What does "respecting other people's beliefs" actually mean?

[Hakluyt]

I am often told I should - and I have been told that I haven't. But I genuinely don't know what it means.

I am a great believer in good manners, and I would always be polite if I was attending some sort of faith based event. I never go on prayer threads. I do try never to be rude. But the threshold for "disrespect" seems extraordinarily low- sometimes mere disagreement seems unacceptable.

Also, what constitutes a "belief"? The major world religions- OK- I get that. But do I also have to respect "new" religions made up in the 1970s/80s? Kabbalah? Is homeopathy a belief? If I say, for example "homeopathy is discredited bollocks and this is why" is that a public service or disrespecting someone's beliefs? Is astrology a "belief"?

Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously, but am I entitled to be offended and report the post if someone says that atheists lead empty lives devoid of joy? Or if someone says that science is evil and devoted to hiding the evidence for the paranormal/ the cure for cancer/whatever for it's own selfish ends?

Also, with medicine and science in general, the point is not that somebody can say something with absolute certainty, but that they can back up their theory with the right methodology/research/checks/peer reviews etc.

A good scientist might not like the fact that their theories can be superseded, but they are open to the possibility that they might be. The problem comes when opposing views are valued equally despite one view not having been sufficiently researched/evidenced/whatever the terminology is.

I very rarely did my homework, or even paid attention in class.

Science seems to be based on inductive reasoning, one has to observe, predict, test and record and of course the issue of probability is a big consideration because further questions will be based upon more predictions. It is probable that the earth will continue to warm up, you can look at data that shows that it has been for the last 100 years and conclude that tomorrow will be no different, there is a trend and we are on it. But then concluding why this happens is more difficult and predicting further into the future becomes a problem because those predictions need to be based on knowledge of causations. Again I'm on the fence, I am no globo greenie and no global warming sceptic.

I think it's different because you can see the sun rising every morning so you can assume it will happen again.

God is different.if you mean by that something has given some order/is at the Origin of the world, you won't be seeing any signs of god, apart from the fact the universe exists.
If you mean a god that is coming an help you when you are doing your prayers right/go to church every week/eat fish on Friday, then you might have more to go on and say 'well it doesn't seem to happen, does it?'

On the same way, we have no signs of a life after death but then no one has come back to tell us what is going on so ...

We cannot say with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow

If you really are making the point that nothing can be known for sure then are you happy to say "there may not be a god at all. It might be nonsense after all"?

GotAnotherQuestion. As BigDorrit explained to you and as I've said many times, I'm not claiming that there's proof that no god exists. That would be a nonsensical claim. Especially as you all disagree what god is anyway. Maybe if you got together with the others and decided which was the true one we could go from there. There are probably half a billion religious people who know via their faith and prayers that your version of god doesn't exist. They are the ones you should be working on.

We cannot say with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow

If you really are making the point that nothing can be known for sure then are you happy to say "there may not be a god at all. It might be nonsense after all"?

I am yes, because I'm agnostic

BigDorrit Thu 12-Jun-14 16:21:55
So you honestly don't see a difference in you demanding the evidence that god doesn't exist, and Cote saying that there is no evidence that he does?

I've had the time to re-read it on my home computer today without kids yelling for me every 2 seconds and actually, to be fair to you and Back, I think it is slightly different actually, after all. At first I thought it was Back saying its a FACT that God doesn't exist, and I wanted proof of that as I hadn't heard anyone make that claim before. But actually, it appears Back wasn't saying its a fact because of any evidence, rather perceived lack of evidence.

It's an interesting thought, this evidence for God. In Romans it says the evidence is everywhere, talking about deep knowledge in our spirits, in our morals, in the beauty of creation all around us. But yet some will harden their hearts and place mankind above God, in their foolishness "wisdom".

You might be familiar with the rich man Lazarus that died and went to "the furnace" and begged God to be able to return and warn his brothers so they didn't ignore God. But God said to him that if he, Lazarus, hadn't believed when Jesus had been sent in person, then they wouldn't believe Lazarus either.

One of the wow! moments I had a few years ago was when someone commented in passing that all of the biblical prophecies were 100% accurate. I thought that would be impossible so began to search (only secular mainstream information so there would be no religious bias), and I found to my amazement it was true. I'd heard people say that the bible is God's inspired word, and I thought it meant from a moral compass perspective, but this made me think of the bible in a whole new light.

However, back to the point at hand about evidence for God - it wasn't Cote that said it, just for the record. It was BackOnly. Not that it makes any difference, but I mention it because I didn't want Cote to think he/she was being mis-quoted by you!

