My religion is right and yours is not!! So there!!

[micatala]

This thread splits off a couple of questions I asked in the God Genes and Gay Genes thread. I thank Cmass for his suggestion that we make this a new topic.

I am not sure if this is really the appropriate forum for this thread, but will leave it here in the same forum as the 'parent' thread.

The questions for debate are:

Why are some believers adament about the particulars of their faith, while others are more flexible?

For example, some people insist you must be Christian, and some CHristians believe you must be Baptist or believe in baptism. Others say you must be Sunni Muslim. On the other hand, Gandhi, the a devout believer in God and a Hindu by faith, allowed that he worshipped the same God as Christians do.

What is causing this diffence in how people hold their religious beliefs?

I am not necessarily restricting this to discussion of Christian believers.

I also am not suggesting we restrict the scope or nature of the reasons offered. I could see some offering scientific explanations, and others psychological or sociological. (This is one reason I found it hard to decide which forum to put this thread in)

[methylatedghosts]

I think it could be the fact that people want the security of knowing that what they are doing/believing is right. Other religions/beliefs put this sense of security into question, as there is the possibility of them being right, and yours wrong.

I think all religions are right in some aspects - many cover the same core concepts such as doing good vs bad things, treating others with respect, that there is a "higher purpose" etc.

Basically it's a question of how can you be right if someone else says they are right?

[Goat]

This thread splits off a couple of questions I asked in the God Genes and Gay Genes thread. I thank Cmass for his suggestion that we make this a new topic.

I am not sure if this is really the appropriate forum for this thread, but will leave it here in the same forum as the 'parent' thread.

The questions for debate are:

Why are some believers adament about the particulars of their faith, while others are more flexible?

For example, some people insist you must be Christian, and some CHristians believe you must be Baptist or believe in baptism. Others say you must be Sunni Muslim. On the other hand, Gandhi, the a devout believer in God and a Hindu by faith, allowed that he worshipped the same God as Christians do.

What is causing this diffence in how people hold their religious beliefs?

I am not necessarily restricting this to discussion of Christian believers.

I also am not suggesting we restrict the scope or nature of the reasons offered. I could see some offering scientific explanations, and others psychological or sociological. (This is one reason I found it hard to decide which forum to put this thread in)

In the case of some Christians, they interpret the 'only way to the father is through me' as you have to worship Jesus. Others are more personally flexible. I think it has to do with several factors. First of all, a lot of it is a matter of training from childhood. I notice that for a large part, the ones that are exclusive think in binary terms. On/off, Black/white/, Right/wrong. They are often the ones that bring up arguments that fall into the category as 'false dichotomy', because they can only look at two possibilities at a time.

I also think the general level of education has a strong influence. The more 'higher education' someone has (apart from unaccredited universities), the more chance they will be flexible. I also think there are cultural influences. The people from the northeast and California have more exposure to diversity than the Midwest, so will tend to be more flexible. The people in the south tend to be inflexible (except in the bigger cities). I noticed that the people from certain states are particularly more combative, aggressive and have the 'Me right , you wrong' attitudes.

[MrWhy]

Culture is the most powerful at determining religious belief. If you're born in Pakistan you are most likely to be Muslim, born in the US and you are one of the Christian sects (I include Jewish, Catholic, Mormon). The Christian sect you follow is probably the one of your parents. Iceland and you may not be religious at all. This is clear evidence that we are pawns of culture. Appears that culture is more powerful than any god.

[Easyrider]

I also think the general level of education has a strong influence. The more 'higher education' someone has (apart from unaccredited universities), the more chance they will be flexible.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily equate with wisdom or even common sense in many cases.

[Confused]

This thread splits off a couple of questions I asked in the God Genes and Gay Genes thread. I thank Cmass for his suggestion that we make this a new topic.

I am not sure if this is really the appropriate forum for this thread, but will leave it here in the same forum as the 'parent' thread.

The questions for debate are:

Why are some believers adament about the particulars of their faith, while others are more flexible?

