRY IF THAT WAS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT]
For all I could understand of this, you seem to be supporting me.
I'm not a particularly religious person, but I will not put down those who are. I say that you hold onto what you believe in and ignore those who don't believe.
And True American, you make no sense. Why would you read the bible to children? Have you heard of "age appropriate"? There are bible stories for children and they usually have good messages in them. That's sure a lot better than some of the crap children are being exposed to nowadays.
Anyway, I liked your article Satish. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Peace and Love
Whenever my God turns out to be nothing more than a Grocer, I'll feel disillusioned and again start out in search of the Truth.
OTHERS MAY SEE A FLAME AS HELL OR PYROMANIA OR DEVIL WORSHIP
Of course they might and so long as they do not scoff at my beliefs it may not concern me. In case they scoff, it would hurt me and others of my religion and a gentleman is not supposed to do that.
SUCH CAN BE THE FUELED EMOTION OF MANKIND'S CONDITION – A SPARK MAY EASILY BE EXTINGUISHED BY THE FLAP OF A BUTTERFLY'S WING, NONETHELESS WHEN FUELLED APPROPRIATELY AND CONSUMING WHAT IT ENCOUNTERS IT MAY EQUALLY LEAD TO A BLAZE AND IN TURN AN INFERNO.
True. What of that? The Sun gives life and the Sun can burn to ashes.
THERE YOU HAVE IT - PERHAPS WHAT YOU READ THOUGH WRITTEN IN ONE LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY SOME MAY BE MISINTERPRETED BY OTHERS AND/OR VIEWD DIFFERENTLY, ITS ALL A QUESTION OF PERCEPTION.
WHEN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS IN HARMONY WITH OUR SOUL AND THAT VERY SOUL IS AS ALIGNED TO OUR HEART IT WILL STAND IN SUCH RELATION TO THE COURSE OF OUR ACTIONS RELATED TO ANY EVENT THAT IT WILL CREATE AN EMOTION AND CONJURE UP A FEELING.
WHILE NO SEEMINGLY CONCERTED EFFORT SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED ATTAINMENT AND FULFILLMENT OF THOSE EMOTIONS ARE IMMEDIATE.
DELAYED EMOTIONAL DISPLAYS SEEMS TO CAUSE SOME FORM OF STRESS ON BOTH THE MIND AND THE BODY AND THE SYNERGY AND "AT-ONE-NESS" WITH THE EGO WILL BE IN FLUX.
INCONGRUETY IN THE PARADIGM INVOKES THE NEGATIVE OF THE CONGRUOUS MORE HARMONIOUS SCENARIO DISCUSSED AT THE ONSET.
IN THE EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE EMOTION THE CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE EMOTION WILL CONSUME THE OBJECTS AND SUBJECTS IT ENCOUNTERS AND ENVELOP THEM IN ITS RADIANCE; SOMEWHAT LIKE A FIRE CONSUMING ALL MATTER THAT FALLS INTO IT.
Couldn't understand.
IT DOES - AND THERE ARE MANY CHRITIANS WHO WILL UNDERSTAND THE FLAME AND HINDUISM.
That makes me happy.
WELL YOU SEE FOR SOME IT IS THE ESSENCE - KNOWING THAT WHAT HAPPENED IS THE TRUTH - SOME REQUIRE PROOF RATHER THAN ULTIMATE FAITH.
I also would prefer proof to faith, till the proof comes, faith is the only way.
I CAN SEE YOUR POINT BUT DONT TAKE IT TO PERSONALLY - YOUR GOD[S] WONT!!
Couldn't understand the implications of the comment. But to me Hindu gods are attributes of an Eternal Soul. They are my way of cognizing aspects of the Almighty.
I UNDERSTAND - HOWEVER THEY ARE NOT JUST Y-O-U-R- IDEAS THEY ARE SHARED IDEAS AND A BELIEF, YOU DONT HAVE THE CORNER ON HINDUISM, NOR DOES ANYONE.
To rephrase, some individuals who are shareholders to a joint property may refuse to enjoy it, but they have no right to damage it.
ITHINK SOME MAY TRY NOT TO DESTROY THE IDEA - HOWEVER ITMAY BE VIEWED AS SUCH - SOME MAY JUST WISH TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER DSIDE OF THE EQUATION OF ARGUE THEIR POINT. -IF A MOCKERY IS MADE OF YOU PERSONALLY FOR BELIEVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN AND HOW YOU EXPRESS AND CONVEY IT - WELL THEN THATS ANOTHER MATTER.
Making mockery of me is perfectly acceptable. I am an individual and can be scoffed at. Religious beliefs relate to the Unknown. They explain the Unexplainable. They give a sense of certainty in a situation of uncertainty. If you take away their sacredness, you deprive them of all this potential.
NO! WHERE IS THE LINE - AND WHEN CAN WE EXPECT THE SPANISH INQUISITION. NO NO AND NO - I RESPECTFULLY HAVE TO DISAGREE HERE. i WILL NOT LAUGH AT HINDU OR MUSLIM OR THEIR BELIFS NOR AT CHRISTIAN OR CATHOLIC OR JEW BUT WHAT OF THE MOONIES OR THE SCIENTOLOGISTS, OR THE MORMONS, OR THOSE WHO PERHAPS DO NOT BELIEVE OR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE SUN [ THE BRIGHTEST FLAME OF ALL ] IT WOULD TAKE US BACK TO THE DARK AGES - ALSO THESE DAYS ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE BEING CONDEMNED FOR THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS LET ALONE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PERHAPS IN 1000 YEARS FROM NOW IF YOU ARE NOT FOR A CERTAIN DOMINANT CAUSE OR PART OF IT - EVENTHOUGH YOU ARE RESPECTFUL KIND AND REVEREND - YOU MAY BE CONDEMNED BECAUSE NON PARTICIPATION MAY BE VIEWED AS SCOFFING. IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO BUILDING ANOTHER FORM OF DISCRIMINATION. I AM STRAIGHT- HETEROSEXUAL, HOWEVER I DO NOT CONDEMN GAY PEOPLE OR OTHERS FOR THEIR PENCHANTS AND HOW THEY WISH TO "SWING" HOWEVER WHILE I DO NOT LIKE THE SIGHT OF TWO SAME SEX PEOPLE LOCKING LIPS AND TONGUES IN PUBLIC OR IN FRONT OF MY CHILD - DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHASTISE THEM FOR IT - ABSOLUTELY NOT. LIKEWISE IF A HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE MAKE OUT IN FRONT OF MY CHILD I MIGHT BE OFFENDED BUT IF WE ARE IN A PUBLIC PLACE - UNLESS ITS LEWDNESS - WHAT CAN I DO. UBNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFICULTY IN DEFINING A LINE THERE ARE NO LINES AND SOME MALEVOLENTS MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT TO HURT SOMEONE ELSE - HOWEVER THAT IS NOT RELIGION THAT DRIVES OR CUASEDS THEM TO DO THAT - IT IS A LACK OF RELIGION AND PROBABLY A LACK OF BELIEF IN THEMSELVES. SATISH DONT WASTE PRECIOUS TIME WORRYING ABOU THIS -NOR CRITICISE THOSE WHO MIGHT "SCOFF" IN YOUR EYES. PREACH THE POSITIVE OF YOUR RELIGION AND SPREAD THE LOVE.
YOU ASKED ME TO READ AND COMMENT ON YOUR ARTICLE - SO I DID - SOME HERE "believe" THAT SENDING OUT THOSE MASS MAILERS IS WRONG - SHOULD YOU BE CHASTISED FOR THAT? EMM NO.
