Religious Beliefs

pandora

EmBleve wrote:

pandora wrote:

My feeling is...
it is not my place to judge others on their path.
To conclude a lack of insight or close-mindedness or tunnel vision.
We are all intertwined and provide revelation for each other through our daily contact...
that is my belief.

Some of the most creative, big hearted people here could be called, at one time or another,
one of those words you used on any particular subject.

I choose to see the good and take the good.

I was not judging anyone, Pandora. I was speaking to the concept of literal interpretation. If you would read my post again, I said nothing about individuals. And it can lead to problems, like it or not. I have been judged in the past by 'christians' for NOT taking things in a literal sense, and 'told' how I 'should' be interpreting it, which to me is hypocrisy personified. And, yes, in that situation, I certainly do see that as tunnel vision and judgment calls.

You are saying it is a concept but also saying you were judged by others so I feel your experience has formed a negative opinion.
I totally agree Christians should not judge you nor tell you how to interpret.
This is very wrong...no one should judge.

For me... I must work toward unconditional love. I pray for the day. Race religion gender sexual preference political persuasion personal opinions none of it will matter...no discourse.

To get there I try not to judge which is much harder than I ever thought it would be.

_

EmBleve wrote:

I agree with being happy that there are people willing to share their beliefs and stand by their principles. I just think that the literal interpretation of some things lead to problems and close-mindedness, tunnel vision, and it can lead to a lack of insight insofar as the potential spiritualistic symbolism.

Forgive me for jumping in on this one post out of context, but are you actually asserting the radical idea that when people choose to limit their interpretation of something, their perspective on it can be... limited?

ShimmyMommy

redrock wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

....I was referring to the ones who decide through their own literal translation of religious text that it is their mission to punish others..

Using literal translation not just to punish ShimmyMommy but maybe, acting in 'good faith', to do a lot of damage in everyday life. What Embleve added when it comes to tunnel vision, judgement and closed mindedness is very relevant - in all religions where there is reward and punishment. Bible taken 'literally', Koran taken 'literally', etc. in the 'do's and don'ts'. It's obvious in the world around us... against gays, contraception, 'forced' marriage (eg a recent case discussed on this forum) - these are only a few examples. I'm not even talking about atrocities committed in the name of god or religion, historically or in our lifetime. There are so many passages in, for example, both 'books' I mentioned that extremists will pick up on and follow to the letter that it's scary.

Yes, I agree 100%. I think we are saying the same thing.

Yes, some people who act with the "good faith"/intention of following their religion can do a lot of damage in everyday life. I used 9/11 because the extremists seen it as their "good faith" to punish what they thought was against their religious beliefs. Yes, some people do the same in everyday life, with verbal offenses such as sexism, racism, discrimination, judgement, close-mindedness, tunnel vision, etc.

Where it is gets scary for me, is when they do not even acknowledge that those verbal offenses have the same negative impact as direct physical punishment. It all breeds negativity, no matter how it's sliced. I cannot change those people, they can only change themselves. All I can change is how I respond to them. I can choose to give positivity or I can choose to let them be. I choose not to add to their negativity, because it hurts me in the end. Does that make sense?

pandora

'Look at the weaknesses of others with compassion,
not accusation.
It's not what they're not doing or should be doing that's the issue.
The issue is your own chosen response to the situation.'

redrock

ShimmyMommy wrote:

Does that make sense?

Perfect sense.

ShimmyMommy

redrock wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

Does that make sense?

Perfect sense.

I hope I didn't offend you. :?

I just know that when I have been discriminated against it hurts just the same as when I have been physically beaten. It all hurts. I cannot control when someone throws a punch or a racial remark. All I can do is decide how deep I will let it penetrate my soul, affecting what I give back.

And that their belief in religion never stopped them from doing those things...

redrock

ShimmyMommy wrote:

I hope I didn't offend you. :?

You said nothing to offend! Though I'm not sure I completely agree with you on the motives of 9/11 but that is REALLY a completely different thread!

ShimmyMommy

redrock wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

I hope I didn't offend you. :?

You said nothing to offend! Though I'm not sure I completely agree with you on the motives of 9/11 but that is REALLY a completely different thread!

yes, yes it is...

redrock

ShimmyMommy wrote:

And that their belief in religion never stopped them from doing those things...

Believing in god and/or practicing a religion to the 'scriptures' does not automatically make you a 'good' person. Look at a couple of 'saintly' figures, Mother Teresa was mentioned, as well as Gandhi.. Both could be seen as epitome of religious and good people (and rightly so) but both of them did not always practice what they said. Normal. No one can be 'perfect' however much one seeks this perfection through god or religion. Some are less perfect than others, even if 'believers'.

brandon10

redrock wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

I hope I didn't offend you. :?

