Former rules of Religion Forum

[Eaquae Legit]

I cannot think of a topic off the top of my head that would be banned entirely from the forum (barring it causing a major flame war and breakdown of the forum, and then it would be only a temporary ban). It is entirely possible to disagree, to be contentious, and to debate without being rude or offensive to entire groups of people. I admit freely that it's often a case-by-case thing.

[Milo]

Geez. Considering that we are all here because we share not just an interest but probably an obsession with a series of fictional works, I find it surprising that any two people on this forum would want to try to establish his or her self as any superior.

Throughout these books, philosophy and spirituality are frequently front-and-center. It seems to me that the ideas presented to us through these stories is pretty simple- treat others well, be responsible for yourself and even at times for others, do not be selfish, atone for serious errors, love and be loved. However these ideas fit into your own personal position on religion and philosophy is completely individual and is completely OK.

Why hasnt this thread been more focused on determining how the views presented throughout EG fit our personal views? I for one would be very interested to hear about others' views simply for the sake of expanding my own ideas and understanding.

It makes me sad to see so many smart people with common interests being nasty to one another. When your mother told you "if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all," chances are she was right.

[Eaquae Legit]

Because this thread isn't about Ender's Game. It's a thread which lays out the specific rules of this area of Pweb. Ender-related discussion isn't banned from this area, but it's not required. This area is for anything discussing religion and moral philosophy, and the vast majority of that subject matter isn't related to Ender.

[starfox]

Reposted from the other thread:

While I agree that in general, stating your opinion yourself is good, why shouldn't linking to those [inflammatory] things be allowed? That's suppressing free speech.

...

I've noticed that in many places, PWeb included, religious beliefs get special protection from criticism. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same scrutiny as anything else?

What if one of the tenets of my religion is that your religion is wrong? Why should your religion take precedence over mine?

Why would you feel the need to "protect" religion from criticism? Let's say I said something really disparaging about your religion. If it's false, why would you worry about it? It's a lie. If it's true, well, why do you believe it in the first place?

The whole immunity religious belief gets makes it seem like people are worried. Worried they are wrong. "No, I'm right! I know it! We're right, guys, aren't we? Right? Guys?"

Again, the person who runs the board can make whatever rules they want. I'm not asking what the rules are, I'm asking whether they are right.

[Taalcon]

Because the purpose of this aspect of the forum is to help understanding of others. It's designed for learning from others about what they believe and why. Those who believe something are the authorities on what they believe.

It's not a place to change or ridicule others' beliefs. Is it possibile that someone may change their beliefs or thoughts based on a discussion here? Sure. Should it be the purpose of posting to change someone to your way of thinking? No.

Everyone should ask themselves when they post, why am I posting this?

This wasn't designed as a debate forum. There are plenty of religious debate forums on the web. This isn't one of them.

[elfprince13]

Why would you feel the need to "protect" religion from criticism? Let's say I said something really disparaging about your religion. If it's false, why would you worry about it? It's a lie. If it's true, well, why do you believe it in the first place?

The whole immunity religious belief gets makes it seem like people are worried. Worried they are wrong. "No, I'm right! I know it! We're right, guys, aren't we? Right? Guys?"

Again, the person who runs the board can make whatever rules they want. I'm not asking what the rules are, I'm asking whether they are right.

I agree with starfox on this matter. As a Christian I strongly believe that it is essential to one's faith, and truly using religion as a tool to seek the truth, to be able to question one's own faith and either reasonably defend that faith, or be willing to take a good hard look at why you believe what you do. That discussion MUST be a respectful one, for someone's religious beliefs are at the core of who they are, but it doesn't change the fact that there has to be a discussion. If Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims are right, and their prophets are really prophets and have something to add to what has already been taught in the Torah and the Bible, then I want to know that, but if they aren't then I want them to know that, so that they may know that and come to a better understanding of God's truth.

[lyons24000]

If Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims are right, and their prophets are really prophets...

Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any modern-day prophets. Here are a list of a few people that we do consider prophets:

Moses, Abraham, Samuel, Nathan, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Obadiah, Zephaniah, John, Paul, Jesus, i.e.-anyone called a prophet in the Bible or anyone who helped write the Bible including Asaph, Mordecai, Nehemiah, and the Sons of Korah.

People who were not prophets: C. Russell, J. Rutherford, N. Knorr, F. Franz, M. Henschel, A. Schroder, J. Barr, T. Jaracz, or any other Jehovah's Witnesses alive today.