BackOnlyBriefly Thu 12-Jun-14 18:11:47
you all disagree what god is anyway.
Only when people decide they will follow man-made religion and deviate from the true meaning of the scripture itself.

Maybe if you got together with the others and decided which was the true one we could go from there. There are probably half a billion religious people who know via their faith and prayers that your version of god doesn't exist.

The thing is, the bible was there first. For example, Mohammad took his spiritual inspiration from modifying (some would say twisting) the bible, which was there first. Buddhism came after the bible too. etc etc.

Judaism came before Christianity. It could be said that later Christians decided to jump in and claim the Old Testament. The interesting this about Mohammed is that he gave refuge to Christians, claiming that they were people of god, they deserved to be respected. He also, despite being illiterate told people about the visions he received and told them about Jesus, this before he met the Christians. Most odd.

Having said all of that, I am inclined to think that the bible, like the old testament and the Quran is a book of narratives and codes/common sense values, customs and culturally/historically specific moral teachings. It is no accident that the enlightenment was the start of the death of religion and the advent of science. As the mode of production, technological and scientific advances are made, so a new phase begins, where an increasingly centralised, increasingly capitalistic, industrial and enlightened society requires more than just the moral laws of church and the rule of monarchy. Now we have liberal democracy and written laws, that control and govern, shape and condition the way in which we think about relations, production, property and what it is to live well/good life within society. Of course there are still many problems, and again the moral codes that are law to be enforced through the state/courts is to some extent backed up by the full weight of indoctrination, ideology and belief, narrative and propaganda. And all of this requires consensus, a belief that things are as they are simply because its inevitable.

Lastly, the bits of the bible I have read, it would seem that Jesus was a radical, a non-conformist and revolutionary thinker who wanted political and structural change and the advancement of a fairer and more equal society. To think that this radical was posthumously made a martyr and a holy figure is quite bizarre, and very much the work of men. Maybe in years from now Das Kapital will be our new book and Karl Marx a prophet

I was talking about God and the bible Minx, I don't think I said Christianity?

Throughout the bible the theme is concerning judaism - a faith looking forwards to God sending the Messiah to take the place for us in regard to penalty for all our wrongs. Christianity is looking backwards, saying that the Messiah (Jesus) came and died, and rose again, and that we are now believing (trusting in and relying upon) HIM, and not ourselves or any good works of our own.

Dorrit - I will look at your link when I can, but for now...

I am not sure if this is what you're after, so I will just send one example. You can google biblical prophesy for more, like I did.

Edom would be toppled and humbled
Bible prophecy:
The terror you inspire and the pride of your heart have deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rocks, who occupy the heights of the hill. Though you build your nest as high as the eagle's, from there I will bring you down," declares the Lord. Jeremiah 49:16

Prophecy written: Sometime between 626-586 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: About 100 BC

In Jeremiah 49:16, the prophet said that Edom, a long-time enemy of Israel, would be destroyed. Edom's capital city, Petra, was carved out of a mountain side and had great natural defences. Nonetheless, it was destroyed and the kingdom of Edom no longer exists.

We know the verse speaks of Edom (Petra) because the context is clear with the verses before and after.

---

7 Concerning Edom:

This is what the Lord Almighty says:

^‘Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?
Has counsel perished from the prudent?
Has their wisdom decayed?
8 Turn and flee, hide in deep caves,
you who live in Dedan,
for I will bring disaster on Esau
at the time when I punish him.
9 If grape-pickers came to you,
would they not leave a few grapes?
If thieves came during the night,
would they not steal only as much as they wanted?
10 But I will strip Esau bare;
I will uncover his hiding-places,
so that he cannot conceal himself.
His armed men are destroyed,
also his allies and neighbours,
so there is no one to say,
11 “Leave your fatherless children; I will keep them alive.
Your widows too can depend on me.”’
12 This is what the Lord says: ‘If those who do not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, why should you go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, but must drink it. 13 I swear by myself,’ declares the Lord, ‘that Bozrah will become a ruin and a curse,[b] an object of horror and reproach; and all its towns will be in ruins for ever.’^

^14 I have heard a message from the Lord;
an envoy was sent to the nations to say,
‘Assemble yourselves to attack it!
Rise up for battle!’
15 ‘Now I will make you small among the nations,
despised by mankind.
16 The terror you inspire
and the pride of your heart have deceived you,
you who live in the clefts of the rocks,
who occupy the heights of the hill.
Though you build your nest as high as the eagle’s,
from there I will bring you down,’
declares the Lord.
17 ‘Edom will become an object of horror;
all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff
because of all its wounds.
18 As Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown,
along with their neighbouring towns,’
says the Lord,
‘so no one will live there;
no people will dwell in it.
19 ‘Like a lion coming up from Jordan’s thickets
to a rich pasture-land,
I will chase Edom from its land in an instant.
Who is the chosen one I will appoint for this?
Who is like me and who can challenge me?
And what shepherd can stand against me?’
20 Therefore, hear what the Lord has planned against Edom,
what he has purposed against those who live in Teman:
the young of the flock will be dragged away;
their pasture will be appalled at their fate.
21 At the sound of their fall the earth will tremble;
their cry will resound to the Red Sea.[c]
22 Look! An eagle will soar and swoop down,
spreading its wings over Bozrah.
In that day the hearts of Edom’s warriors
will be like the heart of a woman in labour.^

