With a SO, not so much, at least in my experience anyway...
-
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!
Why?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
With a SO, not so much, at least in my experience anyway...
Indeed, with evangelizing Christians in the street e.g. I will explain to them that the teachings of Yeshua are to my understanding not about Christianity but are that of a typical Tantric master or guru.
I will also point out to them that my spiritual practices are in line with what Yeshua taught and therefore I have no need to become a Christian.
Most often these points will get them terribly upset. But making them upset is not my intention, it is their own viewpoint that causes that.
I just walk past street preachers. They are welcome to their view. I rarely engage, as experience has taught me there is no point. My dentist would be an exception, as he went through a lot when he discovered his child was gay, and came to me for some questions about how I, as a Hindu, approached that topic. He had softened a lot from his experience. Somewhere in that conversation I remember telling him I would have dropped him as a dentist a long time ago had he ever proselytized, or even brought religion up.
"Why is so difficult for many people to accept others beliefs"
Well start with a beief reading of anthropomorphism, which should lead you to "theory of mind" which is radically different than "philosophy of mind.", that should answer your question.
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
As I have said in other posts, I’m happy for folks to believe whatever it is they want it makes zero difference to me as long as 1. They don’t insult my intelligence by telling me their believe system is correct and others are wrong.
My experience tells me that Christian evangelical fundamentalist take 1st price when it comes to judging others, I guess they missed Jesus’ memo.
“Don’t judge”
My experience tells me that Christian evangelical fundamentalist take 1st price when it comes to judging others, I guess they missed Jesus’ memo.
“Don’t judge”
Last edited:
spirit_of_dawn
Active Member
People usually accept what makes sense to them. If someone's beliefs don't make sense or are incorrect there is no reason to accept them.
Just another thought ... big difference between accepting someone's beliefs, and accepting their right to have said beliefs. I rarely accept someone else's beliefs (as my own) but always accept their right to have them.
Japle
Member
I don’t set out to attack anyone’s religious beliefs, but I’m concerned about the truth.
If someone says something about a religious matter that I know isn’t true, I’ll often point out why it’s not true.
Frequently, I’ll request some evidence to back up their statement. Since, in religious matters, there’s virtually never any evidence, the other person may become upset.
Frequently, I’ll offer quotes from their own scriptures or information from scholars who have done the research and know what they’re talking about. Since religious people almost never study the history of their religious writings, they often become upset when someone contradicts their beliefs.
That’s not my intent. But if it’s the result of my request for evidence or my presentation of the facts, that’s not my problem.
If someone says something about a religious matter that I know isn’t true, I’ll often point out why it’s not true.
Frequently, I’ll request some evidence to back up their statement. Since, in religious matters, there’s virtually never any evidence, the other person may become upset.
Frequently, I’ll offer quotes from their own scriptures or information from scholars who have done the research and know what they’re talking about. Since religious people almost never study the history of their religious writings, they often become upset when someone contradicts their beliefs.
That’s not my intent. But if it’s the result of my request for evidence or my presentation of the facts, that’s not my problem.
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
I'm sure you don't and I suspect that the majority here aren't questioning your motif. The issue is that you appear to have determined what truth is and therefore when you hear things that are in conflict with what's true FOR YOU, yes, FOR YOU you attempt to correct the person who is apparently in error
That's pretty arrogant
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
There is a very clear and good answer to that actually.
The biggest problem with belief, is that is usually not based on facts! many times it is based on others' experiences and a "blind" acceptance that they speak truth.
This is a very dangerous path for humans as a society that we fail to understand that blindly believing things can cause much harm to our existence.
Most people who object other's beliefs, will do so due to the crazy inhuman actions that are practiced EVERY MINUTE on our small planet.
People are murdered, abused, tortured, raped, decapitated, ridiculed, salved, shamed and the list goes on and on, just in the name of belief!
This is what makes it very hard to accept when someone tells you he "saw the truth" or he "knows the way".
As i see it, if one's way can cause harm to others, it needs to be examined very thoroughly and be allowed to be practiced or not!
Allowing woman to be beaten because of beliefs is WRONG! I will never accept ANY excuse that suggests it is ok.
I can assure you that if people were not harmed in the name of beliefs, no one would care less what your belief is
Last edited:
Japle
Member
Oh, no. You miss my point entirely.
I don’t determine what the truth is, the evidence does that.
Believers often claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of their god, but they offer no evidence.
Not only can’t certain portions of the Bible dealing with supernatural events be proven, none of them can be proven. There are no personal first-hand accounts. Not a single one. The Gospels weren’t signed. No one knows who wrote them. The decision to name them for specific people were all guesses. Look it up.
What evidence exactly would it take to convince me that any god is real? Well, if gods are real and is as mighty as believers seem to think, it would take very little effort on their part.