For example, some people insist you must be Christian, and some CHristians believe you must be Baptist or believe in baptism. Others say you must be Sunni Muslim. On the other hand, Gandhi, the a devout believer in God and a Hindu by faith, allowed that he worshipped the same God as Christians do.

What is causing this diffence in how people hold their religious beliefs?

I am not necessarily restricting this to discussion of Christian believers.

I also am not suggesting we restrict the scope or nature of the reasons offered. I could see some offering scientific explanations, and others psychological or sociological. (This is one reason I found it hard to decide which forum to put this thread in)

I know this is going to buy me a lot of slack, but I am going to take the plunge anyways.

I think most religions claim "religous tolerance" because it makes them sound good. It is "politically correct". But in reality, I don't think any of them are flexible or tolerant. They may not exterminate you like they did during the holy wars etc... But they condemn you nonetheless for not acknowledging their beliefs. They just don't vocalize it from the rooftops anymore. If you are christian: you must accept christ, period. You must accept their doctrine, there is no flexibility. If you are Jewish, same concept, just without the christ. The major world religions are inflexible in reality. I think this is the exact reason why there are so many branches to the predominant religions. Ie. Lutherans questioned Catholics on enough issue that "divine intervention" occurred to break them off to one sect of christianity. The more fixed something is, the more people have a difficult time adapting to it. People begin to question certain rites in a relgion and when they don't understand it, they are "ostrasized" in a way. They become confused and start to question not only the ritual or the rule, but their faith overall. As they start to see that they believe in some of it, but not all of it, the break off into a branch of that religion. But each branch ends up adopting yet more rules and rites that become set in stone and the cycle starts anew. No religion is really flexible per se. A person can't just believe in god. That isn't good enough. No, they must adhere to rules and worship etc........ Unfortunately, often those rules, etc... conflict with human nature. Whats your end result: multiple branches of predominant religions that tolerate some things that other branches don't, but don't tolerate some things that other branches do.

[MrWhy]

The degree of tolerance does appear to be related to intelligence and education, but there are exceptions of course. This will be hard to backup with numbers, but a high level of violent intolerance is usually from less developed cultures.

I also agree with Confused that few religious people think other religions are worshiping the correct god. Unless you have some generalized unitarian view of a god, how can you not think other religions are wrong.

As for religious choice, I am convinced this is controlled by the culture you are born in.

[micatala]

The degree of tolerance does appear to be related to intelligence and education, but there are exceptions of course. This will be hard to backup with numbers, but a high level of violent intolerance is usually from less developed cultures.

I would guess this is probably correct, but as you say, may be hard to verify with hard data.

Exceptions do certainly come to mind. Osama Bin Laden is one.

I think most religions claim "religous tolerance" because it makes them sound good. It is "politically correct". But in reality, I don't think any of them are flexible or tolerant. They may not exterminate you like they did during the holy wars etc... But they condemn you nonetheless for not acknowledging their beliefs. They just don't vocalize it from the rooftops anymore. If you are christian: you must accept christ, period. You must accept their doctrine, there is no flexibility.

I would not say "any." You are probably right that many, even most, think "I'm really right" when they are saying "I accept that your belief is as legitimate as my own." However, there are exceptions. Gandhi is a notable example.

To me it comes down to acknowledging that we are imperfect, and we can make mistakes, even with respect to our most cherished beliefs. GIven this, I find it hard to justify the notion that "I must be right and you must be wrong", especially when, as has been pointed out above, our religious beliefs are often more a product of our culture than a deliberate choice that we made "from square one."


There are Christians who believe God may choose to 'save' non-CHristians. THis is difficult, but I do not think impossible, to reconcile with the Bible, even if one takes a fairly literal interpretation.

For example, in Acts chapter 10 we have the case of Cornelius

1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!"
4Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked.

The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea."

There is no indication that Cornelius is a Jew, and certainly he is not a 'Christian' at this point, although he becomes one later. However, God is clearly pleased with him, and acknowledges his prayers and worship, even though he is not of the 'right' religion.