---

Today, Petra is part of Jordan. The city was conquered by the Romans in the year 106 AD but flourished again shortly after that. A rival city, Palmyra, eventually took most of the trade away from Petra and Petra began to decline. Petra gradually fell into ruin.

The secular proof of this was using a yahoo search engine. The words used were"Edom Petra History"

I selected the first 3 hits that came up, ensuring all were secular and therefore no religious bias, and this is what I came up with:

Petra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 History. 2.1 Roman rule. 2.2 Religion. 2.3 Decline. 3 Petra today. 4 Media appearances ... Sea scrolls as a prominent Edom site most closely describing Petra. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra,_Jordan - 74k - Cached

Here we see Edom obvious desolate and uninhabited.

The Petra Great Temple | History Petra Great Temple Excavations ... A Brief History of Petra ... time the Nabataeans migrated into Edom, forcing the Edomites to move into southern Palestine. ...
www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/excavations/history.html Speaks of the history of Petra's decline to the current day.

Petra ... to the north of Petra making the settled history of the area roughly ... 1200 BC, the area was inhabited by the Edomites, Edom is the Aramaic word ...www.petranationalfoundation.org/history.html - Cached
Also ends with acknowledgement of the city decline.

I am sure if you googled the same words you'd come up with plenty of your own. I clicked on each website and read what they said, double checking all secular historians were singing from the same hymn sheet. And sure enough, they were.

GotAnotherQuestion, I'll have a read later, thank you.

The thing is say a catholic and a hindu got together and had a chat.

Each one is going to think their god is the true god. So who's right? How do you debate with one another who is the true god? Or would you argue that they're the same despite the religions differing a lot?

I was posting about bible prophecy the other day. My current favourite is the bit at the start of Matthew 21 where Jesus tells his disciples that there's a guy in town who has a donkey and colt. He says he will wait there while they fetch it so that when he rides into town on the donkey that will fulfil the prophecy in Zechariah 9.

I mean you could go "ohhhh wow! he knew there was a man in town who owned a donkey! it's a miracle" but I know a man who has a dog and that's not generally considered a miracle.

The important bit anyway is that he's admitting to acting out the prophecy that everyone already knows about. Anyone could do that.

BigDorrit, I've had a look at your website link and, as I suspected, it is grossly misunderstood. Let me give you an example from your website link suggesting false prophesies in the bible.

Destruction of Tyre
In a quoted block of text, the author says that God states quite blatantly that Nebuchadnezzar would sack and destroy completely the city of Tyre. And that he believes the events given in this passage never did come to pass. After a 13 year siege Nebuchadnezzar withdrew his forces. Despite being conquered and razed by Alexander the Great 240 years later, [3] Tyre still exists. [4]

A quick note about this: The link [3] given takes you to a site where they state (and I quote) “Captured and destroyed by the Muslim Mamluks in 1291, the town never recovered its former importance.” And that “most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town”.
“Behind the walls of the old city the Tyrians successfully defied Nebuchadnezzar for 13 years. Alexander the Great also laid seige to it for 7 months, finally overwhelming the island city”.

And now for actual biblical prophecy fulfilled by the Phoenician city-state of Tyre (the REAL THING!).

The following is a selection of Bible prophecies that involve Tyre, a Phoenician city on the Mediterranean Sea that had great animosity with the people of Israel.
Tyre's fortresses would fail
Bible prophecy: Amos 1:9-10?
Prophecy written: About 750 BC?
Prophecy fulfilled: 333-332 BC
In Amos 1:9-10, the prophet said that God would cause Tyre's protective fortresses to fail, as punishment for the way that Tyre treated Israel. That prophecy was fulfilled in 586-573 BC when Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland of Tyre, and in 333-332 BC when Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre. Alexander's army built a land bridge from the mainland to the island so that they could use a battering ram to break through the island's fortress.

Amos 1:9-10:
This is what the Lord says: "For three sins of Tyre, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. Because she sold whole communities of captives to Edom, disregarding a treaty of brotherhood, I will send fire upon the walls of Tyre that will consume her fortresses."

