A Site for All Spirituality Forum Debaters

Originally posted by Crita
So you think it's the right thing to do to force your 'right more often than not' onto someone else?

No, I don't believe that it's ever right to initiate the use of force against others.

Originally posted by vistesd
I wasn't following it that closely

I believe that his position is that one has an ethical duty to oppose beliefs that are dangerous, irrational, or just plain wrong from one's own point-of-view.

Diplomacy is so weak. You know my arguments are superior to theirs, and I know you know it, so you don't have to say it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, I don't believe that it's ever right to initiate the use of force against others.

Not even if they are in the process of anihilating the Jews? You would sit by and do nothing?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How about Mormonism?
How about Jehovah's Witnesses?
How about Scientology?
How about Satanism?
How about the various Native American religions that don't have traditional texts?

Include them too, minus Satanism. I would consider Satanism a belief system in a direct intolerance and rebellion of Christianity, not a religion. In regards to the lack of texts, I specified beliefs, too.

But remember, I'm talking about the religions in terms of their fundamental beliefs (and/or texts if applicable),

Originally posted by Crita
Not even if they are in the process of anihilating the Jews? You would sit by and do nothing?

If I exercise force against somebody annihilating somebody else, I'm not initiating force, am I?

Originally posted by wittywonka
Include them too, minus Satanism. I would consider Satanism a belief system in a direct intolerance and rebellion of Christianity, not a religion. In regards to the lack of texts, I specified beliefs, too.

But remember, I'm talking about the religions in terms of their fundamental beliefs (and/or texts if applicable),

What if I invent a new one? Will you extend religious tolerance to it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If I exercise force against somebody annihilating somebody else, I'm not initiating force, am I?

So as long as the somebody you are exercising force against has at some stage in the past exercised force against a party unrelated to you it is then OK to exercise force against them as you are not initiating it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Diplomacy is so weak. You know my arguments are superior to theirs, and I know you know it, so you don't have to say it.

Let him say what he wants to say. I'm serious, if I need to reconstruct my entire view on religous tolerance, tell me! Why do you think I've sat here for two hours debating it.

Also, since vistesd was kind enough to actually point out what you have only "clued" us to, I have said and said again that there is a difference between tolerating actions in the name of religion and tolerating religious practices.

Edit -- If you'd actually tell me what you think and stop attacking and questioning what I'd think, maybe I'd question my beliefs myself.

Originally posted by Crita
So as long as the somebody you are exercising force against has at some stage in the past exercised force against a party unrelated to you it is then OK to exercise force against them as you are not initiating it?

No, the condition you present is insufficient justification for exercising the use of force.

Originally posted by wittywonka

I have said and said again that there is a difference between tolerating actions in the name of religion and tolerating religious practices.

But you haven't specified how to determine what is a real religious practice and what is a pseudo religious practice.

In particular, you haven't said whether slaying your son on an altar might be a real religious practice.

Nor have you said whether forcing children into sex and marriage might be a real religious practice.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What if I invent a new one? Will you extend religious tolerance to it?

I don't know. I honestly don't know.

Please answer my question now...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, the condition you present is insufficient justification for exercising the use of force.

So what would be a sufficient justification for exercising the use of force? Do you get to decide that?

Originally posted by wittywonka
If you'd actually tell me what you think and stop attacking and questioning what I'd think, maybe I'd question my beliefs myself.

I've told you that I think you are a very bad person if you would have in fact stood by while Abraham took Isaac to be slain.

I've told you that I think your beliefs about religious tolerance are inconsistent with your acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the First in particular.

I've told you that if religious tolerance includes refraining from criticizing false beliefs, then religious tolerance ought not be exhibited.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I don't know. I honestly don't know.

Please answer my question now...

Well, I can't elaborate on my previous answer of No, since your definition of religious tolerance might include allowing the possible religious practices of slaying and raping children.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But you haven't specified how to determine what is a real religious practice and what is a pseudo religious practice.

In particular, you haven't said whether slaying your son on an altar might be a real religious practice.

Nor have you said whether forcing children into sex and marriage might be a real religious practice.

Firstly, in the story of Abraham slaying his son, it was a test. Simply a test; it never turned out to be a religious act. He could have tested him in other ways. Also, God never said, "Go out, all ye believers, and slay your sons in my name." So, Abraham slaying his son, or me slaying my son, for that matter, would not be a religious act.

And yes, I realize this is not what I said earlier. I am just now figuring out what you are trying to ask and say.

Also, as I have said before, God does not condone child molestation, as far as I am aware, so it would not be a religious act.

I am now begging you to answer my question.