Who is more aggresive here: the religious or anti-religious?
@headhunter525 (3548)
India
March 23, 2009 2:25am CST
There have been lively debates on religion here in mylot. Some are very aggresive as they debate whereas some are gentle. Both groups try to convert others to their respective position. I am not sure who has converted who. But as we debate who do you think is more aggresive? And who is more sincere and open minded?
2 people like this
6 responses
@Ravenladyj (22902)
• United States
23 Mar 09
Both groups try to convert others to their respective position
I disagree whole-heartedly with that comment...yes there are some here who do try to convert others to not only their way of thinking but also to their religion and so on BUT thats a small few really..I know that myself and several others of all various religious and spiritual paths have no desire and dont attempt to convert anyone....I dont try to convert a person to my path (that owuld be foolish since they arent me) or to my way of thinking (again foolish since they arent me) BUT I have, do and always will stand my ground, explain myself and my beliefs and so on...Does that make me aggressive? Maybe, maybe not...IMO No it doesnt....
as for who is more sincere, well sincerity isnt reserved for a specific type of person..regardless of the topic at hand there will always be sincere ppl and not so sincere ppl...its not any one group thats more inclined if that makes snese
AND I'd like to point out that just because a person is NOT religious doenst make them ANTI religious by any means..I'm NOT religious..spiritual? Yes and very much so but NOT religious at all however i'm also NOT ANTI-religion either...
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Mar 09
I think I have generalised it when I should not have made a generalised statement. What I was trying to say was that there are people from both sides who try to convert others to their position.
Regarding religiosity and spirituality, I think it depends on how one defines the words. I don't know how you'd define the words... am not sure either.
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
27 Mar 09
I can say that the church's position is not based on what Christians believe throughout all these years. There is nowhere in the Bible that a person can bury or not near her spouse if the spouse is from a different religious background. I think the reason there cannot be attributed to Christianity... they may have a cultural belief. A church should not add or delete, if it is faithful, to what the Bible says. Good day!
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
3 Apr 09
Thank you, positiveminded, for the link. That was news to me.
Let me clarify what I was saying. My comment on addition or subtraction from the Bible was in the context of whether it's right or wrong for oneself to be buried near one's spouse . The Bible is silent on the topic.
Addition or subtraction of word or words in the translated version takes place. That is because when the Bible is translated to, say, English it's not always possible to translate the exact word. In such situation translators use 'thought for thought' principle to translate. In that sense word count of Greek Bible and English Bible will not be same. I am not talking about addition or substraction of words in this sense.
By addition I meant it for case where Bible is silent, but people make things appear as if the Bible has definitely said about it. I hope you are getting my point.
I am sure Muslims will not want their Quran to be added or deleted in the sense that I am saying.
I respect the decision of anyone who chooses not to accept the Bible. But it does not seem fair to me to let Bible say things that it does not actually say.
I checked the site you gave. But I am little confused. I am not sure whether they are adding words from Hindu Scriptures to explain the biblical text in the commentary or whether they are adding a different meaning into the biblical text.
If it is the former kind then it is not addition. It is then the effort of people to make the meaning clearer to the readers.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
25 Mar 09
Obviously the religious - since time and time again I see them stating 'MINE is the ONLY TRUTH and if you don't believe and convert, then you are WRONG and going to hell' blah blah blah.
From where I stand as an agnostic, I have never ever said 'MINE is the ONLY truth and if you don't convert at once to MY belief, you are WRONG and going to hell'. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, and yet it sometimes DOES scare people. People need to not be scared so easily!
BTW I don't want to convert anybody. I simply want people to realize they are one of many - and that we are not robots. We do not all feel, think, or operate the same, therefore the reason for multiple beliefs. We were also all given free choice and free will, and many of us live in places where freedom of speech is a given right. Freedom of thought is a given right to everybody. Anyhow, what I wish for others is that they think about the fact that what they each feel is right is subjective - RIGHT FOR THEM, NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT FOR ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS WORLD. I operate under this principle, I definitely know that sometimes a choice I make would not be right for anybody else I know - yet it is the right one for ME. Why can't other people think like this?
The only thing I get super aggressive about is PREVENTING someone from being a hypocritic monster and trying to tell me I am ABSOLUTELY wrong, just because they don't agree. I have no issue with someone who disagrees. Disagreeing alone is not even a reason for a tussle. It is people who not only disagree but then condemn a different view who need a swift kick in the pants.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
30 Mar 09
May be the religious are more aggressive as you said. But I think to say that the other person is wrong is not being aggressive. It seems to me that you are saying that religious guys are wrong in saying that others are wrong. And in saying that you end up getting into the trap you have just set up. It seems you can say religious guys are wrong, but they can't say you are wrong. Or am I missing something?
I think it's quite okay to say others are wrong. For example, if someone says that two and two makes seven, I would say the person is wrong. Similarly in religious issues I think there is something like that. God cannot exist and and also exist at the same time. He exists or not. So both theist and atheist cannot be true. One will say that the other is wrong since both of them are making affirmation. I think the point is that in the process, one should not shout and scream. I think that's the point. That's what I think. Take care!
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
23 Mar 09
It's not a matter of which group is more aggressive or sincere, it's a matter of which people are more aggressive or sincere. Some people on MyLot can be quite 'in-your-face' about their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the rest of the atheists/theists are like that.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Mar 09
Personally I would defend my position vigorously. But I would very much hesitate to go for all out attack against any position. But I notice that there are people here in mylot who keeps on attacking others' position. They don't rather try to elaborate their position. I wonder if that is because they are scared of their position being scrutinised. My desire is that each individual will study others' position carefully before venturing out to speak ill of others' position.
1 person likes this
@1hopefulman (45120)
• Canada
23 Mar 09
I think their is sanity and insanity in both camps. One is not more reasonable than the other and visa versa, that is my observation. Hopefully I have treated everyone with due respect, whether I agree with them or not.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Mar 09
I agree with your observation. My feeling as of now is that the anti-religious are louder than the religious zealots. May be it is so because the religious guys are so keen to convert the others. I may be wrong though! Anyway, thanks for coomenting.
@GADHISUNU (2162)
• India
23 Mar 09
I respond to controversial religious questions only if I find someone has not adequately represented the position I would have loved to take. IOW I respond only to clear any misinformation in an area I am confident of backing up[I am talking in matters of religion esp.] my statements with what is accepted therein as authority. It will never be to win someone else to my point. That is because I always believe religion is a matter of personal conviction.
@leahmarie33 (75)
• United States
23 Mar 09
ohhhhh boy. I think the word religion just gets peoples minds all worked up. I have seen both sides, i have friends who are extremely religious and will try to convert anyone they meet and also i have friends who are religious who keep to themselves and let others do and say what they want. I have had ONE run in with someone who was anti-religious and this person could not STOP talking/yelling/fighting to prove his cause. He was past the point of having a discussion and made it an all out yelling spree trying to prove "religions were cults" and blah blah blah. SO beyond all the rambling i have just done, i think you can find extremes in each cases...i always hope that people know how to keep their opinions in check!
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Mar 09
I agree that there are people on both sides who speak in a very aggresive tone. I like that last line... that is my wish too. Even if people disagree I wish we could speak in a civilised way and end the debate. Thanks for commenting.
1 person likes this