does a believe system require a defense........

[Natasha]

does a believe system require a defense. atheism, christianity, budhism. are followers obligated to defend?

are followers of a world view obligated to defend their world view if they are to be true to their world view?

say a man believes he's king of the world, and he has 90 concubines, is he obligated to defend his dictorial retarded fantasy, or is he to be silenced for this nonsense?

who is to say what is permissible to be defended and what is not? how many followers must a religion or atheism have in order for it to be allowed to exist as a legitimate position? at what point do we say this man is ok for spreading christianity, but this other man is just a crazy nut for his self proclamation as king of the world, with 90 crazy concubines?

[Wing Walker]

does a believe system require a defense. atheism, christianity, budhism. are followers obligated to defend?

are followers of a world view obligated to defend their world view if they are to be true to their world view?

say a man believes he's king of the world, and he has 90 concubines, is he obligated to defend his dictorial retarded fantasy, or is he to be silenced for this nonsense?

who is to say what is permissible to be defended and what is not? how many followers must a religion or atheism have in order for it to be allowed to exist as a legitimate position? at what point do we say this man is ok for spreading christianity, but this other man is just a crazy nut for his self proclamation as king of the world, with 90 crazy concubines?

This is purely my opinion and belief and, as such, I am not looking for reasons to change it.  I am replying to the proposition.

I have my own faith and beliefs and I am not obliged to defend them to anyone.

When I was younger I would have defended my acceptance of Christianity.  Now that I am older I see that regardless of what I say, nothing can change a closed mind, even mine.  Especially mine.  When it comes to my personal beliefs, to whom am I accountable other than my Maker?

In the first example, who made this person the "king of the world" and gave him 90 concubines?  Whoever gave him the power can demand, and might receive, an accounting.

Any person with any beliefs can assert a legitimate position.

Look at the behaviours of those who would lead before you follow or go your own way.  Their actions are like the fruit on a tree.  A good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit.  Taste and see for yourself.

Is it true that one person's rights end at another man's nose? 

Just my thoughts.

Wing Walker

[tekla]

Belief systems do not require defending, they require faith.

[Ayana]

  As both a christian and a libertarian, I spent a lot of time with this question. I truly believe that people should have the right to hold to whatever belief system that appeals to them. This is a contrary view to most that share my "religion", but it's the only one that makes sense.
  I don't believe that the man who thinks he is king of the world with his 90 concubines is causing any harm.  He should be allowed to live out his delusion and even try and convince others, i.e. actually acquire the 90 concubines. The defining line in my opinion is if he were to forcibly attempt to "persuade" people into believing in his fantasy.
  As to the rest of the question, I think that if we are to hold to a belief system, we must expect to be questioned for it. I don't think that you are required to answer when you get called on the carpet, but at the same time I don't think that you should be allowed to wrap yourself in your own self-righteousness and consider yourself untouchable protected by laws to prevent anyone from questioning you. All that we adhere to, on any level, will be challenged by something, sometimes just by it's sheer existence. Banning the right to question anothers beliefs will ultimately lead to a stagnancy in the progression of the human race. Forcing one to answer to any questions on their beliefs will result in the degradation of imagination and individuality.
   But this is all my opinion, of course, and as such it is clouded by the knowledge and life experience that I wear as my intelligence. Others may hold a different opinion and that is their right. I applaud them for it   .


   Ayana

[Ayana]

 

you can pick the secret handshake  

    That's not a good idea, we'd both be better off if you were to pick it. My ummmm.... talents, are varied and broad but do not include anything to do with coordination. I have two left hands, each with ten thumbs and I routinely trip on flat surfaces.


   Ayana   

[lisagurl]

Beliefs require no defense but actions taken on behalf of beliefs do.

[stephm]

Beliefs require no defense but actions taken on behalf of beliefs do.

couldn't have put it better myself

[Dorothy]

Like it or not, our lives are a defense of what we believe whether we know how to articulate it or not. Our choices reflect our beliefs.
The ability or inability of a person or group of people to defend their beliefs is not proof of the validity of the belief. It simply speaks to their competence (or lack of it) as communicators.  Should we be able to know and defend what we believe? Sure.  Is our ability the proof of the veracity of the belief? No.

[lady amarant]

Beliefs require no defense but actions taken on behalf of beliefs do.

lisagurl hits it right on the head for me. I follow the Wiccan Rede, which simply states "An it harm none, do as ye Will is the whole of the Law". Basically, believe what you want, do what you want, be what you want, as long as those beliefs, actions or whatever do no harm to others, and remember, impacting on the Will of another by forcing your beliefs on them is just as much harm as if you were physically attacking them.

