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

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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?

I can’t say how you can say that you respect any opinions, xixxvmcm85. I only know that I am able to. It may be a matter of conditioning. I’m not offering the opinion that it’s right or wrong that I do that. I’m just saying that it’s the way I am. For instance, I don’t agree with many of the world’s religions, what their beliefs are, what their dogmas might be. But I reason that the people who subscribe to them must be committed to them as I am to my own Catholicism, even though much of it might sound a bit bizarre to some. Conversely, much of LDS beliefs seem rather strange to me, but I have honestly found every LDS member I have personally known to be upright and decent people. So, I respect what they believe, and allow for the possibility that they might see something I simply don’t see. How we see the world is largely a matter of perspective, conditioning, life experience and context. Are my experiences, conditioning and the contexts I’ve created more valid than someone else’s?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Yup, that’s pretty much what I think it means.

It’s like the line from The Incredibles about everyone being special means, essentially, that no one is.

It’s like saying that everyone wins…except what it really means is that no one wins.

It’s an inutile point of view.

But, the fact that Gary says that he can say that some views are WRONG is promising, indeed!

Without this contrast of opinions I do not respect, how can I say that I respect any opinions?

A more trenchant question, as it applies to this dialogue, has never been asked! :clapping:

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It’s like the line from The Incredibles about everyone being special means, essentially, that no one is.

Everyone being special can also mean that everyone has their place, and that everyone in some way or another is a unique creation. I would like to offer idea that the desire to be something more than another is a growth opportunity for the person who has that desire. Do you feel that someone or something needs to be more special than another?

I

t’s like saying that everyone wins…except what it really means is that no one wins.

It’s an inutile point of view.

What is to be gained by winning at the expense of another losing?Would it perhaps be better to see yourself in others, and others in yourself, and God in both, and thereby find equal joy in everyone’s earnest victory or good fortune? You mention Nazis often enough. We (the Allies) “won” the war because of things like the incendiary bombing of Dresden. The Nazi’s also “won” by nearly wiping out a whole race of people. Did anyone win, or was the whole affair a tragedy when viewed from the larger perspective that we are all inextricably bound each to each? Does anyone truly when when everyone doesn’t win?

But, the fact that Gary says that he can say that some views are WRONG is promising, indeed!

I may see them as wrong, but let’s not forget that I still respect them. As wrong as that may sound to some, it sounds right to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Everyone being special can also mean that everyone has their place, and that everyone in some way or another is a unique creation. I would like to offer idea that the desire to be something more than another is a growth opportunity for the person who has that desire. Do you feel that someone or something needs to be more special than another?

I respect that idea.

What is to be gained by winning at the expense of another losing?

http://elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

Would it perhaps be better to see yourself in others, and others in yourself, and God in both, and thereby find equal joy in everyone’s earnest victory or good fortune?

I don’t know what this means: equal joy.

Could you please expound?

You mention Nazis often enough. We (the Allies) “won” the war because of things like the incendiary bombing of Dresden. The Nazi’s also “won” by nearly wiping out a whole race of people.

No, Gary. The Nazis did not win.

Did anyone win, or was the whole affair a tragedy when viewed from the larger perspective that we are all inextricably bound each to each? Does anyone truly when when everyone doesn’t win?

The Allies pretty much won. :yup:

I may see them as wrong, but let’s not forget that I still respect them. As wrong as that may sound to some, it sounds right to me.

Just like chocolate sound good to me. But I wouldn’t have a discussion about what sounds right to me vs what sounds right to you. That’s as big a waste o’ time, to be sure.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The Allies pretty much won. :yup:

I would offer that this is a rather limited view. My grandmother lost two sons in that war (my uncles) - both in the US Navy. My father (in the US army) learned what it felt like to kill other men. Neither my grandmother or my father left the affair with a sense of having won anything on any terms that meant anything to them. Rather, the lives of many were lost, and the lives of many more were greatly diminished by a few who thought that one race was more “special” than others, and failing to see that there is nothing to be won at the cost of loss on he part of another.