TAKE CARE - WITH SINCERE GOOD WISHES AND UTMOST RESPECT FROM ONE HUMAN TO ANOTHER. LUDOLF R GROLLE.
You are right. The issues are complicated. Where the lines disappear or merge is a tricky matter. That is why I was cautious in my use of words.
If we don't agree with something, we have a CHOICE on how we react to it.
We have a choice on how we apply our beliefs, whether religious, intellectual, or otherwise.
If one offends us, we have a choice. We can make issue of it, or we can choose to walk away peacefully. Most religions teach this.
We have other choices on how to handle situations.
It may be important to discuss an issue. It may be important to let others know they have hurt us. We can do this in a diplomatic and honorable way.
Choosing words is as important as choosing thoughts and reactions.
But, in the end, the OTHER person really has no hold on how we view, or react to, anything they say or do. Only WE do.
Remember, though....if we expect freedom, we must grant it.
I agree with all that you have said. When all things become common and nothing is sacred society becomes debased, (do we see this happening in our culture now that everything is now open to censure and satire?) morality is diminished and we are the worse for it.
If religion is an "opiate" for the masses and it produces peace and unity of spirit allowing each to seek truth (as we all should be endeavoring to do), then so be it. Religion is not the sole end of man. It is but a bridge that may lead to truth. Our sole desire should be the pursuit of truth. I respect only those who seek. I pity those who have thrown in the towel and have relegated others' search to idiocy, lunacy or what other negative term they would assign as they mock those who doggedly pursue!!!
Travis, when one's religious faith/beliefs are firmly rooted it is impossible to remove it like a jacket throw it on the back of a chair and go out for the evening without it! My beliefs define me; they are a part of me. You cannot separate me from what I believe. It is the same with you. To think that one can is naive.
Very fine article Satish!!! Thank you for writing it!
its not what you say its how you act
its not necessarily what you say but how you say it
its not enough to die in peace but more to live in peace
its not who your god is but what it means to you
how will your success be judged
who will judge it
what will their opinion mean to you
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Terrific article - great points. I think people seem to be complaining more about your article than they were complaining about persons who disagreed with the posting of the article your post comments on. I think the reason for this is because they felt that a simple statement such as "oh those Christians are just fanatics and can't recognize good humor because they are decieved by their beliefs in Mary & Jesus" adequately sums up any comments by Christians against that previous article. However, your article points out the bad taste and insensitivity of the previous article - strictly from the perspective of a reasonable 21st Century man who happens to hold a deep Hindu faith (not Christian) - and these people (largely atheists who were formerly Christians, but were hurt by someone who was Christian or simply had something bad happen to them, couldn't get an adequate explanation and decided to blame God) DO NOT KNOW how to refute your points because their spin statements about Christians don't apply to you.
Thank you very much for posting this article - I think it will really make some of these folks think.
It's unfortunate that people who have been hurt - lash out by wanting to hurt others, but they don't want to feel guilty about their hurting others, so they call it satire and don't accept any responsibility for being insensitive to things that are very important to people.
Ludolf seems particularly upset that someone is suggesting that people act responsibly and take other peoples feelings into consideration when interacting with those persons - and certainly posting an article on Gather.com IS interacting with others - in fact everyone who posts an article on Gather.com should consider that persons of varying belief systems and sensitivities will be reading them and try to avoid posting something that will obviously deeply offend people.
I realize that someone is bound to "disagree" with virtually anything one may say; however there is a difference between posting an article that people merely disagree with vs. posting an article that will be highly offensive because you are cruelly mocking ideas or seminal figures in one of the world's largest belief systems.
Only an idiot would act suprised when people were offended by that article in question - it should be obvious to everyone (even the hardcore atheist) that the article in question would be considered offensive by a large number of Gather.com users - it's so obvious, that I believe that the person posting that article had every intention of offending others (intending to hurt Christians because she was hurt by a Christian or the Christian God).
I look forward to reading more of your posts, Satish.
"Whenever my God turns out to be nothing more than a Grocer, I'll feel disillusioned and again start out in search of the Truth. " my god is a grocer and a fireman and a genius and a pauper and a writer and a millionaire and a philosopher : all that glitters is not gold!!
"The Sun gives life and the Sun can burn to ashes" - exactly!! be careful how you use your belief!!
"I also would prefer proof to faith, till the proof comes, faith is the only way. " sometimes things arent what they seem: my girlfriend once saw me kiss a girl and i was in tears and so was the girl - my girlfriend believed she saw me cheating and did not know i was consoling my half sister on our fathers death!
"To rephrase, some individuals who are shareholders to a joint property may refuse to enjoy it, but they have no right to damage it. " You are right!
in short dont judge the man based on his words or belief judge his actions. This pertains more to manners,courtesy and respect than the more aesthetic nuances.
"You are right. The issues are complicated. Where the lines disappear or merge is a tricky matter. That is why I was cautious in my use of words. " TY - Ditto.
For some worshipping the devil is a religion - however should we not scoff at those who do?
Hinduism seems to have neither a common doctrine nor a single scripture as the source of its various teachings. It appears to place more emphasis on orthopraxy than orthodoxy, encouraging relative freedom of thought within tightly defined codes of conduct and morality. However if there are restrictions on freedom it is not really freedom. Perhaps your article should refer more to RESPECT of Others - and I wholeheartedly agree with you on this; but we should assist in enabling rather than disabling!
Not everyone is aware of the sanatana-dharma!! Nor does everyone have Vyasa's wisdom.
What is the approach if it falls without the six darshanas?
Lets not let doctrine invoke dogma!
You of all dear friend should understand that each varna and ashram has his own specified dharma.
What may be desirable for one section of society may be degrading for another. For example, absolute non-violence, which includes refraining from animal sacrifice, is essential for the priestly class but considered wholly unworthy of a kshatriya (warrior). Generating wealth and producing children are essential for householders, but intimate contact with money and women is spiritually suicidal for the renunciate. Underlying all these apparent differences is the common goal of advancing in spiritual life based on sanatana-dharma. Without the spiritual equality and sense of service inherent in sanatanadharma, varnashrama-dharma tends to degrade into the rigid and exploitative caste system.
Source:http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/108a.htm
Varnashrama-dharma – duties performed according to the system of four varnas (social divisions) and four ashrams (stages in life).
Focus is on responsibilities (which naturally fulfil the rights of others).
Four varnas – brahmanas (priests, teachers, and intellectuals), kshatriyas (police, army, and administration), vaishyas (farmers, merchants, and business people), shudras (artisans and workers).
Four ashrams – student life, household life, retirement, and renunciation.
Part of the personal reflection stemming from the professed virtues I read about pertains to:
What do we value in life? How much are our values determined by our own likes and dislikes – or even prejudices?
Do we inordinately try to rationalise and justify our opinions, in order to defend them?
Can we stand up for our values, but at the same time be prepared to re-evaluate them?
How do we know what are worthy values? What are the criteria? Who do we think should determine them?
finally -
"Allocating different standards to different people does not contradict the notion of common virtues, but is a means of ensuring that they are obtainable by everyone. Additionally, individuals may express the same values, such as selfless service, in quite different ways."
lndriyesha Das
Peace, health, harmony and happiness be with you always. "LRG"
No scoffing or joking has the power to deprive anyone of anything, in my opinion. The truth is the truth, and will remain so despite anyone's mockery of it. I do understand what you are saying in this article, Satish, but I don't agree with it. I think that freedom of speech is exactly that: freedom of speech.
