I loved your analogies--they speak my language much more than regular words and helps me to see your perspective much more than if you simply take the defensive and make threats instead of valid points. I also see your point about truth being objective versus subjective...that's my point as well, though I'm not sure a lot of people were picking up on it. My whole idea is that if a person were to see a mural on the wall whereas no one else saw it, then it would be a truth to that person. I don't think truth is made any more true based on the number of people who believe something to be true...that's a common deception. Everyone sees things differently, both literally and metaphorically. Here's something weird about me: I like to look at the sky a lot. I am often accused of "being in la-la land," but I just like to look at the sky. I like the clouds and the shapes of the clouds and the way the sun shines through them. I find it all amazing! I still look to the sky as though it is my first time seeing it, and a lot of people don't understand. However, I often see things that other people are missing, and I point them out. Just two days ago, I pointed out a fairly common occurence in the sky called a "parhelia," which is where the sky shows three suns as a result of ice crystals in the atmosphere. Most of the people I showed it to had never seen them before, though they are quite frequent. It only goes to show how so many people take for granted the things that are always in front of us.The parhelia story goes to show my belief that truth is only true for the observer. If anyone asked me if I lived on a planet with three suns, I might have said "yes" if that was my first observance of the sky. It would have been true to me--I would have been able to see three suns, whereas the person asking the question probably would not have believed me and would have labeled me a crackpot, or something along those lines.
Thanks for the awesome analogies. I've been waiting to read something like that for a while!
Kurieuo
You can accept beliefs that go against your own beliefs. I accept yours, why should it be difficult for you to accept mine or anyone else's? By saying "accept," I am not saying you or I should live up to those standards, but to embrace them for what they are: they are a philosophic truth for the person who believes them, and it is extremely painful to be bashed for your beliefs. It seems to me that you are accusing me of bashing your beliefs, and by bashing it means "not agreeing on a literal interpretation." I accept them on an empathy standard: it's the golden rule thing again...do unto others as you would want done unto you. I'm pretty certain everyone here would like to see me change my ways to fit your ways because your ways are good, but they are good for you, mine are good for me, a Muslim's are good for him, and we are all happily set in our ways. What is there left to do, then? Fight for our ways or learn the ways of others? I choose to learn the ways of others simply because I am comfortable in my ways. I am quite happy, though I still feel incomplete. Can I get answers from Christians? Yes. Definitely. I learn a little more each day that I log on to this website.Note that Skoobie is basically saying we should "accept" beliefs that go against our own beliefs. This is the total opposite of closed-mindedness, it is open-mindedness to the point of gullability. It is also a call to embrace no truth, as if all beliefs are on par with your own, then none are really true. Therefore Skoobie is definately trying to force his relativistic beliefs onto others by implying those who do not embrace his position are closed-minded or arrogant (the latter being mentioned in his other posts on this board).
There is a book called Life of Pi. I'm not sure if I've recommended it yet on this website, but it's a good read with a boy who adapts three different religions: Jewish, Christian, and Hindu. The boy finds comfort in worshipping in all three environments, and the different religious leaders are all happy that the boy is in their services. However, there is a confrontation at one point in the story where the leaders of all three religions meet up and find out that the boy goes to all the different services. This creates a dispute among the leaders, but the boy is confused by their bickering as to which way is the appropriate way to worship God. The boy finally breaks down and admits that he loves God, and he loves the different ways in which God can be worshipped. You may see a problem with the boy, but I don't. The reason is due to acceptance of others' views. I don't believe it to be gullibility at all. It's just a difference of opinion as to which way is the best way, and the boy and myself share the common view that there is no best way--if you love God, you worship God. The boy just loved God to the point that he did it in more ways than one.
You wrote that my view is a view that calls to embrace no truth. That is a far cry from my view, and I am wondering if you are merely defending yourself for reasons that I am unaware of. Perhaps you are disgruntled by my taking the standpoint of relativity versus absolutism? I'm not sure. However, I think everyone is right in their own state of mind. I can see where such a belief would upset you, though that is not my intention and I cannot rescind my personal beliefs or my integrity on the basis that it might bother you. Such is a fact of life, that we are all different. We may find common bonds, but that is about the best we can do. Whereas you may see "Christian" from most of the people on this website, I see a lot of different people with a lot of different views, and few of them seem to be in complete agreement about Christianity as a result of those differences...they are all Christians, though, regardless of their differences. How does that make me so different from the rest, then? Why not just be comfortable in your own beliefs? Why be shaken by my beliefs?
You also wrote that I am trying to "force" my relativistic beliefs onto other people. Not really. I am merely hoping other people will see my views and accept them so we can all get along without any disrespect/ hatred/ intentional skewing of personal opinions (though unintentional skews are bound to happen...that's a fact of life, though the skews can be fixed as soon as everyone is willing to understand as opposed to bash. I claim guilt in this department, but this is still a learning experience for me. Is patience not a virtue?)
I don't understand how you figure if one accepts beliefs that go against his own belief that no tolerance can be shown for those other beliefs. I guess I'm not following the logic in there. Perhaps Jac could give an analogy to help me out. Also, there is no such thing as "blind" acceptance. I am a skeptic, so how do you think I could "blindly" accept anything? If you read my posts, you have probably noticed that I ask for evidence, ask for explanations, ask for reasons, ask for credible sources, and so on...how is that accepting things blindly? I refuse to believe blindly, actually.I'd like to additionally add that if one accepts beliefs that go against their own original beliefs, then no tolerance can be shown towards such beliefs. Tolerance implies recognising and respecting the beliefs of others depite their being different. If someone accepts the beliefs of others (as Skoobie advocates), then there is nothing anymore to be tolerant of. Therefore Skoobie isn't calling for tolerance, he is calling for acceptance (and "blind" acceptance at that) of all beliefs being on par with ones own. This is also a call to embrace his relativist position, which he appears to be forcing onto others here (however minimally) through the use of labelling names upon those who disagree with him. Why doesn't Skoobie take up his own advice, and accept objectivism, a belief that is against his own. Skoob, aren't you also being closed-minded here? What's good for the gander is good for the goose!
By accepting others' standards, I am recognizing the morals taught through the parables of the different religions. They are all taught through parables, and all of their philosophic truths seem to boil down to the same standards of behavior for my idea of utopia. Jesus Christ called out for understanding of other people--even those who were widely shunned--rather than throwing rocks at them. What a nice thought! Buddha teaches that all things, living and non-living, have a deep connection and should all be respected and embraced. That's a beautiful philosophy, in my eyes. Aren't they true to you? Aren't the philosophies true? Can't you feel that connection to all of life? Whatever you attribute these philosophies to--God, nature, Allah, or the enlightened teachings of Buddha--they still hold true to me and probably most people, whether or not they are willing to admit that.
What are the names I label on people who disagree with me? I occasionally use the word "ignorant," but it describes those with internet sights that intentionally bash certain philosophies by lying or telling half-truths. (I also label myself ignorant, by the way, and I do not claim to have all the truth. I am ignorant of many things, and I am not afraid to admit that I do not have all of the answers, if any.)
In all honesty, it might do me some good to leave this website permanently. However, it does your website no justice by discarding scientists on the basis that we might not be Christians. I'm wondering if you see the irony in the title of the website and the people you threaten to kick out of the forums. I do not say that out of disrespect, but out of honesty. I don't like to be threatened, just as I am sure no one does, but even worse than being threatened is the feeling that my rights to speak my mind are being revoked in a place that I thought promoted intelligent discussion. Oh, well. Such is the way of the world.
