No exams on Wiccan, Pagan holidays at University of Missouri?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

So, just to be clear. This is a possible conversation you could have:

Person A: I believe that Hitler was right to gas 6 million people! The Bible says that this is something that is God’s will!

Gary: I respect that view!

Really?

Indeed.

Dear PR: I think that you are arguing for the sake of argument. Again, because I think an idea or view is wrong doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the views of others. You may recall that respect also means an act of giving particular attention or consideration. We would do well to respect an insane person with a gun for instance, or a tiger who might have funny looking teeth. In the case that you have rightly described above as wrongful (the gassing of 6 million people), we would have done well to give attention and consideration to the stated views of the National Socialist Party in Germany as they came to power and built their military might. If we had proper respect in assessing their views, we would have enforced the military restrictions imposed n Germany at Versailles, and perhaps none of this would have happened. But people in power largely dismissed their views. Churchill was relegated to being a "back bencher’ because he had respect for what Hitler could do. If we had done the same, and not dismissed them as fools, not just six million would have been spared, but the twenty five million who were lost in that conflict might have been spared.

Again, don’t confuse my respect for the view of others to imply agreement. On the other hand, I think comparing 21st century pagans to Hitler is a bit extreme. As for the other part of the discussion, and much more to the point, I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s. I am only concerned with living what I believe. I would like to offer the idea that more people will be interested in Catholicism if I serve as a good example of what a Catholic believes, and not because I snub what they currently believe as not being worthy of my respect. More people will admire us for our love than for our rightness. That said, please accept my concession of your rightness in this discussion over my own, and accept if you would, my love and respect.

 

[Allegra]

If that is what she meant then

However, I don’t believe anyone here has been advocating showing disrespect to any people.

What has been proffered is the fact that some religions teach some really vile concepts, and as such, should not be given equal footing with Catholic Christianity.

In my opinion, no religion has equal footing with the Catholic faith because they are all missing some aspect of the truth. I don’t see the point in trying to rank them in untruthfulness. Suffice it to say, they are only equal in the sense that each follower has an equal right to follow them.

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PR: I think that you are arguing for the sake of argument.

But you respect that I am doing this, right?

Again, because I think an idea or view is wrong doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the views of others

I think that you are committing a great error here, Gary. It is the corollary of what Church leaders did in the Middle Ages.

What Church leaders erroneously did was this: in an effort to combat heresy, they combated heretics.

What you are doing is equally wrong. In an effort to embrace heretics, you embrace heresy.

The correct thing is to respect the human person but DISRESPECT views that are hateful, vile and absurd.

There is no reason to say that you must respect all religious viewpoints. That gives license for evil to triumph when its viewpoint is respected.

 

[PRmerger]

On the other hand, I think comparing 21st century pagans to Hitler is a bit extreme.

If you respect all religious viewpoints, then why is it extreme?

As for the other part of the discussion, and much more to the point, I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s

Then you will let evil triumph. You will not be able to intervene when a man is beating a woman because your belief “It is wrong to beat a person” is no more right than his belief, “I am mad and it makes me feel better to beat the woman who forgot to iron my pants.”

 

[PRmerger]

In my opinion, no religion has equal footing with the Catholic faith because they are all missing some aspect of the truth.

Indeed.

I don’t see the point in trying to rank them in untruthfulness.

Well, I’m not sure that there is necessarily a point, as it applies to this discussion, but to the degree that a religion proclaims truths consonant with the Catholic faith is the degree that they proclaim truth.

So no one can deny that Islam has less truth than TEC, but that it has greater truth than Hinduism.

Suffice it to say, they are only equal in the sense that each follower has an equal right to follow them.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

If you respect all religious viewpoints, then why is it extreme?

Then you will let evil triumph. You will not be able to intervene when a man is beating a woman because your belief “It is wrong to beat a person” is no more right than his belief, “I am mad and it makes me feel better to beat the woman who forgot to iron my pants.”

The answer to.the first question is that comparing Hitler to pagans is not a religiois belief and the comparison is.extreme. Nor is beating a woman a belief. That is an act, and I would most certainly intervene. I think at this point perhaps you are throwing punches underwater - not hitting anything.

