Trying not to be a bore but I have another Jesus question

re·spect (r-spkt)
tr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.
n.
1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.
4. respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.
5. A particular aspect, feature, or detail: In many respects this is an important decision.
6. Usage Problem Relation; reference. See Usage Note at regard

Before I posted I looked up "respect" and found "deferential regard" listed as numbero uno as both "vtr.v." and "n." per http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respect

Quote:

re·spect (r-spkt)
tr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.
n.
1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.
4. respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.
5. A particular aspect, feature, or detail: In many respects this is an important decision.
6. Usage Problem Relation; reference. See Usage Note at regard

.In any case, I would argue that should the tyke be my kid, I would not teach "respect for the rights of other people to believe what they want".

Why?

Because all beliefs are not inherently equal in their merit on a moral basis nor on the basis of empiricism.

Now that is not to say I do not defer to moral relativism; but nonetheless there does appear to be some modes of action that are more universally accepted / discouraged: soft-altruism versus premeditated murder for example.

... Anyway... I told him that it was okay if he believes in Hell but that he didn't have to worry about it because he is a good person.

Then the question becomes are we talking about you personally or are we talking about advice for the little tyke?

And most to the point how best define your so-called "harm" (or claimed lack thereof)!

For example, I gather you would consider witch-burning to be "harm", but and yet in the "correct" moral context it was considered beneficial as was human sacrifice.

In fact, a type of human sacrifice is considered by many to be morally apropos in today's so-called Modern Western World! Witness US military interventionism in the Middle East.

Moral relativism rears its ugly head.

Again, I do not have respect, nor would I teach my tyke that respect is needed as it pertains to unsubstantiated beliefs. That is not to say I might not have and teach circumstance dependent tolerance; but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Respect is not circumstance dependent tolerance!

They certainly did open a can of worms!

I know a lot of the thoughts on this thread are way way above his head -- some of them are way above mine but I am enjoying the lesson.

If only they WERE using Superman as the basis for being "good". I could simply say that I'm an Underdog kind of girl and leave it at that.

I think I'm respectful of people's beliefs, or at least I'm respectful of their right to believe whatever they want and that includes what Mo believes.

He brought up Hell again yesterday and I told him that I really don't believe in Hell and he said he did believe. (He also belives that his arm is a baby snake named Striker so he draws scales on his arm and eyeballs on his fist so Striker can hang out with us.) (He also believes I can fix everything that ever goes wrong.) (He believes some crazy stuff.) (He's seven. He should believe some crazy stuff.) Anyway... I told him that it was okay if he believes in Hell but that he didn't have to worry about it because he is a good person.

Chumly wrote:

Then the question becomes are we talking about you personally or are we talking about advice for the little tyke?

And most to the point how best define your so-called "harm" (or claimed lack thereof)!

For example, I gather you would consider witch-burning to be "harm", but and yet in the "correct" moral context it was considered beneficial as was human sacrifice.

In fact, a type of human sacrifice is considered by many to be morally apropos in today's so-called Modern Western World! Witness US military interventionism in the Middle East.

Moral relativism rears its ugly head.

Again, I do not have respect, nor would I teach my tyke that respect is needed as it pertains to unsubstantiated beliefs. That is not to say I might not have and teach circumstance dependent tolerance; but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Respect is not circumstance dependent tolerance!

We're talking about me, you, the little tyke, whomever. I think "harm" is
pretty clear, don't you? Witch burning, is of course, "harm". But I have
the fundamental right to believe it is not harm. That witch burning is
beneficial is a stupid thing to believe, but I have the right to believe it.

Of course you don't have to respect beliefs, unsubstantiated or otherwise.
Who denies this? But I would teach respect for a person's right to believe.
I would even go so far as to advocate for a person's right to speak of those
beliefs.

Let me save you another trip to the dictionary. By "respect" I mean "To
avoid violation of or interference with."

Addendum: Natural rights are simply nonsense, what rights one has are those sectioned by the given state / society etc.

I'm there as well day-to-day (as much as I can at least).

On A2K sometimes I'll question things in a wider sense. Always a pleasure chatting with you! Oops in my above post "sectioned" = sanctioned.

Chumly wrote:

Addendum: Natural rights are simply nonsense, what rights one has are those sectioned by the given state / society etc.

that is one but school of thought among many. the founding fathers would profoundly disagree with you.