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?

When I've got more time (its an hour past my bedtime already), we can look at another one of your problems with biblical prophesy. I am confident that it's all there without any problem because I researched an awful lot of it and like I say, find it quite extraordinary.

Or perhaps I could respectfully suggest you begin your own thread on it so we can all talk there instead? It kinda feels like we're hijacking this one a bit.

.

GotAnotherQuestion what I was referring to is that Jesus admits in that chapter that he only sent the disciples to get the donkey because that way people would be fooled into thinking it was the prophecy coming true.

Everyone at the time knew about the prophecy so anyone could have done that. He probably wasn't even the first to try it on. Didn't they have a lot of messiahs coming forward?

btw, I've not gone into the story of Tyre in great detail, but you can book a holiday there online. Are you saying it's gone? When did that happen?

Tyre

It seems to be there.........

Look under 'history' on the link provided by Hakylut above.

It's clear that the original was destroyed. Tyre consisted of a city on the mainland while the other part of it was on an island. Babylonian forces under the direction of Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre, while Alexander the Great's Greek forces destroyed the island city of Tyre at a much later time. He used the ruins of mainland Tyre to build a causeway (also predicted by the bible) to reach the island part of the city before bringing it to a ruin.

Yes Back, you can probably book a holiday there to view the lovely by numerous archeology sites. But the original Tyre has long since gone. Just as predicted.

Back - when did Jesus say he was fooling everyone into thinking a prophet had come true?

I can't seem to find that chapter and verse in my bible so if you could give it to me to look up would be great.

"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."

?

More neutral (as in not religious or clearly anti-religion) historical information supporting this to be true

www.anomalist.com/features/tartessus.html

www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Story_of_the_Greatest_Nations_and_the_Worlds_Famous_Events_Vol_1/ancientc_jg.html

africascience.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/ancient-lost-citys-remains-found-under.html?m=1

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon
"The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times."

""The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times."

So not exactly a bare rock then............

Matthew 21.1-4

He didn't need the donkey. He could have just walked in with the disciples. He waited for them to fetch one so he could fulfil the prophecy

Oh, purhlease.......The Anomalist? Really?

If you're quoting that as a source, I really don't think there is any mileage in this discussion at all.

As for Tyre I don't care a lot either way because of course you can always argue that it's not the same as it used to be. You could do that even if not one brick had fallen by claiming that it had 'lost its heart' or some such thing.

But consider this. If it is/was completely unchanged then you'd be saying "just you wait until god destroys Tyre" because you'd assume that a prophecy that hadn't come true was going to come true any moment.

Like the second coming itself of course. That isn't a failed prophecy because people keep saying "well of course he didn't mean just yet".

It was just the top hit. What's wrong with it?

There are plenty more I can provide if you like

Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with this paper of record The Anomalist

21 When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” 4 This [a]took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet.

Back - I can't see where Jesus was fooling anyone. He sent them into the village opposite. You're making it up that he had been to that village and seen the donkey tethered!

I'm not talking about the donkey being there. I'm talking about the fact that he said he needed a donkey for his arrival so that people would think this was the prophecy coming true.

Get it now?

I get what you're saying.

But really. That's like saying 9/11 didn't happen because you saw on TV some weirdo pretending to be a survivor, and was caught out and found out to never actually be there.

Just because some people could have claimed to be Jesus doesn't mean he wasn't. All the other pieces of the puzzle fitted too perfectly.

"But really. That's like saying 9/11 didn't happen because you saw on TV some weirdo pretending to be a survivor, and was caught out and found out to never actually be there. "

You do know that's the sort of stuff The Anomalist is full of, don't you?

No, I didn't! Blissfully unaware of that. I let it in because it was top of the google selection and because it wasn't a religious bias either for or against.

But ok, if you don't like that one (and if it is like that about everything then I don't blame you!) then how about looking at the other 2 sites. Also I can post further ones if you like.

Oh my dear God! I've just looked at your last link - that was a TERRIBLE inclusion! That site is more whacko than one with a religious/anti religious bias!

Ok so like I said, try the other two. Or even look at the "history" section of your wiki article.

Well, one of the others was written in 1913........

Haven't looked at the 3rd- the first two were enough for me.......