Religious tolerance and the doctrine of an eternal hell for disbelievers.

[Stonetree]

@Pancho Frijoles, respectfully, this a topic better addressed to the organized religions that continue dogma that came into being before crucifixion. Water purifying the Soul of a sin committed by mythical characters is still accepted as Truth by organized religion. Churches against birth control in poor African countries is a disgrace. IMO

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because some religious organizations promote the idea of eternal torture in a real hot burning place does not mean it's true, according to God and a real understanding of what the Bible says. But using a metaphor, that's what makes the world go round.

 

[mangalavara]

To me, a hypocritical respect is thinking "I won't harm you here and now because of your religion, because that would bring me problems... but you deserve to be harmed later, at a place called hell, by a person known as God, because you don't believe the doctrines I believe"

That is indeed a hypocritical form of respect. To respect a person (in this context) is to have a high regard or consideration for them. Naturally, such regard or consideration entails benevolent feelings about that person. Therefore, thinking, ‘This person deserves to suffer everlastingly for having a different religion’ is a form of thinking that is incompatible with fully respecting the person. Full respect, on the other hand, is consistent.

True respect is thinking "I won't harm you, because I am convinced that no one should do harm to you because of your religion, now or in the future, here or anywhere".

I agree.

How do you think that the doctrine of eternal hell for people from other religions interferes with Interfaith dialogue or daily interactions with people from all faiths?

I have co-workers who are Christians. So far, none of them have ‘warned’ me about damnation nor have any of them mistreated me in a way to demonstrate that I am a ‘heathen’ or whatever. On the surface, there are no interferences based on religious beliefs in our interactions. When it comes to what is in their minds, I really don’t know. If they believe that I should be damned, it doesn’t offend me the slightest. At the same time, I am sorry if that sort of belief causes them any mental/emotional suffering.

So I keep thinking: How can you know that someone really respects you, if he/she believes you deserve to burn in hell because of your religion?
How to cooperate in common projects at work, at colleage, at business? How to build a strong, peaceful community where everyone feels valued?

I don’t know. Any measures for that would be totalitarian in nature.

Perhaps such a common citizen did not inflict any direct harm and treated them as he would treat any other person… but approved that others (their supreme leaders) sent them to forced labor camps.
Was this true respect?

A civilian member of the Nazi party acting benevolently toward a Jew yet approving of the same Jew being sent to forced labor for being a Jew is hypocritical. Being hypocritical, that supporter does not truly respect the Jewish fellow. To demonstrate full respect, that person would leave the party and speak against Antisemitism.

Perhaps most Evangelical fundamentalists who claim to believe that Jews or Muslims will burn in hell for ever DO NOT actually believe those things in their hearts. What do you think?

I suspect that some of them—and many Christians in general—do not like that belief. Nonetheless, they subscribe to it because it is taught by the Church and they want to be consistent in their faith.

Personally, I like how Eastern Orthodox theologians interpret the everlasting fire. From the divine perspective, it is not a punishment nor anything to do with justice. Rather, God is the ‘fire’ and the ‘heat’ is his love. The ‘torment’ felt by the sinners is psychological. If Western Christians were to adopt this understanding of the everlasting fire, they might go from thinking, ‘This person deserves to be tormented for having a lack of belief’ to, ‘This person will ultimately experience God’s presence and love but they won’t like any of it.’

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

How do you think that the doctrine of eternal hell for people from other religions interferes with Interfaith dialogue or daily interactions with people from all faiths?

Picking apart somebody else’s culture to match our own biases and stereotypes is disrespectful and dangerous.

It’s a very short step from there to violence and ethnic cleansings.

It creates mutual fear.

By the way, you do know where all the best parties are, don’t you?

(And Johnny Cash makes one hell of a preacher!)

"Devil Comes Back to Georgia" feat. Mark O'Connor with Daniels, Cash, Tritt and Marty Stuart​

 

[ajay0]

How do you think that the doctrine of eternal hell for people from other religions interferes with Interfaith dialogue or daily interactions with people from all faiths?

The doctrine of eternal hell is a good fear-motivator. Both Christianity and Islam have this doctrine, and might explain the violent crusades and jihads . Extreme fear is bound to result in hatred and violence.

Fear of eternal hell can lead to fanaticism and high enthusiasm for the cause, with the primary instinctive objective being to save one's own hide and get a passport to eternal heaven if possible. This could be the reason why teachings of peace and nonviolence in these religions are overlooked.

Since the concept of eternal hell is inherently violent, the mindsets harboring this belief are also bound to be violent and dualistic . So it is bound to be a challenge for interfaith dialogue which requires a balanced mindset.

There are heavenly and hellish dimensions in Hinduism and Buddhism, but they are considered to be of a temporary nature due to the finite nature of karma. As the Self or Buddha nature is considered to be there within all human beings, this innate divinity is obviously incompatible with an eternal hell.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Since the concept of eternal hell is inherently violent, the mindsets are also bound to be violent and dualistic . So it is bound to be a challenge for interfaith dialogue which requires a balanced mindset.

