Ecumenism?

[metis]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would depend upon what their faith compels them to do.

 

[Windwalker]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

I like that. Yes, I agree with it. It's also a challenge to our own faith to do that, to be certain.

 

[exchemist]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

In most cases yes. But there are exceptions in my view. Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses and creationist Christians spring to mind.

 

[Estro Felino]

In the Christian perspective all humans are God's children. And God loves all of them equally.
He does not love Christians more than others.
And God made all his children free to decide their own faith.
So...absolutely. I do agree.

 

[metis]

In most cases yes. But there are exceptions in my view. Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses and creationist Christians spring to mind.

I have the same problem as I've mentioned many times before because I don't accept the "my way or the highway" approach. Gandhi also had a problem with this as well, btw. Another problem he had is with many Christian fundamentalists whereas he responded that all too many "elevated the man and forgot his message".

But, imo, the problem I have is more with those approaches than with the religion or denomination as a whole. Some JW's and I have gone round and round, and yet I still do have respect for what they believe in general minus those and a couple of other areas.

 

[Windwalker]

In most cases yes. But there are exceptions in my view. Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses and creationist Christians spring to mind.

They particularly need to be a better followers of their faith. Isolationism and anti-science are not being good followers of the Christian faith. They should be encouraged to grow and face the light, rather than retreat in fear.

 

[metis]

They particularly need to be a better followers of their faith. Isolationism and anti-science are not being good followers of the Christian faith. They should be encouraged to grow and face the light, rather than retreat in fear.

I totally agree.

 

[Nakosis]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

With Gandhi's choice for himself, sure. It's not my choice though.

I tend to undermine people's faith in everything. Religion, politics, science etc...
Not really sure it's a choice, it is just kind of what I do. The only person historically I really look up to is Socrates.

For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.⁣

 

[metis]

I tend to undermine people's faith in everything. Religion, politics, science etc...

IMO, it's a matter as to whether it's blind faith or well-thought-out faith. Some of the brightest people on the planet have been theists but also some of the dumbest.

Thus, there's a difference between "challenge" and "undermine", and the latter I don't much care for. I challenge myself a lot through doubt, and that ain't necessarily bad, imo.

 

[Estro Felino]

IMO, it's a matter as to whether it's blind faith or well-thought-out faith. Some of the brightest people on the planet have been theists but also some of the dumbest.

Thus, there's a difference between "challenge" and "undermine", and the latter I don't much care for. I challenge myself a lot through doubt, and that ain't necessarily bad, imo.

In fact. Respect comes from Latin respicio which means to look within (within people).
I can look into people's soul to understand what led them to choose a particular faith. That is how I respect it.
I can disagree of course. Respectfully.

 

[exchemist]

I have the same problem as I've mentioned many times before because I don't accept the "my way or the highway" approach. Gandhi also had a problem with this as well, btw. Another problem he had is with many Christian fundamentalists whereas he responded that all too many "elevated the man and forgot his message".

But, imo, the problem I have is more with those approaches than with the religion or denomination as a whole. Some JW's and I have gone round and round, and yet I still do have respect for what they believe in general minus those and a couple of other areas.

Yes there is justice in that.

 

[exchemist]

They particularly need to be a better followers of their faith. Isolationism and anti-science are not being good followers of the Christian faith. They should be encouraged to grow and face the light, rather than retreat in fear.

Exactly. It's the exclusivism that sticks in my throat: we, alone, have all the answers and everyone else is wrong, including science!

 

[Dawnofhope]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

I like the sentiment. Generally I agree, though some faiths are harmful. Some faiths are aggressively exclusive, promote violence and extremism, deny science, reject basic human rights and don't do enough to protect their members from predators in their midst.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

No. If anything, people should adhere to principles, not faith, and the value of supporting such a commitment depends entirely on the quality of those principles.

 

[shunyadragon]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

No I do not agree. Rather idealistic of human nature. From an honest perspective I do not have the answer, and the idealism of ecumenism is a naive illusion.

The responsibility of the relationships with those that believe differently is that one most give up the egocentric nature of their own belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

Generally no, I don't agree.

Ecumenicalism strikes me as a crappy, prejudicial version of secularism: "let's set aside our differences and focus on what unites us... but let's still exclude those nasty atheists."

 

[shunyadragon]

Generally no, I don't agree.

Ecumenicalism strikes me as a crappy, prejudicial version of secularism: "let's set aside our differences and focus on what unites us... but let's still exclude those nasty atheists."

To a certain extent I agree, ecumenism has the humanist element of compromise and make things fit so that the 'we' agree the problem is the effort in the past has been a house of cards, and no reason to think it will change.

 

[robocop (actually)]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

Certainly true of the Raelians... they want everyone to be better at their religions, refocused through those religions having been created by Aliens.

 

[exchemist]

Generally no, I don't agree.

Ecumenicalism strikes me as a crappy, prejudicial version of secularism: "let's set aside our differences and focus on what unites us... but let's still exclude those nasty atheists."

Ecumenism is like a rugby union team and a rugby league team agreeing to play some matches together.

They don't sit down and agree to exclude those nasty oarsmen.