Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1902)	10/19/2000 6:56:28 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

I wasn't really chastising you and X too hard was I? Goodness I hope not. I knew how Greg would feel and I knew how you'd feel have to OT scripture quoted at you. I personally don't like Job. Get real, Buddy! Chastise all you want! The thing is this: I am not at all insensitive to Greg's adamant faith. I simply think it is important for him to recognise that his caricature of God is one that most of the world finds silly, ugly, insulting or just wrong. It is important for all Chosen People everywhere, to lose that idea, and to start looking at how they behave in the world, and how they treat of differences. I have assumed an unpleasant task. I do it not because I find comfort in it, but because I believe that rational people have an obligation, and that rational people, by their silence, have been indirectly responsible for much of the world's suffering. Off to work (sigh)

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1902)	10/19/2000 11:14:24 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

But the funny thing is, I don't want to sway them from their belief, but I'd like to have them become more compassionate and tolerant But this is the crux of the problem: Their belief includes, within itself, the premise that all beliefs that do not fit into their belief system are wrong--and not only that--but the people holding contrary beliefs are destined to be tortured forever in Hell. If one believes that the Supreme Being wants to torture those other people for eternity...how much value can one place upon the opinions and the lives of those other people?? We are expected to be tolerant and accepting of ideas that are not equal value propositions yet you wouldn't tell your daughter that touching or not touching a hot stove were alternatives of equal value. The only time we can hope for acknowledgement of value in our spiritual beliefs, is when it falls under the aegis of their own. This is the same dilemma that faces us in social interactions with those that do not share our morality. We are always forced to defend (because we do not initiate behaviour that violates the person or property of others), while they are free to strike first and to commit whatever harm they are capable of. By the time we are allowed to retaliate, someone is dead or the car is stolen. My analogy is not to suggest anything about the morality of Christians or like--but to show how their initial premise-- that we are evil and deserving of eternal punishment, and that our beliefs are a priori wrong, and cannot be defended--creates a similar dilemma for the rational person willing to test truth, as for the moral person, unwilling to initiate force. "Man on a mission"? Not really; Although sometimes a mission slips temporarily onto a man, and it is unethical not to plow his share of the field. Like you and most others, I meet people each day from all backgrounds and of myriad beliefs. Our intercourse is diplomatic, tactful, and tolerant. People are sensible to get along. The social and business milieu is not the place for polemics. On the other hand, this thread was created to look at a serious subject, so that a subject normally avoided in polite company, can be examined in polite company. If someone prefers advil over dristan, that is fine. If I have evidence the advil is dangerous and ineffective, I will place it on the table. That is what learning is about. But if my dristan is to be rejected only because it is not advil, then there is no serious attempt to reach Truth, but only to obstruct and condemn. I do not find it credible that people reading through hundreds of posts showing contradictions, cruelties, etc. in the bible--are seeking sincere debate when they simply ignore these facts. Actually, I admire Greg for his spunk and determination, but if his ideas are beyond challenge...too bad. Oh well, that's my break gone...