I can ride a bike, feel the rain on my face, feel the love of another human being or animal and experience a full and rich existence without being more special than anyone else, without being superior by virtue of skill or craft or intellect, and can do so without winning a thing. This is why I think the idea of no one being special and everyone winning when we lose the need to be special as not being an inutile point of view. It’s a matter of broadening the scope of one’s view I think.

 

[PRmerger]

I would offer that this is a rather limited view. My grandmother lost two sons in that war (my uncles) - both in the US Navy. My father (in the US army) learned what it felt like to kill other men. Neither my grandmother or my father left the affair with a sense of having won anything om any terms that meant anything to them. Rather, the lives of many were lost, and the lives of many more were greatly diminished by a few who thought that one race was more “special” than others, and failing to see that there is nothing to be won at the cost of loss on he part of another.

Yes, this is testament that the win was wrought at great cost and suffering.

Kind of like Calvary.

But it was a win nonetheless.

To argue differently is to be recusant to history and the basic principles of logic and reason.

I can ride a bike, feel the rain on my face, feel the love of another human being or animal and experience a full and rich existence without being more special than anyone else, without being superior by virtue of skill or craft or intellect, and can do so without winning a thing. This is why I think the idea of no one being special and everyone winning when we lose the need to be special as not being an inutile point of view. It’s a matter of broadening the scope of one’s view I think.

No argument here.

But without valleys, you can’t notice the mountains.

And if you have respect for all views, and disrespect no views, as xixxvmcm85 so aptly stated, it makes your statement meaningless. Inutile. Fruitless. Devoid of significance. There is no contrast between true views and bizarre views.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Yes, this is testament that the win was wrought at great cost and suffering.

Kind of like Calvary.

But it was a win nonetheless.

To argue differently is to be recusant to history and the basic principles of logic and reason.

Whether or not my view defies logic is again, a matter of perspective. If I accept that the concept of being an American or a German, or a member of the Allied forces vs a member of the Axis forces as being anything more than contexts created by the human mind to distinguish one person from another based on criteria such as geography and language, then the idea that someone won and someone lost might be discussed. Are these distinctions real, or simply an agreed framework with which we view things? And how useful has that framework proven to be over time? If instead, I were to take the view that the people of the Axis nations and the people of the Allied nations are in truth the body of Christ, then my view that there was no winner might become a bit more tenable. Or if I took the pagan view that perhaps people of different nations, along with rocks, trees, plants and animals are simply constituent parts of a larger organism called Earth, how can I see harful and hurtful actions as being beneficial to one perceived side vs another perceived side of something that is in reality One.

And if you have respect for all views, and disrespect no views, as xixxvmcm85 so aptly stated, it makes your statement meaningless. Inutile. Fruitless. Devoid of significance. There is no contrast between true views and bizarre views.

Having respect for a bizarre view doesn’t prohibit seeing the contrasts between what appears bizarre and what appears logical. It’s a matter of allowing for possibilities. There was a time when people thought up more and more strange epicycles of planetary movements to explain away Copernicus’ curious notion that the sun didn’t move around the earth.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t know what this means: equal joy.

Could you please expound?

It means finding happiness in the happiness of others. To use your example of the ice cream cone, it would be to find joy in the face of a child eating an ice cream cone equal to or greater than the joy you find in stuffing an ice cream cone into your own tasting snoot. Does that idea resonate with you?

 

[PRmerger]

Whether or not my view defies logic is again, a matter of perspective. If I accept that the concept of being an American or a German, or a member of the Allied forces vs a member of the Axis forces as being anything more than contexts created by the human mind to distinguish one person from another based on criteria such as geography and language, then the idea that someone won and someone lost might be discussed. Are these distinctions real, or simply an agreed framework with which we view things?

LOL! I will respond by saying, “I respect that view.”

And how useful has that framework proven to be over time? If instead, I were to take the view that the people of the Axis nations and the people of the Allied nations are in truth the body of Christ, then my view that there was no winner might become a bit more tenable. Or if I took the pagan view that perhaps people of different nations, along with rocks, trees, plants and animals are simply constituent parts of a larger organism called Earth, how can I see harful and hurtful actions as being beneficial to one perceived side vs another perceived side of something that is in reality One

I respect this view as well.