Let us take the position that the writer of that article was deliberately intending to hurt, insult, or offend Christians. If she was . . . oh man, this is going to sound awful, but oh well -- if she was . . . so what? It is up to me as an individual to decide whether to be offended and insulted by someone for whose views I have no respect. If I have no respect for the person espousing the opposing view; if I have no respect for the person making fun of what I hold dear . . . then why should I be offended or insulted? Why can I not simply turn the other cheek, as Christ himself advised?
I do not ever want to feel that I don't have the intellectual right to speak frankly and even, perhaps (in order to make a point) insultingly about something I feel to be ridiculous or wrong. We all have different definitions of what is ridiculous or wrong.
You yourself made the point, in your article, that the particulars of human belief should be recognized to be myth, because it is the deeper truth of them that matters. I agree with that completely. Therefore, why should it matter whether someone satirizes those particulars? Many of the people who objected to the article objected to the challenging of those particulars, because for some reason it is important to them to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, rather than understanding the deeper symbolic meaning of that statement, which could be taken any number of ways . . . that Jesus was born to a woman pure of heart ,that Jesus was born to a woman who was not enslaved to a man, that Jesus was born to a woman who was otherwise chaste. The actual important piece here is that Jesus was born, and went on to do remarkable things. I still think Dame Ruth was satirizing the folly of focusing on the specifics, which are, in a literal sense, quite ridiculous. In a deeper spiritual sense, they have great meaning; but it's necessary to let go of the surface to see that. Whether Dame Ruth's manner of conveying that idea was insulting is, of course, up for (apparently endless) debate.
Incidentally, I believe that Jesus existed, and that his life and teachings are beacon lights of human spirituality (as were the lives and teachings of many extraordinary enlightened people). I was not offended by Dame Ruth's article at all, because it didn't even come close to touching upon anything important about Jesus.
Ronald - I am not upset at all with anyone. The writer asked me to look at this article - I promised I would and responded with respect. I believe that we should be free to write what we wish but respect others too - however all those joining this site realise/should know there is no censorship as such adn complete freedom of expression seems to be "de-rigeur" and they have an option not to read or comment. No believe me... this site may have its foibles but the people or this article or even the article that this refers to does not upset me - I was just kjoining the discusion with the writer of this article as requested - I apologise if I perhaps expressed myself badly in such a way that I might be misunderstood. Hey Im pretty laid back and lots of fun. I am not the brightest bulb in the lampshade nor even a mediocre writer, nor do i pretend to be learned however i do claim my right to express myself as best as i can without deliberately causing offence to others.
Hope this clears it up!! "L"
Your comments on this article (and other articles) betray that you are incapable of thinking outside of your box that you've trapped yourself in. I challenge everyone to read your comments objectively. You are upset at people being offended at Ruth's article and seem to imply that you believe people should not be offended and yet you are offended at people being offended.
Additionally, you continue to confuse people's motive for commentary. I don't believe that most of the people condemning Ruth's articles were doing so merely because they believe differently, but because Ruth's article was cruel and highly offensive. If people got equally offended at everything they disagreed with on Gather.com, then you would see similar commentary on virtually every article on Gather.com - but you don't.
None of my comments on the last article was merely because I disagreed with Ruth's article, but because: a) the premise of her article's "so-called facts" were in error; and b) her article was clearly an attempt to offend Christians and that it was irresponsible to post such an article - and then become angry when people commented that they were offended - some of Ruth's responses to persons who were offended are equally offensive on a personal nature (she must have really been hurt by either the Christian God or some Christians - there is so much anger in both her article and comments when addressing Christians).
I am not angry with Ruth at all. Nor do I consider her sub-human because she is not a Christian. I actually would like to help her over her hurt & angry, but I'm not sure where to start - it goes so deep. Obviously, it will take the work of one much more knowledgeable than I on this matter - of course, the one who is "Love" always has open arms for her - despite her biting comments about Him.
I want to offer a helping hand to Ruth, so that she can climb up out of the cesspool that she is wallowing in. I realize she probably does not see her present existence this way (that's the sad part). I realize that you (and others) will misinterpret this to think that I'm saying because she's not a church-going Christian that she is no better than a swine in the mud, but that's not what I'm saying. I identify the cesspool as the hate and anger she is insisting on residing within.
I realize, Sandy, that you probably won't see clearly much of what I'm talking about here (your comments and reinforcement of Ruth's position on previous postings demonstrate you insist upon wearing dark glasses about this matter).
Free Choice clearly is in action (and Gather.com is a good demonstration of this).
I would like to challenge you Sandy, to give us a good explanation as why you think Satish (a Hindu, living in the East) is more sensitive to the feelings & beliefs of Western Christians than Western Atheists seem to be (at least Ruth, yourself, Ludolf, "True American", etc. - if you guys are atheists, which you probably are not all atheists)? How is Satish so easily able to see the offensive nature of Ruth's article, while the rest of your crowd is not? I have to be honest and tell you that I am feeling more kinship with Satish (even though we come from very different backgrounds, cultures and have very different religious beliefs) that I am with the typical Western atheist or skeptic - and this is not because Satish & I both have deep spiritual convictions, but because I see him as a more "reasonable" person that this "Christian bashing crowd" on Gather.com.
I consider David Rochester a reasonable person - and we certainly don't even agree with whether or not Ruth's article was satire (let alone all of the intentions of the Monty Python writers of the "Life of Brian"). David may or may be an atheist - I'm only guessing, but I would say that he seems more like an agnostic - but I'll let David define himself because I'm only speculating about him at this point, but he has demonstrated repeatedly by his comments to me and others that he knows how to reason well. I say that about him even though he may draw different conclusions that I and hold different belief systems. I have to be honest with you that most of the rest of the supporters of Ruth's articles seem completely buried in ignorance about so many things that it makes me feel sorry for you.
I know you will likely respond to this comment (probably with a short mocking statement that fails to address anything I've said or challenged you about). But perhaps you could (just this once) TRY to give a response of some substance. Prove to us that the perception given by your comments paint an inaccurate picture of who you really are.
"Only an idiot would act suprised when people were offended by that article in question - it should be obvious to everyone (even the hardcore atheist) that the article in question would be considered offensive by a large number of Gather.com users - it's so obvious, that I believe that the person posting that article had every intention of offending others (intending to hurt Christians because she was hurt by a Christian or the Christian God)."
WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT AND WHOEVER HE OR SHE OR IT MAY BE AND HOW THEY ARE REPRESENTED IS ON THING. IPERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ARTICLE WAS MEANT TO BE MEAN OR MALICIOUS IN ANYWAY. I CAN SEE HOW IT MIGHT PROVE OFFENSIVE TO SOME - BUT HEY MANY ARTICLES ON HERE MIGHT BE.
WHAT DOES UPSET ME OR RATHER SADDENS ME IS THAT WITHOUT ANY PROOF YOU WRITE "I believe that the person posting that article had every intention of offending others (intending to hurt Christians because she was hurt by a Christian or the Christian God)." EVEN IF THIS WAS/IS THE CASE TO PRINT IS IT A PERSONAL ATTACK AND ACCUSATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO WHAT I BELIEVE SATISH DOGRA WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE - IT IS ALSO EXTREMELY UN-CHRISTIAN IMHO. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WAS THE CASE - IT WAS PROBABLY J UST MEANT AS A HUMUROUS PIECE OF WRITING A BIT RISQUE BUT THATS ALL. FURTHERMORE THE LADY WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE IS A GREAT WRITER AND MAKES SOME PERFECTLY VALID ARGUMENTS - PERHAPS HOW SHE CONVEYED HER OPINION MAY BE SOMEWHAT QUESTIONABLE BUT THEN AGAIN SO ARE SOME OF MANY STATEMENTS MADE ON GATHER - INCLUDING YOUR OWN. PLEASE DONT TAKE THIS AS A PERSONAL ATTACK BUT MORE AS A DISCUSSION FROM HOPEFULLY ONE OPEN-MINDED INDIVIDUAL TO ANOTHER.