[Ell]

how about forcing your non-beliefs on others by mocking or attacking what they believe?  same thing?

ashley

not sure if that's a fair assessment, Ash.

if person A says "you're going to suffer an eternity if you don't believe what i believe."

and person B says, "that's idiotic," i don't think person B is forcing anything, just defending their right to free thought.

both are just opinions. however, the first is much more aggressive, and threatening.

-ell

[lady amarant]

how about forcing your non-beliefs on others by mocking or attacking what they believe?  same thing?

ashley

I spend quite a bit of time on religious and spiritual forums watching the slinging matches between atheists and (mostly) christian theists, and it never ceases to amaze me how similar they seem. Sadly, many people seem to feel the need to destroy the beliefs of others in order to feel secure about their own.

One of my favourite books is a collection of essays called "Rebels and Devils: The Psychology of Liberation". One of the essays attempts to define morality from the ground up on a logical, non-spiritual basis, with some very thought-provoking results.

The author starts off by defining mankind's core condition as the ability to make personal choices, and so defines the basis for his moral system as the right and ability to choose - Any action I take that increases the overall capacity for free choice is morally good, while the opposite is morally bad. So stealing from another is wrong because I limit his choices to make use of whatever I stole, or killing is wrong because I take away the capacity for choice altogether. He then further makes the distinction between a Right and a Preference, with the difference being that having a Right denied me limits my actual capacity for PERSONAL choice, while a Preference merely enhances choices. Rights supersede Preferences, quite obviously. So it might enhance my choice to listen to a certain type of music by listening to it very loudly, but if that Preference interferes with my neighbour's Right to choose a good night's sleep, then I should use my headphones.

The Preference of sharing my beliefs with others in this framework, would then only be morally acceptable if  it did not interfere with their right to hold their own counsel and have their own thoughts. If they invite you to debate stuff or visit a forum where these things are discussed, they are making that choice, but outside of that, it's not right to preach, belittle or otherwise attempt to undermine.

The final conclusion he comes to is very similar to the Wiccan Rede, The Golden Rule, Aleister Crowley's Do as thou Wilt, etc. I think the idea of morality based on Free Will and choice is a universal we all have kinda built into us, despite whatever other philosophies might be layered over it.

Unfortunately I can't remember the author's name, because he explains the whole thing MUCH more eloquently and clearly than I do, but the entire book is well worth a read. It's edited by Christopher Hyatt, and I think it's still in print.

Anyway, hope that answers the question.

[Ell]

ell, what i mean is when people say "your beliefs are a myth, theyre made-up, no intelligent person could ever believe that" when i havent ever said anything.

Ashley,

yes, i do have great difficulty accepting as true anything that really doesn't seem true. i examine these things on a one by one basis.

however, i readily admit that this is my opinion. your opinions about certain subjects are still perceived by you as some kind of divine truths. you are inflexible about some things, and this is one thing about which i am inflexible.

i think these are important subjects that need to be hashed out on both sides. it is clear that neither of us cares much for the other's beliefs. but that doesn't mean that we can't respect one another as people. i think it's totally fair game to speak out against Christianity. that's a free speech issue. please don't take it as a personal attack.

(i know you are a sweetheart!)

-ell

[Ell]

awww, thanks ell, i think you're a sweetheart too!  and of course i respect you, always have.

i guess my faith is so much a part of me that i do kinda take it personally.  not the rational or logical arguments against it, that is just discussion, i dont have any problems with that!  but the "youre dumb to believe this" kinda gets to me.  i would never tell someone "youre dumb NOT to believe this" ya know?  i'm not saying you have ever done that, i'm just saying is all.

ya know, i also take it personally when people speak about transsexuals or gays and lesbians being the spawn of the devil.... that is so much a part of me too that perhaps i cant separate the hatred of what i am from the hatred of who i am.  and maybe i shouldnt have to.

anyway, i dont have any problems with free speech or anyone expressing opposing positions, as long as its done respectfully.

hugs ell, no problems here 

ashley

oh, thank you.

now drink this.

*ell hands Ashley a soda*

[Sarah]

does a believe system require a defense. atheism, christianity, budhism. are followers obligated to defend?

are followers of a world view obligated to defend their world view if they are to be true to their world view?

say a man believes he's king of the world, and he has 90 concubines, is he obligated to defend his dictorial retarded fantasy, or is he to be silenced for this nonsense?

who is to say what is permissible to be defended and what is not? how many followers must a religion or atheism have in order for it to be allowed to exist as a legitimate position? at what point do we say this man is ok for spreading christianity, but this other man is just a crazy nut for his self proclamation as king of the world, with 90 crazy concubines?

You listed Buddhism so I'll answer.

No.

This has nothing to do with Buddhism.

We don't have a NORAD. Or a missle defense system. Or an Army. Or a Private Security firm..

RE: how many followers to be legitamite? One.
If it's legitamite for one person it's legitamate for one person.
If is is for 20 it is for 20.

