NationStates Jolt Archive

Trust them about what?

I don't judge on their beliefs but their personality, but it depends also on what I would trust them with.

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .

I don't judge on their beliefs but their personality, but it depends also on what I would trust them with.

^ What he said. ^

Depends. On the whole, I feel better when I can keep my distance, so I wouldn't say I trust them all that much.

Trust them about what?

yeah, about what?

Trust them to behave in a manner typical of a religious fundamentalist, possibly. Trust them to respect my irreligiousness, not so much.

Depends what on. Can't trust Proddies on science, can't trust bishops on immigration.

But you could give them the guilt trip to prevent them from stealing from you. :)

No.

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .

No. A person's seriousness about their magical thinking doesn't necessarily make them any more trustworthy than anyone else.

Depends what on. Can't trust Proddies on science, can't trust bishops on immigration.

But you could give them the guilt trip to prevent them from stealing from you. :)

And can't trust fundie Pastors with gay rights. Or Methamphetamine

Someone who feels strongly about their beliefs doesn't earn any more or less trust from me then anyone else. Besides, I see a true fundamentalist as someone with radical beliefs on top of taking the same beliefs seriously.

And can't trust fundie Pastors with gay rights. Or Methamphetamine I thought meth was very… conducive to a bit of the old gayitude?

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .
I don't trust any person who claims to get their morality from God, whether they be fundamentalist or not. Any person who is unable to generate internal morality, or who is unable to accept responsibility for the fact that they do so, is a person I do not trust.

I also don't trust a lot of people who DO have internal morality. :D

I tend not to trust anyone who spends most of their time telling you about their religion. Experience dictates they're usually flakes who'll stab you in the back first chance.

I don't judge on their beliefs but their personality, but it depends also on what I would trust them with.

Im actually a good freind with someone alot of people would consider a fundie. He believes some very radical things, but is otherwise a great person and I dont think intoleration will ever solve intoleration. Besides, my vote will always cancel out his, so he;s not very dangerous.

I tend not to trust anyone who spends most of their time telling you about their religion. Experience dictates they're usually flakes who'll stab you in the back first chance.

I tend not to trust anyone who spends most of their time lecturing me on their various ideologies. Communist, capitalist, religionist, patriotist, rapist, or whatever.

about what?

If I had some magical way of knowing that the person in question were genuinely religious, as opposed to someone playing at it in order to gain my trust, then I'd be more willing to trust them not to steal from me or beat me with sticks.
However, lacking a good way of judging their sincerity, I wouldn't trust them for the same reasons that I don't trust every other person I've met.

depends on the religion.

Trust them to behave in a manner typical of a religious fundamentalist, possibly. Trust them to respect my irreligiousness, not so much.
Contrary to stereotypes most fundamentalists are quite tolerant of others' beliefs, not loud and not theocratic about it.

I trust mormons, they are fundamentalist right? Yes I trust fundamentalists, why wouldn't I? Well it depends on the person but for the most part I trust them.

Contrary to stereotypes most fundamentalists are quite tolerant of others' beliefs, not loud and not theocratic about it.

Quite right, and its the actions of the loud and theocratic ones that often inspire prejudice in people who disagree. This leads to conflict and the rise of more loud and theocratic ones because they feel their religion is now under attack. Which is sometimes exactly what the original loud and theocratic one's want because it strengthens their base of power. Angry people are more easily manipulated if you can get them angry about the right things.

Same thing happens in politics. In fact is IS politics.

depends on the religion.

Not Judaism, eh? :rolleyes:

Contrary to stereotypes most fundamentalists are quite tolerant of others' beliefs, not loud and not theocratic about it.

Well, to be honest, I'm not really clear on what is meant by "fundamentalist", it tends to be used to mean "extremist", I intended to say something about this, but I got distracted and forgot.

Probably not. I wouldn't trust them to do things on my behalf or even on their behalf but for some fluffly pink bunny that lives on a cloud. I just can't bring myself to find this type of person trustworthy. Not to say such a person couldn't earn my trust.

Would I trust a religious fundamentalist? Sure, if he/she seemed trustworthy.