 

[PRmerger]

You know, Gary, I am wondering if we are maybe disagreeing because of semantics.

But maybe not. I can’t tell yet.

If you are saying this:
"We can never tell another religious person, ‘Your beliefs are wrong.’ "

then we are going to have to dialogue about that!

But if you are saying this:
“Of course we can tell someone that his religious beliefs are wrong! We just have to do it with love and respect!”…

then we are agreed and there’s nothing further to discuss.

 

[PRmerger]

The answer to.the first question is that comparing Hitler to pagans is not a religiois belief and the comparison is.extreme.

The religious belief is this: The Bible supports what Hitler did.

And what of the comparison being extreme?

The analogy fits and cannot be denied.

If you believe that all religious views are to be respected, then you must respect this religious view: the Bible supports what Hitler did.

Nor is beating a woman a belief

Of course it is. “I believe that I have the right to be angry at my woman for not ironing my pants!”

That is an act, and I would most certainly intervene.

Then you are not being consistent with your paradigm: " I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s"

It appears that if you do intervene that you are saying that your belief, “It’s wrong to beat someone” is indeed more important than his belief, “I believe it’s fine to hit someone when she didn’t iron your pants!”

I think at this point perhaps you are throwing punches underwater - not hitting anything.

It does appear as if you are not having much respect for throwing punches underwater?

I am not being facetious here.

I am only pointing out how inutile your paradigm is. “I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s” leaves you impoverished and unable to provide adequate apologia for your position.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

T
I am only pointing out how inutile your paradigm is. “I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s” leaves you impoverished and unable to provide adequate apologia for your position.

Dear PR: I Do not think that I will cause many people to admire, much less convert to Catholicism because of the logic of my position or my ability to provide apologia. I think people are much more impressed by seeing how we act and how we treat them. I have witnessed few is any people who changed their minds about faith or religion because someone beat them in an argument. Any theology of apologia I can offer a pagan or anyone else is based first and foremost on my faith, which is based on belief, not demonstrable fact. I cannot prove to a pagan that Jesus ascended into heaven, but a pagan can surely show me a tree and a plant that can make me high, so where would such an argument take us? Such things are matter of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PR: I Do not think that I will cause many people to admire, much less convert to Catholicism because of the logic of my position or my ability to provide apologia. I think people are much more impressed by seeing how we act and how we treat them. I have witnessed few is any people who changed their minds about faith or religion because someone beat them in an argument. Any theology of apologia I can offer a pagan or anyone else is based first and foremost on my faith, which is based on belief, not demonstrable fact. I cannot prove to a pagan that Jesus ascended into heaven, but a pagan can surely show me a tree and a plant that can make me high, so where would such an argument take us? Such things are matter of faith.

Firstly, I am not talking about encouraging someone to convert to Catholicism.

I am simply talking about stopping evil from triumphing.

If you are incapable of declaring something to be evil because you want to embrace the person who is proclaiming evil, then evil wins.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The religious belief is this: The Bible supports what Hitler did.

And what of the comparison being extreme?

The analogy fits and cannot be denied.

You may have convinced yourself of that, but you haven’t convinced me that it’s not exaggerated and useless. And that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect your thinking. It means that your thinking doesn’t gel with mine.

f you believe that all religious views are to be respected, then you must respect this religious view: the Bible supports what Hitler did

Respecting it as a view doesn’t imply agreement.

Then you are not being consistent with your paradigm: " I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s"

It appears that if you do intervene that you are saying that your belief, “It’s wrong to beat someone” is indeed more important than his belief, “I believe it’s fine to hit someone when she didn’t iron your pants!”

Respecting someone’s view is not the same as letting wrong action go unchecked. Ithink you may have problems with subtle differences.

It does appear as if you are not having much respect for throwing punches underwater?

How you spend your time is not for me to decide.

I am not being facetious here.

Actually you might sound more viable if you were to have said you are being facetious.

I am only pointing out how inutile your paradigm is. “I do not feel that my beliefs are more important or “right” than anyone else’s” leaves you impoverished and unable to provide adequate apologia for your position.