Having respect for a bizarre view doesn’t prohibit seeing the contrasts between what appears bizarre and what appears logical. It’s a matter of allowing for possibilities. There was a time when people thought up more and more strange epicycles of planetary movements to explain away Copernicus’ curious notion that the sun didn’t move around the earth.

I love that you can call views “bizarre”.

 

[PRmerger]

It means finding happiness in the happiness of others. To use your example of the ice cream cone, it would be to find joy in the face of a child eating an ice cream cone equal to or greater than the joy you find in stuffing an ice cream cone into your own tasting snoot. Does that idea resonate with you?

Well, the idea of finding joy in the face of a child eating ice cream resonates with me. It’s the “equal” part that I find peculiar. How is one to quantify this joy, in your opinion?

 

[flameburns623]

Really? Do you believe that these religions deserve “as much respect” as well?

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCqPpR9WMpx43cKGdZi7Hf25VJja6Wqva_gADI6gEM42txkouK

apologeticsindex.org/a97.html

In my personal opinion, except where someone’s religion involves a gross infringement on morality–murder/human sacrifice, religiously-sanctioned child abuse, overt-and-intrinsic exploitation, overt-and-intrinsic violence–all religions which are sincerely and conscientiously held.

Which does not mean that I think the Westboro Baptist Church has unlimited moral or consitutional rights to behave offensively at funerals. They are free to preach and to argue for their beliefs, even in certain types of public forae. I do think we ought to be able to establish a “cone of respect” around certain types of events which makes groups such as the WBC liable to both criminal and civil penalties if they exploit things such as funerals by demonstrating there.

Likewise, I don’t want the Pagans at the University of Missouri using campus lawns to conduct animal sacrifices. But if they wished to hold the Pagan equivalent of a prayer vigil, or if the University feels there are enough of these religionists on campus to merit suspending exams on Pagan holidays, then such is respectful and appropriate to do.

 

[PRmerger]

In my personal opinion, except where someone’s religion involves a gross infringement on morality–murder/human sacrifice, religiously-sanctioned child abuse, overt-and-intrinsic exploitation, overt-and-intrinsic violence–all religions which are sincerely and conscientiously held.

Which does not mean that I think the Westboro Baptist Church has unlimited moral or consitutional rights to behave offensively at funerals. They are free to preach and to argue for their beliefs, even in certain types of public forae. I do think we ought to be able to establish a “cone of respect” around certain types of events which makes groups such as the WBC liable to both criminal and civil penalties if they exploit things such as funerals by demonstrating there.

Likewise, I don’t want the Pagans at the University of Missouri using campus lawns to conduct animal sacrifices. But if they wished to hold the Pagan equivalent of a prayer vigil, or if the University feels there are enough of these religionists on campus to merit suspending exams on Pagan holidays, then such is respectful and appropriate to do.

I don’t disagree with anything here.

What you are proclaiming here is quite different than what I object to: religious indifferentism or syncretism, which is the belief that all religions are equal.

That view is wrong, and as such, I have no respect for it.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t disagree with anything here.

What you are proclaiming here is quite different than what I object to: religious indifferentism or syncretism, which is the belief that all religions are equal.

That view is wrong, and as such, I have no respect for it.

That’s an interesting view. How is do you see it that one religion distinguished as being unequal to another?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s an interesting view. How is do you see it that one religion distinguished as being unequal to another?

I think any religion that states that homosexuals are despised by God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that homosexuals are loved by God.

I think that any religion that states that Jesus is not God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that Jesus is God.

I think that any religion that states that abortion is a sacrament is greatly unequal to a religion that states that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

 

[SteveVH]

I think any religion that states that homosexuals are despised by God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that homosexuals are loved by God.

I think that any religion that states that Jesus is not God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that Jesus is God.