Would I trust a religious fundamentalist more than a similarly trustworthy-seeming non-fundamentalist? Of course not.

The question that this thread asks is too vague to answer accurately.

The question that this thread asks is too vague to answer accurately.

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

As a further question (not related to the poll) would your doubt be strong enough that you would rule out the religious person entirely?

Someone so entrenched in self-denial would surely be too predictable not to trust.

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

As a further question (not related to the poll) would your doubt be strong enough that you would rule out the religious person entirely?

No. This is the problem with automatically respecting magical thinking. There's no logical reason to give the religious person the benefit of the doubt over the non-religious one.

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?


Oh, then that's easy. Of course not. No one in their right mind believes that religious people are incapable of criminal behavior.

I trust no one. Religious or not. Everybody is the same to me. I have to actually know you first and you need to earn my trust.

Just because you are part of a religion that is against lying,thieving..etc.. does not mean you practice them. Even the "devout" ones stray from their teachings. A woman I work with claims to be this..and absolutely LOVES to spout off her beliefs to me..but quite a few times I have seen her lie to save her own ass.

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

As a further question (not related to the poll) would your doubt be strong enough that you would rule out the religious person entirely?

In that case it would make no difference whatsoever to me.

Fundies can be bad, the difference is they usually preach vehemently against what they're secretly doing. ::nudges pastor Ted::

Depends what religion. And just because they teach against theft and murder...well, Christianity and Islam do that, but a lot of people seem to forget that...

no more or less than any other class of person. but then i'm not a very trusting person. and it also depends on what i'm trusting them with and what religion or sect they are affiliated with.

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .You're too vague. I only trust fundamentalists to be irrational & borderline psychopathic. Unlike some other posters, my opinion has nothing to do with the nature of the belief system. Such beliefs in most cases have nothing to do with me, and in all cases can be manipulated.

The reason I don't trust fundamentalism, religious & otherwise, is because it involves the willfull abandoning of ones own faculties, and the embrace of an end that'll justify any means. To me, that is the very definition of being criminally insane.

Fortunately real fundamentalism/religious orthodoxy is rare.Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?No. Wouldn't 'tend to' assume the opporsite either. Religion or the lack of it never stopped anyone from stealing. I would however, not employ a fanatic, be it a neo-Nazi, an American evangelical or Osama bin Laden. Then again, I'd never run a madhouse.

Well trust them not to blatantly steal? usually

Trust them in business? NO, I sure wouldn't buy a used car from one. They generally don't see business ethics as having anything to do with stealing.

Trust them to care for the poor, weak, downtrodden? No if they had to directly help. Yes if they can just drop the money in the plate and not have to get their hands dirty.

Trust a fundie boss to treat their employees well? NO, goes back to that division between religion and business.

Trust what a fundie says about the Bible or the word of God? No, they think God says what they want him to say.

Trust them to treat neighbors well? Sometimes, I think they would loan you a cup of sugar. I wouldn't want one on the neighborhood rules committee. They would make so many rules that they would require a minimum and maximum grass count per square foot. They would be the first to call if you left the garage door open 5 minutes too long.

Better quit, I could cover pages with possibilities.

Quite right, and its the actions of the loud and theocratic ones that often inspire prejudice in people who disagree. This leads to conflict and the rise of more loud and theocratic ones because they feel their religion is now under attack. Which is sometimes exactly what the original loud and theocratic one's want because it strengthens their base of power. Angry people are more easily manipulated if you can get them angry about the right things.
Fundamenatalists in my experience would more often tend to just feel bad about it, but trust in it being "God's will"/divine providence, rather than rush to join some crusade.

Trust them in business? NO, I sure wouldn't buy a used car from one. They generally don't see business ethics as having anything to do with stealing.
What kind of fundies are you thinking about? I would think that the more religious a person is, the more they are likely to let religious morals giud all facets of their lives.

Trust them to care for the poor, weak, downtrodden? No if they had to directly help. Yes if they can just drop the money in the plate and not have to get their hands dirty.
See above.

Trust what a fundie says about the Bible or the word of God? No, they think God says what they want him to say.
Oh, you must be thinking of theocrats. The ultimate in corruption.