Apologia is usually useful between people who already agree on some basic premise. I don’t think that I would be using my time very well offering Catholic apologia to a pagan or an atheist. There is no foundation in agreement from which to start, as there is no common point of reference. Pagans and atheists and the like aren’t likely to care much about what this theologian or this council has to say on a matter that they don’t see any truth in to start with. However, if they admired my action or the way in which I live, they might respect what I believe, and over time have cause to want to know more about what I believe. In the end, it will not likely be logic that will ever cause them to believe in a virgin birth, a resurrection or any of the finer points of theology that follow.

 

[PRmerger]

Apologia is usually useful between people who already agree on some basic premise. I don’t think that I would be using my time very well offering Catholic apologia to a pagan or an atheist.

Well, here’s where we differ (again). I do believe that moral pagans and atheists agree with Catholics on many “basic premises.” To wit: most pagans and atheists believe that it is wrong to beat your wife.

We start from there and offer loving apologia.

If you do not feel compelled to offer an apologia for the hope that is in you, with gentleness and reverence, then you are contradicting the Scriptures, Gary. :sad_yes:

I find your paradigm of being unwilling to say that a belief is WRONG to be exactly what allowed 6 million people to die in Germany. Your paradigm tells the Nazis, “I respect your view and I don’t believe that my view that ALL people have inherent dignity is any more right than your view that certain populations are subhuman.”

 

[PRmerger]

You may have convinced yourself of that, but you haven’t convinced me that it’s not exaggerated and useless.

Exaggerated is different from extreme. Exaggerated implies an untruth. As in “I exaggerated the size of the fish I caught. (It was in reality rather small).”

Extreme is “I caught (truly) a humungous fish!”

And extreme is not synonymous with useless. In fact, it often serves to limn one’s point rather effectively.

And that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect your thinking. It means that your thinking doesn’t gel with mine.

If this is your paradigm then it makes any attempt you have to dialogue with another person who disagrees with you as fruitless as this dialogue:

You: Chocolate is the best flavor for ice cream!
Me: No, vanilla is the best!
You: Well, you’re entitled to your opinion…
Me: True, dat.

If it’s all about opinion (and it appears that this is, essentially, your argument), then we’re on a wild goose chase without the goose of truth. We’re just squawking about our own preferences, and why have a discussion about whether chocolate or vanilla is best? That’s truly lame and a big waste o’ time.

Respecting it as a view doesn’t imply agreement.

Again, if you’re able to say that their view is WRONG, then we need not discuss anymore because you are in agreement with me
.
[SIGN1]We MUST tell people when their views are erroneous.[/SIGN1]

Respecting someone’s view is not the same as letting wrong action go unchecked. Ithink you may have problems with subtle differences.

So you are agreed that some views are WRONG?

How you spend your time is not for me to decide.

Well, it appears as if you’re judging “throwing punches underwater” to be bad. No?

Actually you might sound more viable if you were to have said you are being facetious.

So here’s where you’re being inconsistent again. You seem to be saying on the one hand, “My beliefs are no better than yours!” but then you also above are stating that you do believe your beliefs to be better than mine.

Which is it, friend?

 

[cheese_sdc]

It actually developed in the 1940s with Gerald Gardner, in England. Where do you get the idea that they make money of their “dilusions”? That’s not a very charitable comment, espcecially with no facts to back it up. It’s worth noting that Catholics make money off their religion, and many people consider it to be a dilusion too. Just because you don’t agree with a religion doesn’t make the followers of that religion delusional.

Standing Ovation

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Exaggerated is different from extreme. Exaggerated implies an untruth. As in “I exaggerated the size of the fish I caught. (It was in reality rather small).”

Extreme is “I caught (truly) a humungous fish!”

And extreme is not synonymous with useless. In fact, it often serves to limn one’s point rather effectively.

If this is your paradigm then it makes any attempt you have to dialogue with another person who disagrees with you as fruitless as this dialogue:

You: Chocolate is the best flavor for ice cream!
Me: No, vanilla is the best!
You: Well, you’re entitled to your opinion…
Me: True, dat.