You said nothing to offend! Though I'm not sure I completely agree with you on the motives of 9/11 but that is REALLY a completely different thread!

I realize that this could be for a different thread. But I'll add to this anyway. I'd say that American intervention and foreign policy played a larger role in 911. But I feel that religion played a significant part as well. In fact I would say that it's religion that creates the type of terrorism they use, the suicide bombing. Flying yourself into a building becomes a little easier when you believe that you're going to reap the reward of being surrounded by all those virgins in heaven. :roll:

redrock

brandon10 wrote:

... Flying yourself into a plane becomes a little easier when you believe that you're going to reap the reward of being surrounded by all those virgins in heaven. :roll:

Not to go into terrorism and everything, but you bring up a valid point. In all religions where there is reward or punishment in an afterlife, believers can certainly think that way. Followers of christian religions, islamic ones, Shinto, etc. all had/have 'martyrs'. One will willingly die for their god/religion because reward is promised in the afterlife. I think we then go back to wars and atrocities committed in the name of god/religion.

pandora

A beautiful thing is never perfect

EmBleve

_ wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

I agree with being happy that there are people willing to share their beliefs and stand by their principles. I just think that the literal interpretation of some things lead to problems and close-mindedness, tunnel vision, and it can lead to a lack of insight insofar as the potential spiritualistic symbolism.

Forgive me for jumping in on this one post out of context, but are you actually asserting the radical idea that when people choose to limit their interpretation of something, their perspective on it can be... limited?

no, it's not a 'radical' idea (to me), and what I was saying was completely in context with the rest of the discussion. But to some people, it is totally a 'radical' idea that books like the bible, koran, etc. are perhaps not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense. I'm not sure why you picked this comment of mine to question.. :? It seems that other people understood my point.

EmBleve

ShimmyMommy wrote:

It all breeds negativity, no matter how it's sliced. I cannot change those people, they can only change themselves. All I can change is how I respond to them. I can choose to give positivity or I can choose to let them be. I choose not to add to their negativity, because it hurts me in the end. Does that make sense?

yes.

ShimmyMommy

redrock wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

And that their belief in religion never stopped them from doing those things...

Believing in god and/or practicing a religion to the 'scriptures' does not automatically make you a 'good' person. Look at a couple of 'saintly' figures, Mother Teresa was mentioned, as well as Gandhi.. Both could be seen as epitome of religious and good people (and rightly so) but both of them did not always practice what they said. Normal. No one can be 'perfect' however much one seeks this perfection through god or religion. Some are less perfect than others, even if 'believers'.

I am with you there. Spiritual growth is always ongoing. We have to make mistakes and go through hard times to grow. Sometimes deviance from the norm is the best teacher to help us find the direction we need to go. To me, perfection is never the goal. If that were my goal, I would never fit into any one's description of perfection. I accept myself as I am, and accept that others may not. It's all I can do.

_

EmBleve wrote:

_ wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

I agree with being happy that there are people willing to share their beliefs and stand by their principles. I just think that the literal interpretation of some things lead to problems and close-mindedness, tunnel vision, and it can lead to a lack of insight insofar as the potential spiritualistic symbolism.

Forgive me for jumping in on this one post out of context, but are you actually asserting the radical idea that when people choose to limit their interpretation of something, their perspective on it can be... limited?

no, it's not a 'radical' idea (to me), and what I was saying was completely in context with the rest of the discussion. But to some people, it is totally a 'radical' idea that books like the bible, koran, etc. are perhaps not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense. I'm not sure why you picked this comment of mine to question.. :? It seems that other people understood my point.

It was sarcasm. I was agreeing with you.

ShimmyMommy

it's late! we should all take a break!!

EmBleve

_ wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

_ wrote:

no, it's not a 'radical' idea (to me), and what I was saying was completely in context with the rest of the discussion. But to some people, it is totally a 'radical' idea that books like the bible, koran, etc. are perhaps not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense. I'm not sure why you picked this comment of mine to question.. :? It seems that other people understood my point.

It was sarcasm. I was agreeing with you.

OH! Good to know! I wasn't quite sure how to take that :oops: ..the wink was a hint. Thought maybe I was talking in circles.. Sometimes things get lost in the translation in online convo. Cool.

EmBleve

ShimmyMommy wrote:

it's late! we should all take a break!!

and girl I've been at work all evening! I was chatting with "_" the other day on a somewhat political thread....and we know where this particular thread has gone in the past....so, I just wasn't sure (like I said, something gets lost in the translation sometimes without face-to-face subtleties--an interesting concept, btw... ya know what they say about religion and politics.... anyhoo..it's all good.

Smellyman

One thing Atheists and Christians can believe in....

http://i.imgur.com/cTT7m.jpg