I SHANT COMMENT FURTHER ON THISI HAVE FAITH THAT SATISH DOGRA BELIEVES THAT I READ HIS ARTICLE WITH INTEREST FOUND IT INSPIRING AND THAT IT RAISED A LOT OF QUESTIONS...AND ANSWERS AND THAT FROM ONE GATHERITE TO ANOTHER WE READ THE PIECE WITH INTEREST AND COMMENTED SINCERELY - WHAT GREATER RESPECT CAN BE AFFORDED?
MOST SINCERELY
LUDOLF GROLLE DE ROCHEFORT
Master of Royal Secret
Commander Inspector Inquisitor
Knight Kadosh
Scottish Knight of St. Andrews
Knight of the Sun
Commander of the Temple
Prince of Mercy
Knight of Brazen Serpent
Prince of Tabernacle
Chief of Tabernacle
Knight of the Royals
Preussen Knight
Master of Symbolic Lodge
Grand Pontiff
Knight of Rose Croix
Knight of East and West
Prince of Jerusalem
Knight of the East
Grand Elect Mason
AND MASTER MASON.
Our different religions are afterall gropings in the dark for a Truth which is extremely complex. In my system of beliefs that I call Hindu and that Rochefort described as Sanatana Dharma, it is believed that Truth is too complex to be understood through reasoning and human senses. It is this complexity of religious issues that leads to so much discussion. When one friend, for instance talks about her enjoying the pumpkin and getting religious experience through that, I would fully agree. How else do you feel the presence of God? What is wrong if you see Him in a spring of water or the sound of a beautiful song? Does it hurt your sense of the scientific?
In my younger days I was obstinately arguing with a learned man insisting that I would accept only the truth as revealed by science. He took out a pen and said what is this? I said: a pen. He said, "No, according to your science it is billions of electrons going around billions of nuclei." I understood the meaning. What we call perceived Truth is actually a commonly-agreed interpretation of our surroundings. Imagine what will happen if people 10 times more in number came from another planet and we found that everything we see green is seen by them as blue. What would be the real colour then --- green or blue? Imagine that a child is born today whose eyes have the gift of seeing the infrared and ultra-violet rays as well as the visible spectrum and he gives a different description of what he sees. What will be the truth then --- what he says or what all of us billions of infra-red-ultra-violet blind people insist?
These are all very big questions. As I said in answer to one of the questions, they need to be discussed in a book. My very limited submission in this forum is: can the human beings of this world agree on one thing: while there will be no holds barred for genuine scientific enquiry, let us come to an agreement that religious beliefs will not be scoffed at and made light of, because people are sensitive about them and such scoffing hurts. It also takes away the sense of the sacred.
My main point (in commenting about you in my comment) was to demonstrate to you that Satish's point (that you seem to be missing) was that we should not censor free speech, but with that freedom comes great responsibility. I believe that the article Ruth posted was irresponsible because it so "obviously" was offensive to people who believe Jesus is God and that he was born of the Virgin Mary. If Ruth's article consisted of a presentation of her research as to why she believed that Jesus was not born of a virgin, then I only think the "unreasonable" would have been offended, but if you read her article objectively, you will see that it is obviously a blatant attempt to bash Christians, Christianity and one of the core Christian beliefs.
I believe Ruth has the right to post whatever article she wants, but if she posts something that unnecessarily offends, then I certainly have the right to point this out to her (look at her initial responses to John Knight's comments - she was cruel) - additionally, she seems unwilling to face anyone who thought the article was offensive - she obviously is not taking any responsibility to even defend her motives for her own article (but then if she were behaving responsibly, she never would have posted it in the first place.
I appreciate your comment, Ludolf, that "we should be free to write what we wish, but respect others too" - I think this statement sums up a reasonable view of this entire matter.
This is true! However, the question must be asked and I will ask it. Are confessed Christians the only ones held to this standard? If there is a god (and I believe there is) He requires that we ALL act in love toward each other. Are those who have not yet acknowledged His existence and/or rulership in their lives exempt from the requirements He has set forth, especially if these dictates create harmony in society and between people?
I find it so interesting that those who often fail to give God a second glance can with such ease quote scripture indicating how "Christians" are to behave or respond while they themselves give little consideration to the fact that they should be behaving in similar fashion.
We all live in a political domain (nation, city, state, town) where there are rules and regulations that apply to us as citizens. We may not agree with these rules, but we are obliged to follow them, lest we face the consequences. These rules, though loathsome to us were designed for our good and for the good of society. Peace only exists to the degree that all parties obey said rules whether they agree or not (unless of course the rules violate a higher moral authority).
There is truth! It is out there. Some believe that they have encountered it and are seeking to embrace it fully. Some have not yet sought or encountered truth. Others ignore what little truth that has been presented to them, seeking instead to belittle others and their pursuit.
If you know or are familiar with the truth should you not be living it? If you fail to realize Christ as lord of your life or God as your creator do you not recognize that in the midst of all of this religious wrangling lies the obvious command to love others and treat them as you wish to be treated.
If those who use satire to mock the beliefs of others honestly and sincerely believed that dancing in the middle of the road at 1 AM cured the hic-ups would you not desire that those around (though they may disagree with you and think you a fool) respect your right to believe as you do and not hinder you in acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs (and encourage you to watch out for cars in the process).
I am saying this: Those who publish articles with the intent to pock fun should honestly evaluate themselves and their motives. This is a practice for all people not just those who subscribe to a particular deity. Can the author of the article to which this article refers honestly say that there was no malicious intent on her part in the crafting of her article? Was it merely for "fun" or was it for "effect"?
We all owe it to self to engage in periodic (daily) evaluate ourselves and motives lest we delude ourselves into believing that we are correct, upstanding, moral and righteous and that it is the "other" who is at fault, lacking a sense of humor, attempting to ruin our fun, unrighteous, etc. We must each judge ourselves; EACH ONE of us!!!
I do not believe any person (or court) has the right to abridge the freedom of religion of any other person. We are different religious backgrounds, but I thank you for your defence of my beliefs.
DAVID SAID IT NICELY AND I AGREE WITH HIM.
RONALD SUMMED IT UP PERFECTLY. FYI - I BELIEVE IN GOD AND THAT JESUS LIVED, I RESPECT THE HINDU APPROACH AND AGREE WITH MANY OF ITS DOCTRINES BUT I WILL NOT WAGE ANOTHER WAR BASED ON RELIGION. IF GOD IS LOVE THEN LETS HOPE THERE IS A LITTLE OF GOD IN ALL OF US, LET YOUR LOVE GLOW LET YOUR LOVE SHOW!!
No, it isn't. I would ask this, though: Is arguing about it letting love glow or show? If so, in what way?
You could at least give us a clue about your "true" beliefs - because everyone is dying to categorize everyone else. If you don't help us to "best" categorize you, then we can only do so in a somewhat ignorant state - you can't stop people from defining who they "believe" you to be - so, if you are at all interested in refuting any false characterizations, please enlighten us.