If it’s all about opinion (and it appears that this is, essentially, your argument), then we’re on a wild goose chase without the goose of truth. We’re just squawking about our own preferences, and why have a discussion about whether chocolate or vanilla is best? That’s truly lame and a big waste o’ time.

Firstly, telling people that their views are erroneous doesn’t allow for the possibility that one’s own views might be erroneous. I don’t expect that in every venue that my views are correct. Part of our evolution is learning, and this sometimes requires expanding our understanding of things. Secondly, I have witnessed few people changing their minds because someone else told them that their views are erroneous.

So you are agreed that some views are WRONG?

Sure they are. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the view. Two different things in my thinking.

Well, it appears as if you’re judging “throwing punches underwater” to be bad. No?

Not inherently bad. It’s probably good exercise. Just useless if you are trying to hit something.

So here’s where you’re being inconsistent again. You seem to be saying on the one hand, “My beliefs are no better than yours!” but then you also above are stating that you do believe your beliefs to be better than mine.

Which is it, friend?

It is both. On the one hand, I think that my views are no better than yours. On the other hand, I don’t agree with yours. One is not better and neither is worse, and I have never stated that mine were better. Therefore, I am not seeing an inconsistency. I am just seeing more dimensions to the process than you. I don’t see it as being either this or that. In your earlier example about ice cream, one person sees chocolate as the best flavor, while the other sees vanilla as the best. Neither opinion makes one flavor better or worse than the other. They are simply contexts that are built on the personal experience of taste, conditioning and life experience. I can respect your flavor while enjoying mine, and not be troubled at all that you don’t like my flavor or that you enjoy something that I don’t. I am only interested in enjoying my flavor, while respecting that you are enjoying yours.

We have spent two days exploring the manifold meanings of respect in relation to my tolerance of the beliefs of others, when the initial point was simply that I feel that it’s not problematic to acknowledge the holidays and observances of other belief systems. That was the point PR. Do you have a view on that, or should we continue to obfuscate?

 

[PRmerger]

So you are agreed that some views are WRONG

Sure they are. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the view. Two different things in my thinking.

:extrahappy:

Then there’s nothing more to say, Gary!

Some views are WRONG. We can say that as good Christian folks.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

:extrahappy:

Then there’s nothing more to say, Gary!

Some views are WRONG. We can say that as good Christian folks.

Well I declare PR, I believe you have sidestepped my question altogether.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I’m sorry for coming late to the party, especially when it looks like you guys are closing up shop and kickin out the drunks

So you are agreed that some views are WRONG?

Sure they are. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the view. Two different things in my thinking.

What does this functionally mean, you respect wrong views?

This is a genuine question. Do there exist any views under the sun that you do not respect?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

What does this functionally mean, you respect wrong views?

This is a genuine question. Do there exist any views under the sun that you do not respect?

• Functionally it means that I respect all views.

-There are no views under the sun that I don’t respect, including the view that we are under the sun, which is a view I do not share. I doesn’t mean that I agree with all views. It is a matter of recognition that it is someone’s view, and showing respect to the person holding the view. It does not mean that I wouldn’t debate it.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

• Functionally it means that I respect all views.

-There are no views under the sun that I don’t respect, including the view that we are under the sun. I doesn’t mean that I agree with all views. It is a matter of recognition that it is someone’s view, and showing respect to the person holding the view. It does not mean that I wouldn’t debate it.

So if you respect all views, and there are no views you do not not respect, what does it even mean to respect a view? Are you simply acknowledging that they are views, and that they are had?

I’m seriously not trying to sound like a smart alec, I’ve just never understood what the heck people mean when they say that they respect everyone’s views, especially given that opinions are inanimate and intangible.

When I tell someone I respect their opinion, it usually means that I either: (1) agree with that given opinion, or (2) generally trust the person espousing the opinion irrespective of what I may think about that given opinion. In all cases I respect people, but there are indeed views that I do not respect because they’re either false, or they come from somebody who has been shown to be untrustworthy. Without this contrast of opinions I do not respect, how can I say that I respect any opinions?