Is religious tolerance a good thing or a bad thing?

Religious Freedom is a good thing. Religious Dogma is a bad thing.

Yes.

I love clarity.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Amen

How do you know what a Biblical God does or doesn't like? Did you ask her?
Should we tolerate other religions, of course.
Should we tolerate religions screwing with women's reproductive rights, no. And so on.

Religious tolerance is a good thing for mankind.

Religious tolerance is a bad thing for the biblical god.

What has happened with Christians and our horrid response to folks at times is our need to make everyone AGREE that we are right. I no longer feel that need. Do many of my fellow Christians agree with me? Some do some don't.

Marie Colvin wrote:


What punishment? Hell? That is, if you believe in a religion that says there is a hell. If you do not believe it is true, what punishment would there be?

No one can MAKE someone believe a particular way. Not in their head anyway...you can force them to pretend at gunpoint - or by oppression - or by fear of ostracism - which is not really freedom.

Religious freedom is a very good thing. Tolerance is required to some degree because you should never infringe on someone elses freedom to believe how they choose. That is why seperation of church and state is so important. Legislating religion becomes very sticky where freedom of worship is concerned. It's a fine line that gets blurry fast. And it can be detrimental for both sides.

Which is why it is so important to keep the two seperated. Birth control is used for medical reasons many times...not just for the obvious reason. Even if it wasn't - the church should not force it's members to avoid something that is as elemental as birth control. In my opinion that is a choice of conscience and the Catholic Church would be wise to allow its members to practice that freedom as their conscience guides - and to back away from making it a political infringement. It's not.

Well said, mismi

You've answered your own question before you really even asked it. How exactly are you confused?


And it shouldn't be surprising that the "inspired" texts followed by monotheistic faiths aren't always tolerant of other religions. It's kind of one of their things.


Obviously that doesn't mean all christians (muslims or jews either) are intolerant of other religions just because their "good books" can be. This can easily be demonstrated by driving through any suburb and noting a general lack of stonings being carried out.

Religious tolerance is good - unless the religion is intolerant. Of course a minor intolerant religion is nothing much, but a major intolerant religion is a problem.

That's great that you no longer feel the need to make everyone agree that you are right. What prompted this change in your feelings?

Realizing it does no good. Some folks is just hard headed.

Living life before folks and loving others well is the best way to let them know what you believe. If they are around me long enough they will see it rather than me having to beat it into them. Like that ever works.

Anyway - most folks here are out for a fight anyway. I know it's called debating - but it doesn't always feel that way. Hard to know when people don't mean things personally.

Doesn't mean I don't have the same Christian values that so many object to, it just means that I live by my convictions...just as I expect others to. If they want to talk to me about why I believe what I do, I am glad to discuss it. But not in a public forum. That generally tends to get combative.

I have to say that much of what I have come to believe comes from A2K and realizing how many feel that Christians are horrid folks. I see that many certainly seem to be hateful, and that makes me sad. I have also seen that the harder you try to get your point across the more folks seem to either misunderstand or feel you are trying to change them. I don't have to change you. Anyway - I am enough of a screw up that I have to depend on the mercy of others and God way too much to try and point fingers at what others are doing wrong.

It is up to the individual to search for themselves. I can't say I agree with everyone else that I believe the same things. But I do believe they have a right to live as they see fit. They have a right to live out their own convictions.

Hello friends,

Many thanks for sharing your information, Really religious freedom a good thing, I am highly appreciated.

Best regards
Marie Colvin

I think we need to get past just religious tolerance and embrace acceptance as well. Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Will this help???

HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.


The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :


Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?


Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.


One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely.. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.


This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct, leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+