vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:
Mary is different than God, i know that.
You don`t understand how important she is to Christians? She`s not just another woman. If you know that part of the Bible you`ll know why... it also shows how she conceived without intercourse.
If you don`t believe one part, surely you won`t believe the other, but that`s no reason to insult her.
God only had one son and that won`t change. So know i won`t believe. It`s based on my religious views, just that.
Being tolerant and respectful should be something that affects everyone not just the people that say things you like or agree with. That´s not being tolerant and respectful. These two concepts exist to "embrace" others in their views.
|
Again, it's not about what I agree and diasgree with. It's about the amount of overwhelming evidence present for a given situation, or against it. I don't decide the amount of evidence that exists, god does, or whatever it is that existance depends on.
|
Don´t you realize that a) you insulted someone and b)you insulted someone who is considered holy within a religion?
No arguments justify insulting someone.
|
I already discussed this with you. Stating the overwhlemingly probable outcome should NOT be insulting. If it is insulting then it is not my problem, but the other person's and they should look into changing beliefs to something with which they are more comfortable with. Just because someone is considered holy, doesn't mean jack shit, besides who decides who is holy? If I decide that Obama is holy, should I be pissed every time he gets spit on? Maybe I will decide that everything produced from my local pizza shop is holy. Furthermore, the overwhelmingly probable outcome states that the person in question is very much not holy, therefore stripping her of her status as holy. Truth is not an insult. I've said it many times and I'll say it again.
|
If your calling someone names than yes, it`s your problem because with an insult you (wish to) hurt someone`s feelings.
Don`t you understand what it means to have something seen as holy?
You are just relativizing holyness just for the sake of an argument. But even if you did, people that really are tolerant and respectful, would still avoid being desrespectful of that what you consider to be holy. That being, not insulting it.
Truth has nothing to do with this. All you are showing is that if someone/thought fits your boundaries you respect, if it doesn`t you don`t respect it or them. Does that seem like it`s fair?
|
I don't wish to hurt someone's feelings, I am just stating how things stand. If a person's feelings are hurt from that, then they should probably find out why they are hurt from such a thing and change something, because the way things stand won't change. In this case, I outlined clearly how things stand, and what is by far the most likely outcome. Yes, I call people who believe in it idiots, but that is by my definition of an idiot, which I steted is believining in something against which exists insurmountable evidence. Which is a VERY objective measure. It has nothing to do with what I believe or not.
TO further prove my point, tell me which statements of mine are wrong. During that time women were heavily punished for adultery. It takes a man having sex and ejaculating in a woman's vagina to conceive a baby. People will go through great lengths to survive. Which one of these claims is wrong and twisted by my personal beliefs? Furthermore, using purely objective logic and reason, you can add all those up to see that if a woman got pregnant by someone other than her husband, she would probably lie. Therefore, objectively Mary is NOT holy. However if you continue to believe that she is holy, you should NOT be offended by these facts presented to you. If you are, switch beliefs.
Truth is objective, and it is never an insult. I am stating the most probable cause, with overwhelming evidence to back me up, about Mary, and therefore I am not insulting her.
|
Let me be clearer on what is the point.
Here you have someone who is considered holy - with more than reasons to do so. And at the same time someone comes and does not see it like that. Ok, two visions. So, by your standards, to you there`s not amount of overwhelming evidence, therefore you end up not respecting it as it`s not worthy of being respected and tolerated (i may have jumped a step or two, i know, but the result is the same); here you have someone who seeing it as holy naturally is offended by such claims when to him there`s an amount of overwhelming evidence.
You see me insulting your views?
You do not wish to hurt anyone`s feelings but you can`t even place yourself in other people`s shoes and see how he/she think or feels about something. You reduced tolerance and respect to how you think it should be and that`s where the problem resides.
To really be tolerant and respectful we gotta understand where others come from and live with differences of opinion. You say it not a question of believing, but in this case, it`s exactly it, as what i consider sacred or holy is in that context. So in this view, i do consider Mary to be Holy and Virgin and an insult like the one you used is really offensive.
If all you do is consider reason the only perfect source of knowledge, you will, in this case, really not respect religions and those who follow them. Reason doesn`t explain everything, no matter how hard we try because we aren`t perfect. So, for example, science will never accept conceiving without intercourse because it`s limited to what defines it, that doesn`t mean it´s not possible. It seems that i am relativizing things, but i am really not. For another example, science nor reason, per se, will really understand love because it`s mostly felt, something that they can`t apreehend as it´s not in their boundaries.