What the hell does legitamate mean anyway?
You have some of the strangest posts in this topic..

Are you doing like a school report or somthing?
Like a philosophy class or psychology?

[bethzerosix]

i often feel obligated to defend christianity.  not because christ needs defending, but because christianity at its core is very powerful and has been used for evil and gain by evil people. quick easy example.... george bush.  claims to have had a born again experience, prays everyday and says that he is led by god.  george is the the heir of a long list of powerful nazis. he is a skull and bones man which is part of the freemasons who worship not christ but jabulon , a spider with the heads of a man a cat and a frog. there is a youtube of him saying that we all have our own paths to heaven.... which is nice but not christian.  everyday people are dying and being maimed for profit by this christian. no, this man is not christian, but a devil carrying a bible.

true christianity is love and compassion and long suffering and hope. christs command was that we love one another. real love is not a goofy feeling, it is a conscious effort. it is easy to love a good friend , but christ tells us to love our enemies. the true power of the  cross is NOT hell fire and damnation.  the true power of the cross is LOVE. its all about the love.

so .... if people dont want christ, i would hope they made that decision based on proper information.

[cindianna_jones]

- Live and let live.

That's my perspective.  I have no problem with other people's beliefs. I will protect their right to have them.

Cindi

[bethzerosix]

- Live and let live.

That's my perspective.  I have no problem with other people's beliefs. I will protect their right to have them.

Cindi

even if it says homosexuals and transsexuals are evil and actively pursues, as it does, lobbying and legislation to deny us rights?

i think that it really comes down harder on the religious right and the greedy then it does on homosexuals and transsexuals. too bad people dont read.

[Ell]

- Live and let live.

That's my perspective.  I have no problem with other people's beliefs. I will protect their right to have them.

Cindi

even if it says homosexuals and transsexuals are evil and actively pursues, as it does, lobbying and legislation to deny us rights?

i think that it really comes down harder on the religious right and the greedy then it does on homosexuals and transsexuals. too bad people dont read.

does not compute. please clarify.

[bethzerosix]

i assume that the beliefs that you were referring to was christianity.  christianity is based off of the teachings of christ. christ had many arguments/discourses with a group called the pharisees.  these people were the religious right of jesus' time. these are the people who wanted to stone the adulteress caught in the act. jesus said that the person without sin should cast the first stone. all of her accusers left. jesus said to the woman " where are your accusers" she replied," they have all left" he said i dont accuse you either, go and sin no more."   according to christianity christ IS god. god forgave her right there out of love and compassion.  another story talks about two people praying at the temple in jerusalem. one a pharisee said "god look at how good a man i am . i fast. pay my tithes. give alms to the poor. another man said to god," god i am a wretched man, i have been unfaithful. have mercy on me".  jesus asked his followers who they thought was justified before god. they said the righteous man. jesus said that they were wrong, that it was the man who humbled himself before god and asked forgiveness. jesus was the most mad during his ministry when he chased the money changers out of the temple. he also said that it was very difucult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  jesus sat and ate and hung out with the prostitutes, tax collectors, women,the common people.  it was the religious right that plotted to kill him. the romans had little desire to crucify him.  who is the real enemy of christ.  the religious right, who heap heavy burdens on peoples backs and offer no help in carrying them.   the religious right is the enemy of christ.... not the sinner. the bible says that for god so loved the world that while we were yet sinners that christ died for us.... christ loves the sinner. the imperfect. the trans, the homo, the unwed mother, the drug addict, these are the people that he died for.  the religious right loved the power and position that they held over the people that they killed the very man that they were supposed to be waiting for to keep that power.  read the parable of the vineyard owner and his son. who was jesus talking to?  these same people have been trying to hold their position over the people ever since. only now they do it in the name of christ all the while giving THE CHRIST a black eye.

as far as homosexuals i dont think christ metioned them. or trans for that matter. for a more indepth look in to this please visit this site. it is by a transperson who believes in god and studied the verses that seem to condem homosexuals and transsexuals... and found that the text was quite different then how people are using it today.   www.gendertree.com



Posted on: January 15, 2008, 02:16:52 AMthe non reading people that i was referring to are the christians who have someone tell them what the bible says with out reading it for themselves. some people have great insight in to biblical verses and text, but if one doesnt read the whole statement then there is great opportunity for evil.

Posted on: January 15, 2008, 02:32:54 AMokgdnite

sweet dreams, beth

[cindybc]

Hi Beth06, I found what I posted bellow from a search that Wing Walker and I made in the electronic Bible on the web.

Now as far as I know is that eunuchs could have been trans people. they were very highly esteemed servants. They could also be androyne folks.     

Chapter
Book

"12": For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha), chapter 3
Chapter
Book

"14": And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against God: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of the Lord more acceptable to his mind.

Cindy