The man who became Buddha had a really nice tree, though. No trap, just something nice to lean on. 
5 Likes
Amen, Mindysan. Freedom of conscience and pluralism are good things – though I think that freedom should include the right to talk about things one believes to be objectively true (though not, of course to bully or harass people who disagree with that assessment).
He might recognise some of the fringe parts, although they won’t be exact replicas. Christian socialists and anarchists tend to put less emphasis on the bits of the Bible after the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
5 Likes
Except by assuming that YOUR faith is objectively true, while others are not, you are undermining your own statement there… It might be true for YOU, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for the rest of humanity. Even the NATURE of the Christ is up for debate by different strains of Christianity. So, I find your assurances of an embrace of pluralism to ring a bit hollow there especially in light of the ongoing assault on the basic human rights of millions of your fellow humans by people claiming to be of your faith. So sorry.
3 Likes
Well, firstly, no need to be sorry, I think this is a good thing to discuss.
Well I’m not going to try to defend the record of my co-religionists here. But I wonder if we are thinking about pluralism in different ways.
I think of it as a right to peaceful disagreement. My Hindu neighbours believe it is objectively true that we will all undergo reincarnation; the Muslims around the corner believe we will all be judged according to our willingness to submit to Allah. My best friend from school feels certain there is no God.
Now as I see it, pluralism means allowing everyone to believe and express (and discuss, if we choose to) these different convictions without threat or coercion or state sanction.
What I hear you saying (please correct me if I have misunderstood) is that pluralism means we can all believe whatever we like as long as we don’t believe it is really true in a universal sense. I hope you can see how that creates a problem of conscience for every party described above. In fact it looks suspiciously like it makes agnosticism the established ideology which claims to be truer than every other religious position.
But maybe you aren’t saying that; maybe you are only saying that the state should be practically agnostic and avoid elevating any creed into law?
[edit, further thought] Or maybe you are simply issuing a call for epistemological humility? i.e. We shouldn’t pretend that our religious views can be established in a scientific-empirical sense? I think I could agree with that.
I believe, but can not demonstrate in any way, that it is objectively true that everybody else is wrong
Lucky me, I’m the only one who was coincidentally raised to believe the correct unproveable things
Also, the rest of you are going to Hell 
3 Likes
It’s worse than that. Until they disobey, they don’t know good and evil, so how can they know that disobeying God would be wrong?
2 Likes
Maybe they won’t burn if they never hear the Word?
Preach to them anyway, nobody likes a fence-sitter
2 Likes
I’m planning on taking over a decent chunk of it when I get there… i’m going to throw some awesome parties.
6 Likes
Christians just HATE it when people talk like that
No, no, no, you don’t understand, Hell is the worst thing you can imagine, forever—if you think there’s anything fun about it you’re doing it wrong
The worst thing I, personally, can imagine? I guess it’s just one more coincidence to add to the list 
7 Likes
Word.
My queendom already awaits me…
8 Likes
I don’t trust any religion where omnipotence and omniscience are perfectly applied in devising eternal punishment, but somehow not in how the world works day to day.
5 Likes
Assuming the afterlife is how it’s been described to us… I don’t see myself lasting long in Heaven, because I’ll get into a huge argument with God, and He’ll probably kick me out for that. So if I’m Hell-bound, might as well make the most of it. I won’t be greedy, I’ll just take my own little corner of the place…
(No, I’m not really serious… maybe because it’s hard for me to imagine anything worse than what we’re already doing to each other here on Earth. And I may well be wrong in joking about it… I don’t mean to offend anyone who does believe. I respect faith, but I’m agnostic, and I’m pretty much laughing at myself.)
8 Likes
Pascal’s god is not the only god you could believe in. The calculus isn’t so clear. Maybe God refrains from interfering in the world to guarantee there is no hard evidence for his existence, then rewards atheists and punishes believers. Maybe literally any other god humans ever have or haven’t worshipped could apply completely uncorrelated tests on people entering their afterlives.
1 Like
Pluralism means that people are generally free to live their lives as they see fit, and tend to accept that others may live in a different manner and they are okay with that. It’s pretty much the only definition of pluralism that exists.
Kind of undercuts that if you’re sitting around smugly believing YOU have it right and the rest will rot in hell. At some point, given circumstances, that can come out as acts of violence, as we’re seeing right now across the world.
You’re beliefs are right for YOU, but others beliefs are right for them. As long as those beliefs don’t include suppressing the rights of others, it’s all good. But we have a particular brand of Christianity that is colonized the GOP that very much believes that they are the ONLY people who are right, and that the rest of us can be killed for our unbelief. That’s where the inability to accept that other’s beliefs are right for them can and often does lead.
That’s a bare fucking minimum. The state should be there to protect all our basic rights and help to ensure that. If the state can’t do that, the state should be eliminated.
6 Likes
I guess, it partly depends on what “okay with that” means. A certain Buddhist,† for example, is surely allowed to be grieved and offended at people eating meat – even though we might want the authorities to take action if they started screaming in the faces of people eating ham sandwiches.
But I’m interested that your definition of pluralism is silent on the matter of belief. A quick survey of online definitions seems to consistently include those.
Thumbs up. All agreed.
But people are allowed to change what they believe, right? i.e. They are allowed to decide that an existing belief is not right for them? We don’t want to be like those countries where it’s illegal to change religion.
† See chgoliz, below.
Which Buddhists? Some Buddhists feel it’s wrong to kill the animal, not to eat the meat once it’s dead. Most, in any case, don’t dictate to others what they should eat. And some believe the more important behavior is to be grateful for any food you’re offered, rather than egotistically consider yourself the better Buddhist by refusing to eat meat that is honestly offered.
You see, other religions also have nuances and differences in their beliefs.
10 Likes
Thank you chgoliz. Well said, and I appreciate the correction.
2 Likes
It’s almost like human beings are NOT monolithic, no matter how we may choose to differentiate, group or label ourselves.
Imagine that…
6 Likes
It’s important to remember that something like 90% of common ideas about hell and Satan come from Dante and Milton, with a bit of Faust added for spice.
6 Likes