A burning bush that isn’t consumed.
A pillar of smoke by day and fire by night.
A voice booming “I am that I am” from the sky.
A prophet who can turn a staff into a snake.
A man who claims that he can die and then come back to life after three days and then does it.
If God can create the Universe and has done all this stuff before, why hasn’t he done any of it lately? Could it be that the stories of him doing all that stuff are just stories?
I’m not aware of any holy writings that make verifiable claims. Few of them contain personal, first-hand accounts and those that do offer zero evidence to back them up.
There are 18 pink penguins lined up along the lake shore behind my house right now. I can feel them in my heart. If you’ll just open your mind and have faith, you’ll feel them too.
The Baha’i Faith teaches that if a man focuses on the ploughing of another, undoubtedly his own furrows will become crooked. So why do people become fixated on what they perceive to be the faults of other beliefs? A lack of spirituality within their own path.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Japle
Member
While I find the concept of “faith” fascinating, I’m far more interested in what’s objectively true. In the search for truth, faith is not only worthless, it’s damaging.
Faith gets in the way of learning. Once you’ve bought into some faith-based belief, your chances of getting past that belief and accepting what can be proven through evidence drops to near zero. You’re trapped.
I recently read Ben Franklin’s autobiography.
In 1744, Franklin had a conversation with a senior member of the Dunkers religious sect named Michael Welfare. Mr. Welfare complained that members of other sects were making up false and derogatory claims about the Dunkers and those claims were difficult to dispute, because they had to be answered one at a time.
Franklin asked why the Dunkers didn’t just “publish the articles of their belief and the rules of their discipline”. Mr. Welfare responded that, “When we were first drawn together as a society, it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time, He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive further improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving we their elders and founders had done, to be somewhat sacred, never to be departed from”.
Franklin comments: “This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth. And that those that differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho’ in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.”
We see the result of this in every religion that has published its principles and doctrine. Members are forever “bound and confined by it” and unable to change when new truths are revealed. We often see the absurd arguments people use to try and defend the myths that are written down in their holy books. Since the myths are written down, followers are trapped.
Their choices are to:
(1) Go to ridiculous lengths to defend the claims of their religion,
(2) Take the “cafeteria” approach and ignore the parts that make them uncomfortable or
(3) Simply abandon their religion.
Most, in my experience, choose number 2.
Your questions bring to mind the concept of active listening, @Amanaki. This is a basic skill that should be part of primary school, but isn't taught in as formalized of a capacity as reading and writing is. And that's a shame given how critical it is to interpersonal interactions.
When it comes to active listening - which includes asking clarifying questions like those you include in the opening post - there has to be a desire to understand. If one person doesn't care about understanding what the other person is saying, they won't practice active listening. As for why someone wouldn't be interested in understanding someone else? The reasons vary. It seems many adults lost the innate curiosity for everything they had as children, for one. Tragic, that.
When it comes to active listening - which includes asking clarifying questions like those you include in the opening post - there has to be a desire to understand. If one person doesn't care about understanding what the other person is saying, they won't practice active listening. As for why someone wouldn't be interested in understanding someone else? The reasons vary. It seems many adults lost the innate curiosity for everything they had as children, for one. Tragic, that.
Truth and faith are not mutually exclusive, but often can be. It all depends on what we have faith in of course, and we all have faith in something. You may have faith in yourself and your capacity to discover truth that transcends the imitations and limitations of belief of your ancestors.
If the God of Abraham exists, then at some point in our short lives we need to acquire faith in Him. That is inself a truth that can free us or become a prison that binds us. Until you know for certain such a God doesn’t exist, and no one does of course, then wisdom should deter us from criticism of what is beyond the comprehension of our finite minds.
This recent piece of news (which is quite the rage here in Brazil these days) may help in understanding one good reason to, at least, question other people's beliefs.
More than 200 women accuse famous Brazilian spiritual healer of sexual abuse
Mediums such as "João de Deus" are a dime a dozen here in Brazil. But this one is a particularly influential one.
A whole 20 thousand people city is virtually reliant on him for its financial survival, and may face a dire future now that he has been arrested.
More than 200 women accuse famous Brazilian spiritual healer of sexual abuse
Mediums such as "João de Deus" are a dime a dozen here in Brazil. But this one is a particularly influential one.
A whole 20 thousand people city is virtually reliant on him for its financial survival, and may face a dire future now that he has been arrested.
Japle
Member
I’d love it if someone came up with proof that a god exists. Wouldn’t that be cool? So exciting! But nothing in the Bible or any other religious writings can be considered proof and enormous amounts of those writings can be proven to be false.
As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. The claim that supernatural beings exist is most certainly extraordinary, but the evidence offered is remarkably unconvincing.