Trust them to treat neighbors well?
With commands like "love thy neighbour" burned into their brain I would expect nothing less!

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

As a further question (not related to the poll) would your doubt be strong enough that you would rule out the religious person entirely?

Ah, that question makes more sense.

The answer is no. If I have reason to suspect both of them, then either could be doing it. I'd have to try and figure out exactly who it was, but religion would have nothing to do with it.

What kind of fundies are you thinking about? I would think that the more religious a person is, the more they are likely to let religious morals giud all facets of their lives.


See above.


Oh, you must be thinking of theocrats. The ultimate in corruption.


With commands like "love thy neighbour" burned into their brain I would expect nothing less!

We're talking of Fundamentalists here not Christians. A Fundie is to Christian as a Pharisee was to true Jewish in Jesus time. And even today they crucify the spirit of Jesus with every move. The more Christian a person outwardly claims to be the less Christian they are. A true Christian is one of secret acts of kindness not an outward bragging of how pure they are.

If you ever need to do business with someone and you are told, "Go to him, he's a 'good' Christian." Run like heck the other direction.

If you are broke down along the side of the rode. Pray that an athiest comes along before a fundie. He's far more likely to stop and help. Just as the fundies of Jesus time wouldn't help the man beat up along the road but the Samaritan did.

Fundies won't break Christianity blatantly but they have no qualms about about bending and walking in the gray zone. Way into the gray zone.

They protect their own but don't have much sympathy for the rest of the world. They don't believe in "survival of the fittest" in biology, but they certainly do in sociology and business.

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .

I would trust them if the weren't total bastards (i.e. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson [Respect my inherited religion!]). I don't disrespect the people, I disrespect the ideology.

We're talking of Fundamentalists here not Christians. A Fundie is to Christian as a Pharisee was to true Jewish in Jesus time. And even today they crucify the spirit of Jesus with every move. The more Christian a person outwardly claims to be the less Christian they are. A true Christian is one of secret acts of kindness not an outward bragging of how pure they are.

If you ever need to do business with someone and you are told, "Go to him, he's a 'good' Christian." Run like heck the other direction.

If you are broke down along the side of the rode. Pray that an athiest comes along before a fundie. He's far more likely to stop and help. Just as the fundies of Jesus time wouldn't help the man beat up along the road but the Samaritan did.

Fundies won't break Christianity blatantly but they have no qualms about about bending and walking in the gray zone. Way into the gray zone.

They protect their own but don't have much sympathy for the rest of the world. They don't believe in "survival of the fittest" in biology, but they certainly do in sociology and business.

a little biased?

If a person the intellect, common sense, character, or honesty to be a religious fundamentalist, I wouldn't trust him.

Fundamentalist religious conviction is evidence for the lack of the above.

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)


No. They're generally the ones who violate those principles.

Depends.

I could trust them with some things and I couldn't with some other things.

Much the same as with most other people, although I'd not ask for their opinions on science.

IME, most "religious" people are much better about preaching their religion than they are in living it. If I truly knew that someone truly belived and followed the Ten Commandments, then yes, I'd trust them. But if someone says "Trust me because I'm a Christian", I'll grab my wallet and run.

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

As a further question (not related to the poll) would your doubt be strong enough that you would rule out the religious person entirely?

absolutely not. religious people and non religious people have about the same honesty rates. if someone was stealing, i would investigate both equally if both had equal opportunity.

besides, what if he believed "once saved always saved" and since he had accepted jesus christ as his personal lord and savior he was saved and a little theft didnt matter?

a little biased?

Mat 7:22 He wasn't talking about the meek. He wasn't talking of the humble. He wasn't talking of any of those praised in the beatitudes.

Mat 7:22 He wasn't talking about the meek. He wasn't talking of the humble. He wasn't talking of any of those praised in the beatitudes.

and he wasn't talking about the devout either. He was talking about the hypocrites. The OP described someone who "takes their religion very seriously" and that doesn't equate (for me at least) hypocrite.