Honestly, you seem very mysterious and extremely open in your belief system (I'm not saying this is bad, just devoid of exposure). There have been many comments you have made that strongly suggest you are a big time fence sitter on many issues, but perhaps you are simply "open" and careful to avoid deciding to choose one particular side of an issue because you don't want to have to change your mind later.
I appreciate your comments 2 posts ago (and throughout much of your posts in Ruth's article), because this was revealing about one of your beliefs. As you have stated, you believe that "Jesus' life & teachings were beacon lights of spirituality". However, you don't consider it important whether or not Jesus was God himself - even though according to the Gospel writers (and certainly the Epistle writers), Jesus said things that demonstrated that he himself was equal with God in many respects (or at least that he was much more than human and existed long before Abraham). Thus, if we are to believe Jesus was a great teacher (nay a perfect teacher), then we would have to believe everything he taught. Therefore, we would have to believe that he was God (or at least the direct Son of God)
This is why it is important to the Christian that it be accepted that Jesus is God, because if he isn't, then he's a liar, then he's not "the truth", then everything else about his ministry falls apart and he appears to be no more than someone like Gandhi.
I have studied many of the historical figures who are now either considered to be God (or Gods) or considered themselves Gods in their own time and Jesus seems to be the only one who considered himself God and large numbers of others believed this view and continue to believe it many generations later. Jesus' deeds backed up his words, whereas, say Caligula declared himself a God, but no one bought into this at all. Someone like Buddha (who implored his followers to NOT consider him a God) is a good example of people considering him a God despite his own teachings about himself. Perhaps if the "Life of Brian" were set in India during the time of Buddha (and the storyline paralleled the life of Buddha), it would seem more historically accurate than in its present form - of course a largely Western audience would not recognize the parallels and it probably wouldn't seem as funny.
I am trying to demonstrate to you WHY the virgin birth of Jesus is so important to Christianity. Additionally, this was prophesied about in the Old Testament (just like many other things were prophesied about Jesus as well). If Jesus was not God (as he claimed), then everything else he taught is called into question. I'm not saying that we should be purists about every detail surrounding the circumstances of his birth - I am aware that there is much in the Bible that we take way too literally and that people don't recognize that imperfect people were actually responsible for writing the Bible (certainly under God's direction), but we are under God's direction today and we can't certainly argue that we do not ALWAYS follow that direction and that everything we think or write is PERFECT. But, we need to look beyond this and see that God himself is PERFECT and that if we believe Jesus was the temporal manifestation of the PERFECT God, then this needs to be a foundation stone for our belief in God - not the specific details that people get hung up on.
Regardless of this, we should act responsibly when posting articles on Gather.com and realize that "certain" subjects are bound to offend significantly. Anyone considering posting an article that in all likelihood will be considered offensive to many, should choose the words of the article carefully, so that those of us who critique these articles will recognize that they were trying to explore an idea (or ideas) with an open mind and not with an obvious agenda to "offend".
David, please let me know if you've posted some GOOD satire of a topic considered controversial - Ruth's article was such a BAD example that I can't bring myself to call it satire (I think there are several other descriptions that more comprehensively describe her article and the intent of its author, I would put satire pretty low on that list).
I found this to be quite interesting. Again, let's take it as a given that Ruth's intent was malicious and mocking. How does that affect anyone's right to believe, and how does it hinder anyone from acting in a manner consistent with those beliefs? It seems to me that to think along those lines is to give a tremendous amount of power to those who are challenging belief.
It would be different if Ruth were imprisoning you for your beliefs. Maybe the thought is that this sort of mockery is the thin end of the wedge as far as freedom of belief? (I'm not being sardonic -- I'm genuinely puzzled.)
I would never in a million years deny that the basic tenet of any human spirituality is that we must act lovingly toward one another. I would also say that an equally important concept is that of free will and individual choice. We won't all act lovingly toward one another. Some of us will actively choose to hurt. I guess my POV, weird though it may sound, is that I think that while we should actively encourage loving thought and action, if I am supporting my right to behave lovingly, I need to also support others' rights to behave as they wish to do. Their journey is not mine. I may perhaps assist someone by example, or by counsel if I am asked, but I don't feel that it's my place to deny someone's right to be less than loving. Someone else's unlovingness does not take away my right to be loving.
I have now officially ceased to make any sense whatsoever, so I'm going to shut up.
I am simply giving my opinion (based upon my experience with people who viciously attack Christians for being Christians) as to why Ruth wrote what she did in the article and many of her subsequent comments. There may be some source for her anger against Christians - I still pose that there is a high probability that Ruth feels that some Christians in the past (or perhaps the Christian God himself) did her wrong - I'm sure if she were to put in her two cents (and be honest about it) she would agree.
I find it interesting that you consider my speculations about Ruth's motives as a "personal attack" on her, while you don't seem to see why some would consider her article as a "personal attack" on them as believing Christians. Please step out of the box and look at this objectively. I was not offended personally (mainly for the same reasons David Rochester was not - see his comments in Ruth's article for a further elaboration of this...), but I can certainly see why many would be offended personally. Posting her article was in poor taste and showed a complete lack of responsibility - I believe that's what Satish is saying in this article.
Ludolf, you said in a previous comment that you were a pretty easy-going guy, but your comments in the last post certainly make it seem like you are upset - you say that you won't comment any more on this point - please don't run away from this discussion. I never once said that Ruth was a poor writer - I just believe that the particular article in question was "trash" - I'm not making an overall judgment about her writing ability for all time or commenting on ALL articles that she's written.
I also have to ask this - if you're not upset, then why do you write in all caps? I believe there is a feature on most people's web browser that allow them to expand the size of the page if the text is too small.
Finally, you must be 1,500 years old to have so many titles bestowed upon you (but your picture shows a young man). Please don't take this the wrong way - I just couldn't resist commenting on two things that I know many others must be chuckling about (the all caps situation and your 20+ titles).
Take care.
This is the problem and I am glad that you have defined it so well. Her intent was to mock and I find fault in it and in her as a result. I care about her as a person but it must be noticed that her intent was to harm, incite, mock, etc. It does not weaken my faith. But there may be some who would be injured by this and that is why I speak out.
My personal motto.
Great words of wisdom - I agree with everything you said in your latest post.
Amen brother!
While I am sorry that your feelings were hurt, I will maintain that the title of the article should have been a clue that it was not something you would want to read and when you got to a point where you clearly saw it was not an article for you, you could have stopped. You did not. So I don't think there is validity in your outrage. We all have a right to write what we feel. If we are constantly watching out for toes we might step on, nothing would ever be written.
I don't think Mary (or I) are arguing from a angry or malicious position. At best we are discussion this issue (so eloquently raised by Satish).
You certainly couldn't consider our discussion as "arguing" about it - given that you knee deep in the discussion.
To often we focus on the aspect of Christianity that says: You must turn the other cheek, mind your own business, pay your taxes and go to church. There is so much more to being a Christian (a follower of Christ).
Jesus Christ was not mamby pamby! He was a revolutionary who stood up for justice and spoke up to those steeped in religious tradition. He called a spade a spade and was not afraid to go toe to toe with hypocrites and religious leaders of His day.
Jesus has not changed and because He lives on in and through His followers; He may manifest these same qualities through His disciples. Do not think it strange that one would stand on a rooftop and proclaim the truth with boldness. Jesus did this and so must I.
