Like your post of yesterday, which is so un-preachy, right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't usually post this sort of thing, but...
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Of course, it was in reply that all scholars are evil and should not be followed per a person who accepts the Quran. It was in a debate. But your post makes it sound good to have actions, which is good, but so is teaching truth an important thing. Guidance regarding matters both seen and unseen is important, not just actions.
It's a false dichotomy. It's like attacking vegetables in praise of meat. Why not have both?
idea
Question Everything
I would add... show it to me in how you treat other people and from your own personal life - how have you handled your life? Hard working? Educated? Life experiences - how do you handle health issues, how do you handle losing a job, natural disasters, war. If we go camping, can you handle cooking over a fire? Do you enjoy nature? Do you have smile or frown lines on your face?
Are you a happy, optimistic, upbeat, peace-filled kind of person?
Charity is great but limited - in the end everyone has to be self-reliant, no borrowed light, only so much you can do for others... the evidence is in their own life, their own family. - circumstances vary, nature/nurture. - considering their environment, how have they done? Found peace?
You can only claim something is "truth" when you can demonstrate that it is true. Otherwise, you are claiming that what you believe without evidence is truth, and that is preaching. People of every faith that ever existed on earth, or every political pursuasion, or every philosophical school of thought can do the same -- but none of them can make the claim to be "truth" until they can provide the evidence for it being true. All such claims are beliefs only, and therefore no more necessary for anyone else to accept than any other. They are all preachments.
That is what Cory Booker is getting at in the OP. I know many people who claim that they carry "the love of Jesus" in their hearts, and then villify a neighbour for their sexual orientation -- or for having a different faith -- and I know they are lying. I know it because their actions betray the falseness of their words.
So far so good.
What if there is evidence, insights, proofs, leading to the truth of one these religions? How do you know?
Condemning is normal things humans do. You are doing it right now. I say it's fine, religions and even lack of it and talking against it brings emotions, any moral issue should bring emotions. Some of can be negative evaluation of that if the thing is negative (hate). What I would say is hate and condemnation has a proper place with forbearance and tolerance. When people go all out without tempering with forbearance and compassion, it can become ugly.
My take on this is the statement is paradoxical. It's a viewpoint itself. He is not acting by words but preaching his views as well. It sounds nice to emphasize on actions, fine, but this doesn't mean no philosophizing and that people of religions should not dialogue with others about their viewpoints.
Quran tends to not be self-oriented in that it doesn't just talk about morals and own beliefs. It talks about with viewpoints that oppose it from all different views. It's dialectic with all opposing views.
Well, I'll try to answer you:
Hard working? I'm 76 and still work for a living -- not because I have to, but because I like to.
I had a hard time getting an education, because being abandoned by the Children's Aid at 17, and still suffering the emotional damage of a battered childhood, I couldn't manage it. However, I continued to learn, earning first a Registered Industrial Accountant certification, and later a degree from York University by going at night for several years after work.
I take care of my health, I've lost jobs and bounced back better than before, working my way to Vice-President of Information Technology for a majory global financial institution.
I've not suffered any natural disasters, except a bad spine for which I've required surgery, nor war. I love camping, and I've even made coq au vin over a wood fire, and love nature. And my face has smile lines -- I don't know how, but I have managed to be a cheerful and upbeat person for most of my adult life, once I'd left my childhood behind by absolutely forgiving those who treated me ill when I was very young.
My philosophy of humanism suits me very well, and I am always ready to help those in need, and I at least make an effort every day to leave a trail of smiles behind me as I interact with others.
But I have no religion.
Not sure I deserve those remarks -- I was trying to be kind to you. But if that's how you feel...
Yep ...
No, I am not. Nowhere did I say that anything was "wrong," nowhere did I condemn anything. I only made the point that you cannot declare anything "true" that you cannot demonstrate to be "true," one way or another.
Here:
I know many people who claim that they carry "the love of Jesus" in their hearts, and then villify a neighbour for their sexual orientation -- or for having a different faith -- and I know they are lying. I know it because their actions betray the falseness of their words.
Nope. If you say that you have "the love of Christ," and then tell a gay person "you should be taken out and shot," or tell an atheist "you are going to hell," you are lying. This is actually a truth, demonstrated in itself.
The "love of Christ" actually means "the love of Jesus Christ for humanity, the love of Christians for Christ, and the love of Christians for others." If that's what it means, and you don't love others as they are, then you do not have the "love of Christ."
Note: I did not say they were "wrong." I said they were lying.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
You were not being kind. You were prejudging based on a stereotype. And you put that stereotype on me. If you aren't aware of that, you needed that wakeup call.
It's a great example of what I was writing about. You want to be kind? That's your stated intention? I'm telling you, "you're going the wrong way." And I told you that, and you're hurt by it? Do you want to be kind or not?
Don't stereotype Jews like that. Don't stereotype anyone like that. Based on clothes? You can tell by their clothes? Yo. That's a terrible way to judge people.
Book =\= Cover
Everyone knows this.
You are condemning them for that no matter how much you try to obtuse the matter.
You need to read that post again, because apparently you did not read the words that I wrote. Nowhere did I prejudge. I did not say "I can tell by their clothes," I said "I can often get a clue," and followed that IMMEDIATELY with "those things are irrelevant to me."
But until you can learn to read with comprehension, I think that I shall bid you farewell. I find your comments and the way you state them make me uncomfortable.
We Never Know
No Slack
Its a long version of actions speak louder than words.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I quoted you. You said you could tell a person's religious beliefs by their clothes. Then you assumed that when I'm out helping people I'm wearing a kippah.
If they were irrelevant, your post would not have included them, nor would you have gone back to the kippah after the sentence about irrelevance.
Look, if I'm wrong, and you want to be kind, avoid doing what you did. If you don't want to be kind, and you really don't care about how you sound to others, say so, and what you wrote is a not so much of an issue. I can easily get over it, it just made me laugh and roll my eyes at the ignorant stereotype. If I were to guess, you think you're overwhelmingly immune to prejudice and stereotyping? Am I right?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Understood. What you are observing is unfiltered honesty. You are surrounded by people all day who will lick your wounds, and pat your bottom, and give you belly scratches. But how many of them will give you unfiltered honesty? I love you, so much, I will be honest with you, even if it means you hate me afterwards. Think about that.
There is no truer friend, than the one who will be honest without any filter. And that is a fact. You will have better friends, whom you like much much more. But none will be truer.
Speaks like most of the politicians, "...interested in... ...how you give." For politicians people are like cows, it is about how much they can "milk" from people. And obviously those who give easily lot of money, are the best for them.
But, make no mistake, I think it is good and nice, if people give their money for those who would not get it in no other way. But, perhaps money should not be the only thing matters.
That's what you read out of that? Wow!Speaks like most of the politicians, "...interested in... ...how you give." For politicians people are like cows, it is about how much they can "milk" from people. And obviously those who give easily lot of money, are the best for them.
But, make no mistake, I think it is good and nice, if people give their money for those who would not get it in no other way. But, perhaps money should not be the only thing matters.
I think most religion today has become egotistical and disinterested in love and unity.