[Taalcon]

I agree with starfox on this matter. As a Christian I strongly believe that it is essential to one's faith, and truly using religion as a tool to seek the truth, to be able to question one's own faith and either reasonably defend that faith, or be willing to take a good hard look at why you believe what you do. That discussion MUST be a respectful one, for someone's religious beliefs are at the core of who they are, but it doesn't change the fact that there has to be a discussion.

Listen, I know that. 2 months ago I returned from serving as a full-time unpaid missionary for two years, where all I did all day was knock on doors, edify the church, and teach people about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I know a little something about proselyting and the important, even essential roles it plays to a large amount of Christians.

I did not create this section to proselyte.

I created it to, yes, open up a dialogue.

It is far easier to demonize and ridicule and shove off someone's beliefs if you do not understand them as they do. And if you do not live a particular faith, you will never understand it as they do.

However, I designed this section so that many who are only familiar with either solely their own religious background, or a few limited others, or even have been filled with mischaracterizations and falsehoods about what others actually believe, can come together as a community to understand one another.

In my mind, there is a big diference between asking pressing questions to prove someone wrong, and asking questions because you truly want to understand.

It is very possible to come to an understanding and appreciation of a belief without believing it oneself.

I respect and admire MANY individuals and their manner of expressing their reverence and love for God without necessarily agreeing with form and doctrine.

Yes. I do believe there is Absolute Truth, and that which is not True is False. I do believe there is one specific and very strait and narrow path that leads to recieving a fulness of the blessings God wants for us.

And I'm happy to share what I believe, and why. I have, and I do. I generally write what I write in response to questions.

So that's what I ask here. Be civil. Respect others. Share what you believe and WHY, but do NOT claim to be an authority on someone elses belief. If you want to know what a particular dnomination or religion believes, the best places to learn correct knowledge are:

a) active followers of that faith
b) official materials published and presented by that faith, including official websites.

I know most people probably won't have or take the time I often do to study other faiths. But something I often do when trying to understand another is do the following:

a) Read the scriptures or Holy Writings of that group in the version they prefer.
b) Read a book (or website) by the faith or an active member in good standing about their own History
c) Read a book (or website) by the faith or an active member in good standing about an overview of their Core Beliefs
d) If a Christian faith, I like to read a book by them about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, to understand how they view Him.

These things often create a wonderful basis for deeper understandings. A don't read about other faiths to destroy them - I read about and discuss them to better understand and love the practitioners.

And not to sound like an idiot when I talk about them

[Rodaka]

Agnostics: the theological fence-sitters.

Not technically.

Agnostics look for the truth. Though we... er.... I* believe that the existence of deity or metaphysical being is as yet unknowable.

Theological simply means religious.

Not all religion is based off of deities and metaphysical beings that are as yet unknown or unknowable.

As it is, a God and a Deity can be far different. It all depends on your definition of the words.

My definition of "God" is simply truth. This truth comes not from some certain book or belief system, but from everywhere, for even lies speak the truth.

*I say "I believe" because agnosticism is up to one's own interpretation. The only true guideline is to only believe in that which is shown to be true, with no contradictions. Contradictions do not include two sides of a story, as both sides can be true, as perspective and context shape both sides differently to be true.

[Jayelle]

Considering that was
a) written in 2006
and
b) a joke

I don't think you're going to get a response.

[LiQingJao]

Considering that was
a) written in 2006
and
b) a joke

I don't think you're going to get a response.

Doesn't that count as a response? I agree about the agnosticism by the way, it really is how each individual interprets it, but it's based on not believing or disbelieving something until you have some kind of evidence.

[elfprince13]

Theological simply means religious.

No. It really doesn't. Theology is the philosophical study of god. Religion is the following of spiritual practices and a belief in the supernatural (usually god(s)).

Religion fills the spiritual and emotional components of the pursuit of God, and theology fills the intellectual component of that pursuit.

Religious


Theological

[Young Val]

Shouldn't this be in the Religions section of the forum and not Milagre?

[Jayelle]

I'm in the process of merging religion with this one. It's unstickied now.

[Wind Swept]

Might we unsticky the topic index, as well?

[Jayelle]

One thing at a time, geez.

[VelvetElvis]

milagre and religion are merged?

[Jayelle]

Yes

[VelvetElvis]

Gotcha. The switch is still a little weird for me. Please be patient!