Ronald -- it's OK with me if people make assumptions or categorize me incorrectly; I don't really mind that. I strongly prefer not to self-define, for the reason I mentioned above, which may sound a little nuts, but I definitely don't mind being categorized as nuts. I would prefer to sit on the fence about some things, precarious though that position might be, than to fall off on one side or the other and find myself unable to see over the fence. The view's not bad up here, even if I do have splinters in my bottom.
I will tell you what I think about Jesus as God, though. I can't back it up with anything except my own non-logical understanding of what Jesus' teachings were, and how I interpret them in light of my own spirituality. I think that, as in the case of many spiritual figures, there was what Jesus said and meant, and then there was what the people around him understood and wrote down. I think we tend to take Scripture far, far too literally. I think that Jesus was the son of God, and was God, to exactly the same extent that we all are; but he was far more aware of the potential of his own inborn divinity, and was able to completely trust and manifest it in a way that most of us are not able to do. I think that God, or a divine spirit, is in each of us; that we are spiritual beings having a bodily experience; that each of us is both fully human and fully divine.
I can't back this up with anything rational; it's not a rational belief . . . no belief is rational; it can't be. But it's the reason why I don't think it matters whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or hatched from a swamp. I don't think that Jesus was different from any other great spiritual master, but he expressed his understanding of himself a little differently . . . or perhaps the people around him, or the cluster of people who wrote the Gospels after his death, chose to express his understanding of himself in that way. I don't think that the writing of the New Testament was devoid of human agenda. But again, all this is simply what I believe, and I have no doubt that on many levels it is offensive to traditional Christians, who would regard me as irresponsible to think in this way.
But I don't mind if people think I'm wrong; my personal belief system makes a lot of sense to me, and it works for me, and it's guided me through some very hard things.
RE: the satire -- no, I haven't posted any satire on a controversial subject; I don't consider myself a satirist. I can recommend a good one, though: try Evelyn Waugh's amazing book The Loved One .
I don't think anything Mary (or I) have said implies that we believe Ruth's "right" to post whatever her free will leads her to post, should be taken away. I have not read in any of Mary's comments that she was calling for Ruth to be censored from Gather.com.
I think that it a key point. I know that Mary believes Ruth has the right to post whatever article her free will leads her to and that her right to do so should not be taken away. However, we equally have the right to exercise our own free will in discussing her article and our beliefs about her motives for posting article (because clues about people's motives are present in their words - for those who are able to read between the lines and see a common thread in a persons or group of persons comments given certain stimuli).
I don't believe we are engaging in a personal attack, Ruth is perfectly at liberty to get involed in this discussion about her article - I feel pretty certain (given her comments in her article in question) that she is simply choosing not to get involved - when you do that you run the risk of others speculating about you and your motives - it is inevitable.
We must maintain a sense of fairness and equity here - if Ruth has to right to publish her article, we have the right to comment on it until we are blue in the face - if we choose to do so.
Right on.
What's a little girl like you reading such trashy articles containing dirty language in the commentary!!!
Oh, I'm sorry, the picture display is probably not representative of your true age.
Corina - read between the lines, Ruth's intent was obviously to bash Christians and their beliefs. Even if you don't agree with 98% of the Bible (or the Catholic Church's doctrine), you must see her article as insensitive.
I agree she has a right to publish such articles, but I would like to think she would at least have remained calm so that her facts within the very premise of her article would have been accurate (as they were not). I began reading her article with an open mind. Unfortunately, I immediately recognized an error in her premise, then the article degraded into bashing of all things Christian - this doesn't convince of anything that she's saying in her article.
I too am searching for the truth and I am also keeping an open mind about everything in the Bible. I have found many inconsistencies in the Bible myself (to deny their existence is foolish and fundamentalism - which I am against). But, posting the type of article that Ruth did doesn't help anyone get closer to the truth about the virgin birth - it just further divides.
Ludolf said earlier (and I agree with this wholeheartedly) that he does not support religious wars. I believe that this sort of direct insensitivity present in her article (and Ruth's comments toward people discussing the negative aspects of her article) foster a spirit of war, not one of peace.
If would could just reason together on these issues (which I believe is actually here with David Rochester, Ludolf, Mary & Satish), then I believe that's the true path to understanding and reaching peaceful coexistence between people with different beliefs. No one person has exactly the same beliefs.
Have you read any of Spinoza's 4 works - your belief system seems very much like his. He was passionate about God (called a "God intoxicated man"), but he believed God was in everything and everyone and not specifically a being separate on any level from all of creation - this seems like your belief.
Of course, this belief system is opposed to the belief system that states that Jesus was God and that we can never be or become God - although God (through Jesus and His Holy Spirit) are ever drawing us close to Him because of his Love for us - this demonstrates our dependence upon us.
I realize that most people (especially most Christians) don't really grasp the subtle nuances of this concept. Furthermore, I understand why you (and Spinoza) believe as you do becuase it is a way to reconsile the idea of God being responsible for all things (being their original cause) and that no thing can exist without God.
It would seem that on a fundamental level, your belief system is probably very much in line with Satish's (but I could be mistaken about this).
I don't disagree with this at all . . . I do wonder what we (including me) are trying to accomplish, however. I know that nobody has denied Ruth's right to publish what she wants to publish, but there is a pretty strong assertion that in doing so, she's done something wrong. The point may not be that she can't, but the judgment is still there that she shouldn't. It is the reasons for the shouldn't that I am still failing to get, possibly because I'm just plain stupid . . . I am very stupid about obvious things a lot of the time. I still don't understand why it matters that she chose to be hurtful, unless a judgment is being made about her right to choose to be hurtful . . . and that's a judgment I personally don't feel comfortable making.
All I really know is that I need some lunch and maybe a nap.
Definitely needing a nap.
HI THERE JUST DID THE CAPS NOT TO SHOUT BUT INITIALLY TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM THE QUOTED POINTS I WAS RELPYING TO.
whoops
i am 53 - i was 50 when the picture was taken. yes i look damn good for my age lolol. mary you are right and i see your point, however david seems to be the "diplomatic" one i love what he says and how,. i am not an intellectual and cannot express myself as well as all of you. sorry.
my titles are just the different steps in masonry - i am a 32 degree mason and worked hard for it. i have been for some decades now - we are sometimes known as pagans and devil worshippers and idolators just as hindus are sometimes too - however i firmly belive jesus lived and he was a good man. - i wasn ot offended by the original article however i can see why many would be - however when we join gather or any on line community we should be open that a variety of things might appear which might displease us. cest la vie. i really dont want to attack anyone for what they write - as long as its not about my daughter my sister my mother or my wife i will probably turn the other cheek. i wont run from this discussion - however each to his own andhopefully they will do it with good intent and love in their heart and if not - - fuck em!! [modern day metaphorical and metaphysical term for turning the other cheek in an artistic but very literal manner] if your faith is unwaivering and you feel you are right then take pity upon those who are not as enlightened.
this is why i prefer to be a painter - cos i make a lousy writer........................although my abstract has been scoffed at by many!! peace love harmony and UNDERSTANDING!!!
i am not running from this but just a little exhausted, bearing in mind god spared me from death 2 months ago and my neck is hanging on by a thread. oh well.
according to grhama greene thereare the pious and the Pious - i believe [in spite of my titles -lolol- that it is not the nomenclature or appearance or dress which makes the person but the demeanour and the action and reaction. having read this seeral times i beleive we are all trying to achieve a similar objective from a variety of directions and that all who posted here are posting from their heart as grown up humans and without malice. again if not fuck em!!
