What is the most tolerant religion?

[KSojourner]

If I went by scripture alone I would say Christianity and Buddhism are the most tolerant religions.

If I went by examples, there is no such thing as the most tolerant religion.

I would agree that if you take in to account all the examples that came from members of various religions, then no religion could be considered more tolerant than the next. It is very easy to find examples of members that have some intolerances within any faith.

However, about your first point, you can't go by just scripture as there is more to each faith than just the written words. There are the dogmas that go along with the various religions and those dogmas are not necessarily in the written works. If you go by scripture alone, there would be more than just Christianity and Buddhist that would need to be added to your list as most religions are portrayed as being tolerant in their written works. And of course, they would be. Think about who is writing those works: The adherents.

I would have to say that there are people of all religions who are more tolerant then others. I would have to say that there are people of all religions who are more intolerant than others.

There are Christians who I've talked to who, while they didn't particularily care for my beliefs, they were willing to ask some intellegent questions and have a wonderful conversation about Christianity and Paganism. I would say that that shows a very tolerant additude.

I've seen Pagans who put down Christians when ever they can. I see this a lot on my blog recently and have had to tell people who I consider my "online" friends that they crossed the line and I don't tolerate that kind of behavior. I find it sad.

Are Christians the most tolerant? Are Pagans the most tolerant? Are UU's the most tolerant? I couldn't begin to say who is the most tolerant, but what I do know is that it tends to be up to the individual to determine their attitude and their level of tolerance.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

well, with necromancy it teaches you that everyone makes their own choices, and it is up to you to respect, and in some cases support those choices...unless it proves harmful, of course. the respect for others peoples choices is another way we keep balance within ourselves

 

[love]

Thanks for not answering my question.

Of course He didn't except everything. How can a righteous God condone sin without atonement? I think He accepted very little that He saw in the hearts of men. But somethings are history and somethings have not been fulfilled yet.

 

[Quiddity]

Of course He didn't except everything. How can a righteous God condone sin without atonement? I think He accepted very little that He saw in the hearts of men. But somethings are history and somethings have not been fulfilled yet.

I figured we'd agree. But I haven't the slightest idea what the last sentence said.

 

[love]

There is plenty of forgivness there.

 

[Quiddity]

There is plenty of forgivness there.

I don't know how that applies to what I said.

 

[McBell]

If you are looking for me to tell you that I am intolerant, then I'll save you some time and tell you that I am intolerant. Not just me, but my religion as well. At least I'm being consistant.

Actually I am interested in how this current same sex marriage debate fits into your theory.

 

[Quiddity]

Actually I am interested in how this current same sex marriage debate fits into your theory.

Are you asking me if my lack of support of same sex marriage is of my own doing or Church teaching?

 

[McBell]

Are you asking me if my lack of support of same sex marriage is of my own doing or Church teaching?

Not really.
Since I know it is a Biblical teaching.
In fact the Bible says to kill GLBTs on sight.
I am more interested in your theory as to where the responsibility lays.
Is the Bible to blame, or is it those who follow the Bible or perhaps both, neither maybe?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What is the most most tolerant religion?

By doctrine alone, I'd have to say UU. It's kind of their creed. Even Buddhism has what's called the "Three Dharma Seals" that defines what exactly can be called Buddhist and what can't. For example, an eternal and immortal soul is not a Buddhist doctrine and is ultimately rejected.


Hinduism is a very close second.

What is the most intolerant religion?

I'm so not going there.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[McBell]

I do not understand what this whole "by doctrine alone" is all about.
IS a religion merely a doctrine?
Seems to me that seperating the doctrine from everything else is a strong indication that there are far to many members of said religion who do not follow doctrine.
I mean, why else would you feel the need to seperate it?
If they do not follow doctrine are they truly of that religion?
And what of a religion that has several different doctrines?
Which doctrine is the "one true path?"



If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg does not make the tail a leg.

 

[Quiddity]

Not really.
Since I know it is a Biblical teaching.
In fact the Bible says to kill GLBTs on sight.
I am more interested in your theory as to where the responsibility lays.
Is the Bible to blame, or is it those who follow the Bible or perhaps both, neither maybe?