I think that any religion that states that abortion is a sacrament is greatly unequal to a religion that states that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

Yes, the whole idea of moral equivalency between different religions and faith traditions is nonsense. Christianity is a revealed religion. Its founder is God himself. Any nut at all can register as a new religion. To the extent that a fatih tradition departs from the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Jesus and handed down to us today, it is further removed from having moral equivalency with the Catholic Church. Hope that made sense.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, the whole idea of moral equivalency between different religions and faith traditions is nonsense. Christianity is a revealed religion. Its founder is God himself. Any nut at all can register as a new religion. To the extent that a fatih tradition departs from the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Jesus and handed down to us today, it is further removed from having moral equivalency with the Catholic Church. Hope that made sense.

http://blog.kontera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/like.png

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Yes, the whole idea of moral equivalency between different religions and faith traditions is nonsense. Christianity is a revealed religion. Its founder is God himself. Any nut at all can register as a new religion. To the extent that a fatih tradition departs from the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Jesus and handed down to us today, it is further removed from having moral equivalency with the Catholic Church. Hope that made sense.

I understand the line of thinking, yes, but might not Jewish people or Buddhist people disagree with the second half of your statement? You and I believe that our Church was founded by God. This is indeed what I believe. I do not believe that this is a tenet of the two faiths I mentioned, at least not in the mainstream iterations of those religions. Now, understand, I am only trying to understand the reasoning here, but how would I explain to a Jew that the Baal Shem Tov is less significant than St. Augustine, or tell a Buddhist that Jesus is more important than the Gautama Buddha? I believe that the the Baal Shem Tov and the Budha lived and were very wise, but I don’t follow their teachings - I follow Jesus. I wonder if Jewish people or Buddhist people might likewise allow that Jesus lived, but not agree with our interpretation of His nature and subsequently not follow His teachings? How would I tell them that my belief that their religions are not on equal ground with mine is anything other than my opinion, based on how I was raised, my cultural background and my ability to reason? Not arguing with you - just curious. I like to hear what people think and the processes behind it - that’s all.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think any religion that states that homosexuals are despised by God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that homosexuals are loved by God.

I think that any religion that states that Jesus is not God is greatly unequal to a religion that states that Jesus is God.

I think that any religion that states that abortion is a sacrament is greatly unequal to a religion that states that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

I love you PR, but when are you going to stop being silly with me? No religion with any statistically significant presence in any society holds those beliefs. Let’s talk about the big ones. How in your opinion are they unequal? I’d like to think that I listen to reason, and will gladly follow or subscribe to any line of thinking that I find convincing. So, I am asking you to feel free to try and change my thinking on this matter, but to do that you’re going to have to get serious with me, okay?

 

[PRmerger]

I understand the line of thinking, yes, but might not Jewish people or Buddhist people disagree with the second half of your statement? You and I believe that our Church was founded by God. This is indeed what I believe. I do not believe that this is a tenet of the two faiths I mentioned, at least not in the mainstream iterations of those religions. Now, understand, I am only trying to understand the reasoning here, but how would I explain to a Jew that the Baal Shem Tov is less significant than St. Augustine, or tell a Buddhist that Jesus is more important than the Gautama Buddha? I believe that the the Baal Shem Tov and the Budha lived and were very wise, but I don’t follow their teachings - I follow Jesus. I wonder if Jewish people or Buddhist people might likewise allow that Jesus lived, but not agree with our interpretation of His nature and subsequently not follow His teachings? How would I tell them that my belief that their religions are not on equal ground with mine is anything other than my opinion, based on how I was raised, my cultural background and my ability to reason? Not arguing with you - just curious. I like to hear what people think and the processes behind it - that’s all.

We do what we can to offer a reason for the hope we have in us, with gentleness and reverence.

We speak the truth in love.

We never keep silent and allow evil to triumph.

So when the Rev. Fred Phelps proclaims his vile message of hate, Catholics do not say, “I respect that view!” Rather, we say, “This message is odious and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

[PRmerger]

I love you PR, but when are you going to stop being silly with me? No religion with any statistically significant presence in any society holds those beliefs. Let’s talk about the big ones. How in your opinion are they unequal? I’d like to think that I listen to reason, and will gladly follow or subscribe to any line of thinking that I find convincing. So, I am asking you to feel free to try and change my thinking on this matter, but to do that you’re going to have to get serious with me, okay?

I fail to see how statistics fits into our dialogue at all.

If all religions are equal, then whether 25 people in a storefront church proclaim false doctrine, or 25 million proclaim it, the fact remains that in your paradigm you believe that their position of [fill in the blank with any hateful diatribe you like] has equal value to this.

Math shouldn’t factor into this. At all.