;-))
You can read this feature as an article in its own right, or you can use it as the basis for an event in a church, campus group, home group etc. It was first presented in this way by David Couchman at Above Bar Church, Southampton, on Sunday 22nd October 2001. This article may also be reproduced in print or on web sites, subject to the copyright notice below.
Introduction
This is an opportunity to think about and discuss the issue of tolerance - a very important issue today. I have subtitled it 'A strange reversal?' The reason for this subtitle will become clear later.
To get our thinking moving, I would like to make three points:
(1) In the past, in most societies in the world, there was a single, over-arching framework that defined what people believed and how they lived. In the Russian world, this was communism; in the Middle East, it was Islam; in the Western world, it was Christianity. But today, the Christian framework has been replaced in the West by a society of many different beliefs and value systems. So we live in a multi-cultural and pluralistic society. At least three elements have combined to create this society:
Television - we see people from other parts of the world on TV.
Travel - we have opportunities to visit other parts of the world.
Migration - our neighbors often come from other parts of the world. The junior school that my daughters attended had pupils of about thirty different nationalities, representing six major world religions. Our current neighbors are Muslims; our neighbors a few years ago were Hindus.
As a result of these things, we are much better informed about other people than our parents or grandparents were. We know more about what they believe and how they live. This must be a good thing.
In saying that we live in a multi-cultural, pluralistic society, I am not saying this is a bad thing - in fact I think it is a good thing. But, for the purpose of this discussion, it is just an observation - this is how things are.
In our multi-cultural, pluralist society, tolerance has become the most important virtue of all. Someone once said, 'I believe in everyone's right to believe in whatever they want to believe in.' The expression may be a bit incoherent, but we would all agree with the underlying sentiment. Or, as Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently, 'We shall be intolerant of prejudice and bigotry.'I recently came across a web site devoted to promoting tolerance, www.tolerance.org
Let's say straight away that this kind of tolerance is both right and important. Of course, tolerance is often linked to the rights of groups that have been persecuted or marginalized in the past. It is linked to
Gender issues
Race issues
Gay rights
Again, I think it's important to say that there have been (and still are) huge injustices in these areas, and it is both right and important that these injustices are addressed.
But today, it seems to me that many people see the opposite of tolerance not as intolerance, but simply as believing something. So we come to see believing something - anything - as being dangerous in its own right. The Nazis believed something, and six million Jews died, as a result. The Stalinists believed something, and millions were sent to the Gulags in consequence. And, for example, we see the terrorists who flew the suicide attacks into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as dangerous maniacs, because they actually believed something enough to die for it. We do not see them as dangerous because of what they believed, but just because they believed anything with that level of commitment.
So we have become suspicious and skeptical of any kind of claim to know the truth.
One key contemporary thinker, Jean-Francois Lyotard, said that people today are characterized by an: 'incredulity towards metanarratives.' Or in plain English, we are suspicious of truth claims.
Another key thinker, Michel Foucault, says that claims to know the truth are always grabs for power. You simply cannot separate truth and power.
The recent Manic Street Preachers album titled: 'This is my truth; tell me yours' carries the same message. We all have different truths. You have yours; I have mine. It is OK to tell me your truth, but not to try to inflict in on me - that is fascist!
So my first point is that the importance of tolerance in a multi-cultural society has become linked to a cynicism about truth claims. My other two points can be covered much more briefly:
(2) Christianity does make a sweeping truth claim. It is very important to understand this. We cannot avoid it by saying that choosing to be a follower of Christ is just a lifestyle decision: 'You choose to be a follower of Christ; I choose to be into new age meditation. It's just a lifestyle choice, a matter of treading different spiritual paths. I'm glad you've found something that helps you cope with life, but it isn't for me.'
But we cannot say that. The Good News of Jesus Christ does claim to be objective truth - true for everyone; true whether or not anyone believes it. Either it is universally important, or its complete and utter rubbish. It is not just a lifestyle decision.
(3) Today, followers of Christ are often seen as intolerant and bigoted, simply because they believe something.
For most people today, truth is just a matter of opinion: 'What is true for you need not be true for me too. Your faith is just your private affair. If it works for you that's fine - for you. But don't you dare push it down my throat.'
In the past, people attacked the Good News of Jesus Christ by saying that it was not true. The challenge was: How can you be so stupid? But increasingly today, they see this Good News as outrageous, immoral, and oppressive, precisely because it does claim to be true for everyone. The challenge now is: 'How can you be so arrogant?'
So here are three points, to get our thinking started:
Tolerance is linked to a cynicism about all truth claims
The Good News of Jesus Christ does make a sweeping truth claim
Followers of Christ are seen as intolerant and bigoted: 'What right do you have to shove your beliefs down my throat?'
Questions for discussion starters
How do you define tolerance?
Is it possible to have shared moral values in a pluralistic society that does not have shared beliefs? If so, how?
If you think you know what is 'true for everyone', can you avoid becoming intolerant and bigoted?
If - as followers of Christ believe - there really is a God, and He really has spoken uniquely through Jesus Christ, how does this affect questions of truth and tolerance?
In closing
In the past, people understood tolerance as accepting other people for who they are, giving them the same rights we have to hold their own beliefs and live their own lifestyles (although those beliefs are different from ours, and we think they are misguided).
Tolerance was an attitude towards other people and their rights - it had nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of their beliefs. This kind of tolerance means I should welcome my Muslim neighbor, and extend to her the same rights and dignity that I want her - and society - to extend to me. It does not mean that I have to pretend I think Islam is a true description of the way the universe is.
Today, by a strange reversal, tolerance has come to mean not disagreeing with anyone. Blandly pretending that all beliefs and all lifestyles really are equally valid. You have your truth; I have mine.
But this is nonsense.
In practice, we do not think that something can be true for you but not for me. We know that some things are true whether or not anyone believes them. You can stand on top of a tower block, and look over the edge, and say 'Gravity may be true for you, but it isn't true for me.' But if you jump off, you will descend towards the ground with just the same acceleration, whether or not you believe in gravity - because gravity describes the way the universe really is, whether we like it or not. The message of the Bible claims to be the same kind of truth as the law of gravity - to describe how the universe really is.
In practice, we do not tolerate everything. We do not seriously think that pedophilia is acceptable. We do not think it was OK for those terrorists to attack the World Trade Center, because they were just working out the implications of what was true for them, and making their own lifestyle decisions.
We know intuitively that some things really are true, and some things really are right. Not just true for me, or right for me, but always true and always right. One question you might want to ask is: where did these moral values come from? In a naturalistic universe, it is impossible to account for them.
We need to get back to that earlier understanding of tolerance as accepting other people for who they are, giving them the same rights we have to hold their own beliefs and live their own lifestyles. This kind of tolerance is characterized by the words of the philosopher Voltaire - himself no friend of Christianity - who said
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
But the contemporary view of tolerance - that all beliefs and lifestyles really are equally valid, has two huge problems:
(1) If there is no real truth, there is no reason for me to be tolerant
Without some kind of beliefs which causes me to value you a person, even though I disagree with you, why should I be tolerant towards you? If you are getting in my way, why should I not walk over you, if I have the power to do so? I need a reason to be tolerant.
Contemporary tolerance is like a cartoon character who has run over the edge of the cliff, and is still running for all he is worth, without yet realizing that there is nothing underneath him holding him up.
We need a belief that provides freedom and dignity for the individual, so that we do accept other people whose beliefs and lifestyles are different from ours.
