Nova Andromeda wrote:For the first question let us make the assumption that you are totally wrong and secular humanism is generaly right (and the humanists know it and can prove it logically). In this case, what would you say is the appropriate way for the humanist to behave with respect to you?
Well, That's a little hard to wrap my head around but I will give it a shot. I don't know enough about the precepts of a secular humanist to put myself in one's shoes. I can, however, say that, though I believe it is my duty to spread my particular Faith, I don't condemn others (unless it leads to voilence, etc. like the Islam extremists and yes, I know that is not the majority of Islam). For example, I believe that Atheists are lost. I will reach out to anyone who is open to it and I will make my beliefs known through discussion, but as long as a person isn't bombing churches, etc., I can accept that person. That is what I would
hope my treatment would be at the hands of the secular humanists.
Before it gets brought up I will go on and mention that when people bomb abortion clinics, etc. and claim it is in the will of God, I am disgusted and horrified. I will also point out that the Crusades were not a product of Portestant Christianity (which is the category I fall under).
The second question is the same as the first, but let us assume the buddists (or some other randomly selected group) are correct and the people that have beliefs close to yours are wrong. In this case, what would you say is the appropriate way for this group to behave toward your group?
I would hope the same acceptance described in my first response would be given. I should perhaps say tolerance instead of acceptance, however. Acceptance is not meant that I would accept your beliefs as my own or that you would accept mine, etc. I am sure they
also believe it is their duty to spread their faith so I would expect a benevolent outreach much like the Christian Missionaries.
I should point out that the differnces between rational thinkers and theists is that theists accept faith which is literally the same as rejecting rational thought. This is an irreconsilable difference. For instance, you will never accept our basis for morality and we will never accept yours (baring the use of force). The question then becomes what action do you believe is appropriate given this disagreement and the fact that we live on the same planet.
While the temptation to argue over whether or not theists "reject rational thought" is tempting is a strong one, I don't think we would be able to find any common ground. However, my God is a loving God and he sent Jesus "not to condemn the world, but to save it". I think this particular topic you have brought up is an important one and so many times I wish Christians around the world would sit down and talk to someone with different beliefs about this stuff so they could see how they were being perceived. That said, I am well aware that there are a few outspoken Baptists that would love to string every Buddist, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Jehova's Witness, Atheist, Agnostic, and {insert group here} up by their ankles.
BrandonMustang I hope will have time to answer since it is rare that a religious leader shows up here or even talks with "the infidels" instead of simply talking at them.
I really like discussion like this, truth be told. Time get up on my soapbox for a minute: When you look at any group of people, there is going to be a great diversity of individuals. I think every side of the religious argument forgets that at some point. I will be the first to say that there are quite a few "Christians" and even "Southern Baptists" that are racist, sexist, whatever-kind-of-predjudiced, and uneducated in their own beliefs. There are others that know the Bible just well enough to be dangerous to themselves and their group. I know many who know the words in the Bible very well but completely miss out on the big picture (the late Mr. Chick for example). It's like having a basic understanding of the law but never giving any thought to the spirit of the law. In short, I have met semi-retarded Atheists that use "just because" defenses (not on this forum, mind you) and some very smart ones who have put a lot of thought into their beliefs. I have also met both exremes in my own group. That has really been my mission as far as posting in the SLAM threads goes. I wanted to show that I knew where my beliefs came from and I didn't think everyone with different beliefs than my own was a retarded "infidel". I also wanted to show a reasonable religiously conservative person because, well, there just aren't that many outspoken ones.
The best thing you can do is the right thing. The second best thing you can do is the wrong thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.
-Ben Franklin
.