I could have sworn I answered this question already. Let's try again:
"It's really quite simple. If a particular faith teaches (as doctrine) that "blacks are inferior" then you bet I will hold the religion accountable...." (Post #31)

So it doesn't really matter how you personally interpret the Bible because it is very possible that we may be interpreting it differently. It is our official teaching that guide how we interpret the Bible. So if anything needs to be held responsible it is the official teachings of the respective religion.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[lilithu]

Since I know it is a Biblical teaching.
In fact the Bible says to kill GLBTs on sight.

No, it does not.

This is a perfect example of how your modern sensibilities affect your interpretation of what you read (assuming you've actually read the verses of which you speak).

The concept of sexual orientation did not even exist at the time the biblical scriptures were written. There was no concept of "homosexual"; only the awareness that some men had sex with men. The bible condemns the act of men having sex with men. It does not condemn BGLT people.

 

[McBell]

I could have sworn I answered this question already. Let's try again:
"It's really quite simple. If a particular faith teaches (as doctrine) that "blacks are inferior" then you bet I will hold the religion accountable...." (Post #31)

So it doesn't really matter how you personally interpret the Bible because it is very possible that we may be interpreting it differently. It is our official teaching that guide how we interpret the Bible. So if anything needs to be held responsible it is the official teachings of the respective religion.

Hope that clarifies things.

No.
It does not clarify anything.
In fact, it smacks of an avoidance of answering the question all together.

No, it does not.

Yes it does.
But I do not expect you to see anything other than what you want to see.

This is a perfect example of how your modern sensibilities affect your interpretation of what you read (assuming you've actually read the verses of which you speak).

You have got to be joking.
First off, you know nothing of my education, so stop making an *** of yourself with your assumptions.
Second of all, it is not all that uncommon for people to have conversations about ancient times using modern terminology.

The concept of sexual orientation did not even exist at the time the biblical scriptures were written. There was no concept of "homosexual"; only the awareness that some men had sex with men. The bible condemns the act of men having sex with men. It does not condemn BGLT people.

Wow.
Now you insult their inteligence.

 

[lilithu]

But I do not expect you to see anything other than what you want to see.

Right back at ya buddy. (Tho I'll try to refrain from the personal attacks that you so quickly jumped to.)

Second of all, it is not all that uncommon for people to have conversations about ancient times using modern terminology.

Uncommon or not, it's a mistake to view ancient times based upon only your modern view.

Now you insult their intelligence.

Only if I made a judgement about relative intelligences, which I did not. I said that the concept did not exist, and it didn't. Sexual orientation as a concept did not exist until the 19th century. Before that, homosexual acts were only spoken of in terms of behavior, not orientation or disposition. Google it fer yerself if you don't believe me.

 

[Quiddity]

No.
It does not clarify anything.
In fact, it smacks of an avoidance of answering the question all together.

Mestemia, please point out where I have avoided your question. :areyoucra

You asked me what is to be responsible (post #49) and I answered your question (post #52).

So what am I avoiding?

 

[Sonic247]

In a way true christianity is both. It is most tolerant in the physicall sense: (the weapons of our warfare are spiritual not carnal). But we are the least theologically. We can not worship statues made by men, or say that other religions are just as good, or that everyone will be saved and there is no hell. We can't except anything but the gospel as a way of getting to heaven.

 

[McBell]

Right back at ya buddy. (Tho I'll try to refrain from the personal attacks that you so quickly jumped to.)

I am honestly surprised with your "(Tho I'll try to refrain from the personal attacks that you so quickly jumped to.)" line of crap.
Especially in light of the fact that you started it with your "{assuming you actually read the verses}" line of crap.

But this petty bickering is non productive and a waste of time.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, please point out where I have avoided your question. :areyoucra

You asked me what is to be responsible (post #49) and I answered your question (post #52).

So what am I avoiding?

Why the need to seperate doctrine?
There have been several posts in this thread that state something along the lines of "doctrinely I would say {insert religion here}."
Why the need to specify "DOCTRINELY?"
Doctrinely as opposed to what?

 

[lilithu]

Especially in light of the fact that you started it with your "{assuming you actually read the verses}" line of crap.

Anyone who had actually read the verses would see that there is no mention of BGLT in them, and therefore would know that what they were saying was an interpretation, not fact.