(2) If there is no real truth, we cannot place any limits on tolerance
If society is to be able to function, we need some shared beliefs that will move us to value other people as people, even when they disagree with us, but which will also enable us to put limits on our individual freedom of choice, for the good of society as a whole.
The question is, how can you set those limits in a society where there are no shared beliefs?
We need a moral law, to which we are all accountable, (and thus which allows us to say that pedophilia, or mass murder, are wrong always and everywhere, not just in some times and some places).
Where is such a belief to come from? I want to hold up for consideration the possibility that the Bible's message holds the answer to this question.
Only the Good News of Jesus Christ provides a balance of form and freedom. There is a real moral framework over and above us and our laws, because it is given by God, and yet the individual is respected as a person made in God's image. Even God respects our individual rights.
So there is clear freedom - and mutual respect and tolerance. The message of the Bible provides a reason for me to be tolerant towards my Muslim neighbor More than tolerance, it teaches me to love my neighbor just as I love myself. And not just to love my neighbor, but even to love my enemy.
Yet at the same time it gives me a reason to say to the pedophile or the mass murderer, 'no, that is unacceptable.' There is a clear framework of what is morally allowable. There is a real basis for moral decisions, because there is a God-given law.
Several times, I have made the point that the Good News claims to be true for everyone, true whether or not we believe it. I would like to come back to this point as we close.
It claims to be true because it is not just made up by humans, but revealed by God - a God who really is there, and who really has spoken, most of all through Jesus Christ.
If you are not a follower of Christ, I would like to ask you to suspend your disbelief for a moment, and ask yourself this:
What if the message of the Bible really is true after all?
What if there really is a God who made us?
What if we are morally accountable to him?
What if he holds our future in his hands?
What if our greatest problem is that we are in the wrong before him - that we are morally guilty?
What if this God has, at great cost to himself, sent his only son to live and die on the Earth to deal with the problem of our guilt and separation from him - to make it possible for us to become his children?
If that really is true - if it describes how the universe actually is, just like the law of gravity - then nothing can be more important than for people to know that, and to have the opportunity to get right with this God. It means that the message of the Bible is not just 'true for me', but true for all of us. And it provides a real basis for society to function in a stable way, with both form, and freedom - law, and liberty.
Now you may say: 'That's all very well; I can see that if the message of the Bible were true, it would provide these things, but you haven't said anything yet that would convince me that it is true.'
That is right - and to answer the question of whether the message of the Bible is true, you need to look at the various kinds of evidence for it. But let me underline that this is a matter of history and evidence. As we've been at pains to emphasize, it is not just a lifestyle decision, or a matter of what 'works for you.'
The trouble is that many people today have, it seems to me, rejected the Bible's message not because they have looked at the evidence and found that it falls short, but because they have decided in advance that any claim to know the truth in this area is arrogant and intolerant, and so they have not even bothered to look at the evidence. Increasingly, in our 'tolerant' society, following Christ is not tolerated. We claim that we have open minds, but we close our minds to the claims of Christ.
I am not trying to get you to join a particular church or organization. I am certainly not trying to turn you into a fundamentalist or a bigot. But I would like to invite you to examine the evidence for the Good News of Jesus Christ carefully and fairly, and to make up your own mind whether it is true - and if so, what you need to do about it.
To read more on this subject, see either Jock McDowell's book 'The New Tolerance', or Dennis McCallum's 'The Death of Truth'.
Copyright notice
You may use this article in print or on a web site, subject to the following limitations:
The article is reproduced in its entirety, without variation.
There is a link back to this site.
There is a copyright notice crediting Focus Radio for this article, and including these conditions.
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/tolerance.htm
I read this article, but didn't read the other, and couldn't get thru all these comments either. Free will is a nice thing, the problem seems to be a lack of self-governing.
On the article which gave inspiration to this one, I have a somewhat more "American" approach. Freedom of speech is sacred here. The author has every right to write such an article, and the commenters that joined in with expressions of support have the very same right.
Any (including myself) that choose to express critical views on the article likewise have every right. The author and commenters that claimed such expressions of disapproval were inappropriate, because there were humorous aspects to the article, again have every right to say that.
Any that wished to point out the incredibly hypocritical quality of the position that freedom of speech gave the right to publish speech that might cause some to feel badly, but turned right around and claimed that those that felt bad should not say so, because it took the fun out of saying the things that made others feel badly, had every right to do so.
You get to be disrespectful in your speech as much as the law allows, which in these parts is quite a lot. And I get to come and call you insensitive and irrational and hypocritical. I see no problem.
If you don't want me to come and rain on your parade, don't have one. If I do come, I will not be much impressed by your claims that you don't feel compelled to be considerate about what you piss on, but I must be careful not to ask you to stop, or mention that you're childish and mean-spirited for pissing on other peoples feelings.
You can't have it both ways. Freedom is freedom, hypocrites.
I agree about 99.9% with what I remember of what David Rochester has said here. I agree with most of what Ludolf has said also (and I have read and understand the book of Pike for the 32nd or 33rd degree). All of that has informed my own Spirituality to the degree that I have written my own BOOK about it all.
Truth is subjective. Facts are objective and thus seldom truth. (go ahead and complain Ronald H) ... I feel that in reference to this article, that the symbols used for religious purposes are really only objective items used as sacraments for symbolization of the much deeper esoteric truths that are subjective ... and for the real knower of such truths there is nothing to be feared in any issue made by another. Truth is truth and it cannot be hurt or destroyed because it is of God and God's UNconditional love.
Only those that do not really know of such truth will be upset because they fear some kind of threat to their own defiantly held 'faith' in their authority provided dogma and creed that they claim faith in for lack of real experience.
It is in their own interest and the interest of this world that some of those be challenged on occasion ... that is what has brought on these discussions and all of the opinions in the comments that can then be considered to broaden the horizons of those that could really use it.
Satish feels that historic research is OK in questioning religious concepts ... but I would ask what is so special about ancient history ? Most of it has been so polluted and distorted as to be hardly close to what actually is represented.
Why could not some people have more current and relevant revelations from the spiritual realm that could shed some new light on old beliefs that have caused wars and confusion for millenia now ?
Far too many people stake their all on shallow exoteric objective perceptions that they Dualistically see. (+/-)
When (+=-) is what the Trinity they speak, of without real understanding, is all about. This is the essence of it all, a transcendent way of understanding that is deeper, esoteric, yet subjective, because it comes from God via Spirit and is all about Balance as Perfection based upon UNconditional Love.
All would do themselves a real favor to look into this and consider it's implications. IT is the Truth that will set you free !
If you deny this without the research to really know, it will just be an ignorant denial. I challenge all to find out. Your eternity may well depend upon it.
Peace, j.
If you go back to my last comment before I wound up for the night, you'll read the example of the pen and how it cuts at the root of what we call objective truth. The objective truth about the pen is that it is billions of electrons going around billions of nuclei. Similarly, what we call green colour is the interpretation of a certain neuro-sensory phenomenon by our brain. If there were another race of living creatures with a totally different system of senses, they might perceive colour quite differently, making a mockery of the objectiveness of our sensory experience. Therefore, what you are calling objective is actually widely shared subjective experience. Looked at from this point of view there is nothing that we could call absolutely objective. If I were to say to you now that we are not actually interacting over the internet at all. We are in fact creatures of another universe where we are seeing a very powerful video which directly communicates signals to your brain and you get a feeling that you are doing what you are in fact only experiencing as neural signals, will you be able to contradict me?
The point is: human senses and human logic have limitations, and, that is what brings in other methods of cognising Truth. Unfort