I could both be unfortunate and have very poor judgement, but as mentioned, I don't believe so, and hence might accuse others of this - the believers.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does your religion say about how believers should get along with non believers?
- Thread starter osgart
- Start date
At a friendly cordial distance. There is no point in trying to become best friends with people in totally different paradigms than yourself, as there isn't much in common. But that doesn't mean we have to be jerks about it.
But I don't really think in the believer-unbeliever duality thing either.
Last edited:
If there is no question of belonging to a religion, only performing spiritual practices, how can there be any question of "believers" against "non-believers"?
If a difference should be marked, it is the difference between dharmic type of people and adharmic type of people. Those who are immoral and performing injustices should definitely be opposed, no matter what they believe in.
If a difference should be marked, it is the difference between dharmic type of people and adharmic type of people. Those who are immoral and performing injustices should definitely be opposed, no matter what they believe in.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
My understanding of the Bible is that those who've trusted Jesus for salvation should tell as many people as possible how Jesus, being perfect, made Himself imperfect to be executed on the cross, so that we who are imperfect, will be made perfect when we meet Jesus--only perfect people can go to Heaven, and imperfect people, excluded from Heaven and the coming new Earth, are imprisoned in Hell.
If the Bible is true, that necessitates sharing the good news of Jesus--if Christians truly care for others.
Believers and non-believers in what? Everyone believes something.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I feel that religious beliefs should generally be ignored as entirely meaningless. Only if someone attempts to push a point and tries to convince another of the "truth" of their belief should there be any consideration of those beliefs. Then its a free-for-all of thought exchange, within which "feelings" should simply not be a consideration.
And as a very good example of a corollary to the above, believe it or not, I would cite scientific information as "belief." Does anyone consider the sharing of scientific information as some intrinsic part of the person doing the sharing? Do we worry about the "feelings" of the person who shared information/belief of scientific origin when we disagree that it is accurate and feel compelled to say so? Be careful how you answer if you're a theist who has ever argued against evolution! Hahaha!
Religious belief should be given no more "respect" or consideration than someone's stance on scientific matters. It doesn't make any sense to do so, except in an attempt not to spare the feelings of people who put far too much stock in their religious positions. Something I don't even think is prudent anyway, but I can understand the motivations behind the reactions of someone who does care about those feelings.
And as a very good example of a corollary to the above, believe it or not, I would cite scientific information as "belief." Does anyone consider the sharing of scientific information as some intrinsic part of the person doing the sharing? Do we worry about the "feelings" of the person who shared information/belief of scientific origin when we disagree that it is accurate and feel compelled to say so? Be careful how you answer if you're a theist who has ever argued against evolution! Hahaha!
Religious belief should be given no more "respect" or consideration than someone's stance on scientific matters. It doesn't make any sense to do so, except in an attempt not to spare the feelings of people who put far too much stock in their religious positions. Something I don't even think is prudent anyway, but I can understand the motivations behind the reactions of someone who does care about those feelings.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thanks for you opinion.
It’s especially a problem with family if they don’t respect others’ POV or beliefs. Friendships can end, sometimes painfully; acquaintances too, though with less pain. I admit that as cordial as most of us on this site try to be and profess to be tolerant, very bluntly, there are some I would not wish to associate with in real life. Their beliefs are often diametrically opposed to mine, and other Hindus or those not of their faiths.
Now family, which is often hard if not impossible to break with... ah marrone! It’s pretty well known by now, by anyone who knows me, I run into this with some of my my family, admittedly not all... a very bigoted, insular, Italian-American Catholic-when-necessary family (there in lies the irony... they’re not religious). I keep as much to myself lest I become the butt of jokes about my weirdness. There’s no understanding or desire to understand. So yeah, it’s difficult if not impossible.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Speaking of other religions, I spend a lot more time on nature than I do practicing my religion....
I just noticed that you have your religion as nature so now I am Following you.
Thanks and in return respect you really do present Baha'i in a wonderful light. We need more tolerance like yours in our diverse world. And I also like the cat!
This is the “Great Commission”, whereby the apostles were to go out into the world and teach this. However, it’s gone too far. I dare say that even in the remotest parts of Papua New Guinea there is nary a person who hasn’t heard this. Yet what I see, as it’s been my experience is that Jesus’s followers continue to hammer. They do not stop at just spreading the “Good News”. They actively and often obnoxiously try to convert people, not respecting those others, threatening hellfire and God’s judgement. I had a rather amusing running Facebook (I know
) “battle” with a few fundamentalists. But in actual fact, Jesus said if a town would not hear the apostles they should leave and shake the dust off their feet. He did not say to keep at it, using threats and underhanded tactics to convert people. What happens to the people who reject the “good news” is their problem.Turn the other cheek, so they can hit that too.
But, the Religious Right also pushes an agenda.
But, that isn't what the Religious Right president (George W. Bush) did in Iraq. Even without proof of a link to terrorism, and without proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, W. Bush killed about 1,000,000 Iraqis. The media, not wanting to dampen the enthusiasm for killing, made sure to list only US casualties, not Iraqi casualties. When confronted with lies about enemy deaths, United States general Franks said "we're not in the business of counting casualties."
So, the Religious Right candidate defied God and killed (and tortured in Guantanamo, where he figured, incorrectly, that would be immune from US torture treaties).
The Religious Right vote in great numbers, and once their candidates are elected, they are kings of the world....deciding who lives or dies. They were only elected to make decisions in the US, but now they are expensively policemen of the world.
The Religious Right gets along with non-believers by taking over politics, then defying God.
Republicans demanded the "line item veto" but, by the time they got it, it fell to President Bill Clinton, who used it sparingly. Then they said that it was too much power, so they took it away. So, the Religious Right gets along with non-believers by securing unfair advantages.
The Religious Right wants to force public prayer (only to their God) in schools.
The Religious Right wants to teach creationism along with evolution, claiming that evolution, too, is a religion.
Abortion might be deemed murder, depending on how one defines the beginning of life.
Rush Limbaugh, et al, are highly funded by businesses that benefit from the Republican tax cuts for the rich, and they have soft-money campaigns year-round.
Environmentalists expend a tremendous amount of effort fighting the Religious Right's lies about Global Warming and pollution, as mammon (money) is channeled to greedy developers who harm the planet.
The question "how do we get along with those who believe differently?" depends on how strongly each side pushes its agenda.
The Religious Right was murdering 1,000,000 Iraqis, then saying that they will pray to get along with us. Then torturing Iraqis, then saying that they are people of peace.....this is two-faced and false. They try to look like the innocent victims who no one is trying to get along with.
Attachments
One should regard other humans and living beings as aspects of God regardless of belief. Further Hinduism does not claim exclusivity and other beliefs (even secular beliefs) also have the potential to lead a person towards connecting with the deeper reality within and without. Thus a Hindu who understands Hinduism would never distinguish based on beliefs.
If heaven is filled with bad people, that too will be hell.
Catholic priests take this "love of boys" a bit too seriously.
I want to be the first to shake your hand....and hand.....and hand.....and hand.....and hand.
I'm lucky. My family interaction is down to once or twice a year. But yes, I know a few with great difficulties over religion. My two brothers and I rarely talk it.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
My religion teaches that all of us (i.e. all of humanity) are children of God and, therefore, brothers and sisters. It teaches us to love and respect people of all religions or no religion at all. It teaches that God's greatest desire is for every last one of us -- His family -- to return to His presence someday, having learned to love as He loves.
There is theory and practice. In practice, we aren't even tolerant towards each other disputes (sects).
In this topic, actions definitely speak louder that words.