Tyre would be attacked by many nations
Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:3
?Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC
?Prophecy fulfilled: 573 BC, 332 BC, etc.
In Ezekiel 26:3, the prophet said that Tyre, the Phoenician Empire's most powerful city, would be attacked by many nations, because of its treatment of Israel. At about the time that Ezekiel delivered this prophecy, Babylon had begun a 13-year attack on Tyre's mainland. Later, in about 332 BC, Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre and brought an end to the Phoenician Empire.

Ezekiel 26:3:
therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.

Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be cast into the sea
Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:12?
Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC?
Prophecy fulfilled: 333-332 BC
In Ezekiel 26:12, the prophet said that Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be thrown into the sea. Ezekiel's prophecy accurately describes how Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre, when he attacked in 333-332 BC. Alexander's forces took rubble from Tyre's mainland and tossed it - stones, timber and soil - into the sea, to build the land bridge (which is still there).

Ezekiel 26:12:
They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

Tyre would lose its power over the sea
Bible prophecy: Zechariah 9:3-4?
Prophecy written: Between 520 and 518 BC?
Prophecy fulfilled: Since 332 BC
In Zechariah 9:3-4, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would lose its status as a powerful nation on the Mediterranean Sea. Today there is a city called Tyre that is either on, or near, the original Phoenician site. But this Tyre is a small city in modern-day Lebanon. It is certainly not the powerful nation that it was in the days of Zechariah.
Zechariah 9:3-4:
Tyre has built herself a stronghold; she has heaped up silver like dust, and gold like the dirt of the streets.? But the Lord will take away her possessions and destroy her power on the sea, and she will be consumed by fire.

Phoenician Tyre would never again be found
Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:21?
Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC
?Prophecy fulfilled: After 332 BC
In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of foreign powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."
Ezekiel 26:21:
I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord."

Phoenician Tyre would never be rebuilt
Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:14?
Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC?
Prophecy fulfilled: Since 332 BC
In Ezekiel 26:14, the prophet says the Phoenician city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. This was fulfilled when Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 332 BC. His conquest brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The empire never recovered from the attack. And so, it could never rebuild Tyre. Other nations and empires have built and rebuilt cities on or near the original Phoenician site.
Ezekiel 26:14:
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

BackOnlyBriefly Thu 12-Jun-14 22:23:02

The important bit anyway is that he's admitting to acting out the prophecy that everyone already knows about. Anyone could do that.

You’re right there is often a power of suggestion with predictions that are vague, but if I said to you “you will win £1,000 on next month’s winning lottery ticket” then no amount of power of suggestion will make that happen. It’s not all as simple as suggesting people know a man with a dog. The biblical prophesies are numerous in their detail and 100% accurate. That's pretty amazing even by my standards!

Virgolia Thu 12-Jun-14 21:57:14

You come up with some really intelligent questions.

Each one is going to think their god is the true god. So who's right?
A Catholic follows the bible extremely broadly, sometimes not really much at all, as it has got much man-made religion added to it that I personally find it hard to sift between the two (as in, I don't want to touch it). Adding to, or subtracting from the original text is warned against in Revelations, and sadly Catholicism, is broadly speaking, guilty of this. I am sure you will find a catholic who hotly denies this, and perhaps there are some who genuinely follow the teachings set out in the bible, but I bet it's quite rare. Same for the Church of England.

A hindu believes in a religion that came AFTER the time recorded in the Old Testament www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/fastfacts.htm, it was firsthand a culture and then became a religion, based on some biblical truths. Therefore, of course it fits with the man-made religion and is in the same bracket as Catholicism.

Usually you can tell by the basic message they believe. Most man-made religions try to earn or win their way to God, but the true biblical account is clear that God gives a free gift that you choose to accept or reject, and that it's not of your own works.

Or would you argue that they're the same despite the religions differing a lot?
Definitely not the same because there are many passages making this clear, such as Jesus said *I am the way, the truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by me".

BigDorrit,
You can find atheist websites that argue against the bible, just as you can find theist websites that argue for it; that is why I suggested all research undertaken is using secular, historical information, and not that of a website (like your last one) which clearly has a strong religious bias. A bias against religion, that is to say.

In your first website, I explained that a reference was given to a secular historical site. This site described how:

1. Tyre was “Captured and destroyed by the Muslim Mamluks in 1291, the town never recovered its former importance.”
2. “most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town”. 3)“Behind the walls of the old city the Tyrians successfully defied Nebuchadnezzar for 13 years. Alexander the Great also laid seige to it for 7 months, finally overwhelming the island city”.

All of which supports the fact that Tyre came across a bit of bother as I mentioned in my long reply!