[Confused]

The degree of tolerance does appear to be related to intelligence and education, but there are exceptions of course. This will be hard to backup with numbers, but a high level of violent intolerance is usually from less developed cultures.

I would guess this is probably correct, but as you say, may be hard to verify with hard data.

Exceptions do certainly come to mind. Osama Bin Laden is one.

I think most religions claim "religous tolerance" because it makes them sound good. It is "politically correct". But in reality, I don't think any of them are flexible or tolerant. They may not exterminate you like they did during the holy wars etc... But they condemn you nonetheless for not acknowledging their beliefs. They just don't vocalize it from the rooftops anymore. If you are christian: you must accept christ, period. You must accept their doctrine, there is no flexibility.

I would not say "any." You are probably right that many, even most, think "I'm really right" when they are saying "I accept that your belief is as legitimate as my own." However, there are exceptions. Gandhi is a notable example.

To me it comes down to acknowledging that we are imperfect, and we can make mistakes, even with respect to our most cherished beliefs. GIven this, I find it hard to justify the notion that "I must be right and you must be wrong", especially when, as has been pointed out above, our religious beliefs are often more a product of our culture than a deliberate choice that we made "from square one."


There are Christians who believe God may choose to 'save' non-CHristians. THis is difficult, but I do not think impossible, to reconcile with the Bible, even if one takes a fairly literal interpretation.

For example, in Acts chapter 10 we have the case of Cornelius

1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!"
4Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked.

The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea."

There is no indication that Cornelius is a Jew, and certainly he is not a 'Christian' at this point, although he becomes one later. However, God is clearly pleased with him, and acknowledges his prayers and worship, even though he is not of the 'right' religion.

Didn't Ghandi say, I like your christ, I hate your christians. That isn't religious tolerance. That is agreeing with the teachings. I find that a lot of religions have evolved to be opposite of what they were intended. Catholics have added so many rites and rules into theirs that few of their practices are actually in the bible, Lutherans, I dont mean to offend anyone here, but, Martin Luther preached against organized religion. So what did they do, named their branch or organized religion "lutherans". Mormons say that there is a set number of people who are getting into heaven so each one must do better than those in their church to increase their chances of them getting in. It seems that each branch breaks away from the main because of discrepancies, then create even more of their own. any question why I remain confused?

[Jester]

The degree of tolerance does appear to be related to intelligence and education, but there are exceptions of course. This will be hard to backup with numbers, but a high level of violent intolerance is usually from less developed cultures.

I would guess this is probably correct, but as you say, may be hard to verify with hard data.
Exceptions do certainly come to mind. Osama Bin Laden is one.

I can see the logic here, but would like to offer a counter-proposal:
Those who are part of more educated groups/societies are culturally trained that tolerance is appropriate. Such is a vital part of more educated groups, where debate is so constant. I would argue, however, that such people are not necessarily any more internally tolerant than primitive people, but are much more likely to suppress their feelings of intolorance.

I would not say "any." You are probably right that many, even most, think "I'm really right" when they are saying "I accept that your belief is as legitimate as my own." However, there are exceptions. Gandhi is a notable example.

Id also add that there is a difficulty here. In order to believe anything, one must deny the truth of anything which contradicts said belief. As such, I would like to offer a second assertion:
True tolerance is not accepting an opposed belief as equally true, but respecting others in spite of disagreeing. I feel that this is a much more realistic and honest approach.

There are Christians who believe God may choose to 'save' non-CHristians. THis is difficult, but I do not think impossible, to reconcile with the Bible, even if one takes a fairly literal interpretation.

I definitely think that there is some merit to this argument. Jesus statement "whoever is not against me, is for me", comes to mind. Id also argue that this is balanced by the idea that there are definite warnings against the idea that all roads are true. This is, of course, not directly counter to what youre claiming. I just wanted to make certain that we were balanced in our comments.