How would you suggest engaging in interfaith dialogue with such a violent culture of war, where non-violence is a lifestyle, not a tactic?

Just because somebody’s religion is a religion of war doesn’t make them evil people.

I’d suggest that sciences like anthropology and historiography be used in order to dispel stereotypes that folks have about cultures whose religion is a religion of war. (Not every culture is on good terms with those sciences, due to the histories of those disciplines, but I don’t run into those sorts of problems, due to my rather narrow focus.)

Maybe they have something to teach us about war and non-violence.

The key to respectful interfaith communication is to treat other cultures as fully human, not just some stereotype that we made up ourselves before the interfaith dialogue even started. That poisons the dialogue from the very start.

And always remember that just as our culture might teach that we are superior, that other culture might teach that they are superior.

And if our culture views ourselves as an objective observer of other cultures, those other cultures might view themselves as an objective observer.

Then we’re just arguing about the precise location of the center of the world.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


Sur Real - Machete y Bordón (Capítulo completo)

 

[ajay0]

The key to respectful interfaith communication is to treat other cultures as fully human, not just some stereotype that we made up ourselves before the interfaith dialogue even started. That poisons the dialogue from the very start.

Yes, the stereotype of 'heathen-kaffir-unbeliever' should be dispelled for interfaith dialogue of a productive nature.

A secular spiritual value system is useful as a benchmark to get rid of superstitious beliefs that can get entrenched in all religions with time.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yes, the stereotype of 'heathen-kaffir-unbeliever' should be dispelled for interfaith dialogue of a productive nature.

A secular spiritual value system is useful as a benchmark to get rid of superstitious beliefs that can get entrenched in all religions with time.

And a Catholic spiritual value system is useful as a benchmark to get rid of superstitious secular beliefs that can get entrenched in all secular cultures with time.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

In Interfaith dialogue, and even in daily interactions with people from all faiths, I think that an essential principle is respect.
I mean, true respect.

I am a Muslim and I agree. Respect is crucial aspect when interacting with people with other beliefs. Unfortunately I learned myself to walk away if this isn’t the case which happens to often.

To me, a hypocritical respect is thinking "I won't harm you here and now because of your religion, because that would bring me problems... but you deserve to be harmed later, at a place called hell, by a person known as God, because you don't believe the doctrines I believe"
True respect is thinking "I won't harm you, because I am convinced that no one should do harm to you because of your religion, now or in the future, here or anywhere".

Yes and no

Yes I agree that we shouldn’t think when interacting with people that they deserve hell. From an Islamic point of view a person that hasn’t accepted the Quran and the messenger Allah has sent doesn’t mean he wouldn’t accept it in the future. For myself I can’t say I will die as a Muslim, maybe in 30 years I am atheist. We shouldn’t judge a person om his beliefs since that could change. Allah judges us in the state we died in., if that makes sense.

The second part I a disagree with because when we are interacting with people we hope that person is sincere, we cannot demand how a person should think. Sure when the person reveals his thought then sure then we can talk about those beliefs but our minds are private until we decide it isn’t. I think that we should respond to actions of people rather than their thoughts.

How do you think that the doctrine of eternal hell for people from other religions interferes with Interfaith dialogue or daily interactions with people from all faiths?

It shouldn’t interfere . Allah is the one that judges us who are going to hell or heaven. Theist tend to forget that arrogance is something Allah despises. So interaction with other faith is beneficial to gain knowledge and a good way of learning other beliefs so we can live in peace. Obviously with respect

Cheers

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a Muslim and I agree. Respect is crucial aspect when interacting with people with other beliefs. Unfortunately I learned myself to walk away if this isn’t the case which happens to often.

Yes and no

Yes I agree that we shouldn’t think when interacting with people that they deserve hell. From an Islamic point of view a person that hasn’t accepted the Quran and the messenger Allah has sent doesn’t mean he wouldn’t accept it in the future. For myself I can’t say I will die as a Muslim, maybe in 30 years I am atheist. We shouldn’t judge a person om his beliefs since that could change. Allah judges us in the state we died in., if that makes sense.

The second part I a disagree with because when we are interacting with people we hope that person is sincere, we cannot demand how a person should think. Sure when the person reveals his thought then sure then we can talk about those beliefs but our minds are private until we decide it isn’t. I think that we should respond to actions of people rather than their thoughts.




It shouldn’t interfere . Allah is the one that judges us who are going to hell or heaven. Theist tend to forget that arrogance is something Allah despises. So interaction with other faith is beneficial to gain knowledge and a good way of learning other beliefs so we can live in peace. Obviously with respect

Cheers

I appreciate your peaceful attitude. It's truly a shame that not all of the various religions would have such a peaceful outlook. Thank you.