Depends on who you're asking me to trust, and with what I am to trust him with.

and he wasn't talking about the devout either. He was talking about the hypocrites. The OP described someone who "takes their religion very seriously" and that doesn't equate (for me at least) hypocrite.Wouldn't that depend entirely on the religion? If it's Christianity, for example, scripture is arguably too inconsistant for anyone taking it seriously to not also be a hypocrite.

Wouldn't that depend entirely on the religion? If it's Christianity, for example, scripture is arguably too inconsistant for anyone taking it seriously to not also be a hypocrite.

I would suppose that would depend on what you believe.

Someone who takes their religion seriously is probably pretty likely to follow it, someone who does not take it seriously is probably pretty likely not to follow it.

and he wasn't talking about the devout either. He was talking about the hypocrites. The OP described someone who "takes their religion very seriously" and that doesn't equate (for me at least) hypocrite.

Devout isn't the same as fundamentalist. My Grandmother was the most devout person I've ever known. She was Orthodox. Not known for their fundamentalism.

But if you read of the conservative Jews of Jesus times and look how they handled things, including killing Jesus to maintain their political power. And if you change the word Pharisee to Fundamentalist Christian in any of the descriptions. You will find that the NT could have been written yesterday. Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson and the rest do exactly what the conservative Jewish leaders did 2000 years ago.

Human nature doesn't change. Just the words and titles change.

I wouldn't trust a fundamentalist of any persuasion. They just don't strike me as logical, rational people.

I would suppose that would depend on what you believe.

Someone who takes their religion seriously is probably pretty likely to follow it, someone who does not take it seriously is probably pretty likely not to follow it.

youd think. but then people rationalize all sorts of bad behavior no matter what they believe.

so pastor ted has a 3 year relationship with a male prostitute. he was very serious about his religion

jimmy swaggart cavorts with female prostitutes. he was very serious about his relgion

jim baker defrauds investors in his religious community. he was very serious about his religion.

tip of the iceberg. i could go on and on.

what makes those men misbehave when they are very religious men while many others never cross the line in a criminal way, i dont know. i just know that its not religion that keeps people in line but strength of character (and sometimes lack of opportunity)

so pastor ted has a 3 year relationship with a male prostitute. he was very serious about his religion

Not to mention he was on the blow.

Not to mention he was on the blow.

And now has his own entry on urban dictionary.

I wouldn't trust any extremist; if the person is a fundamentalist but not in the holy shit this person is nuts! category and I knew them well, then yeah, I'd trust them.

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .

Religious fundamentalists - maybe, I don't really know, it would depend on the person.

Religious extremists - I would trust them to be themselves, which means I would lock up my daughter, hide the silver, and buy a gun and ammunation.

I'm actually inclined to trust fundamentalists (really, really fundamentalist--hardcore believers here) less than people who aren't so devout. See, I think the mind of a fundamentalist has a lot of properties in common with crazy people, especially those fundies who claim to have some sort of personal connection to the supernatural.
1. They will disregard any and all evidence from the world around them if it contradicts their beliefs.
2. Some of them believe that an invisible man is talking to them, and will obey this perceived voice unquestioningly.

This doesn't lend itself to rational behavior. Now, I've met some fundamentalists who I would trust with some things, but my first instinct when I hear "extremely devout ____" is to think "crazy person."

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .
What religion? Jews, Christians, Muslims are generally untrustworthy. Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and many others are OK.

What religion? Jews, Christians, Muslims are generally untrustworthy. Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and many others are OK.

Fair enough, but I do have difficulties imagining a fundamentalist Taoist...

Trust them with what?
But my gut says proberbly not.

Well the simple fact that all religious fundies (mainly Christians) that I've come in contact with would either damn me to hell for being Catholic, try to "save" me, or say that Kay is going to Hell because she's Goth and agnostic, I would rather trust Hannibal Lecter before I'd trust any fundie.

http://www.crankycritic.com/qa/pf_articles/images/rd_hopkins1.jpg

For the record this is Hannibal Lecter, and he is a cannibal. So that says alot.

I'm an Athiest. It's really hard to forget that for about a thousand years that meant "death sentence" at the hands of relgious fanatics not so far removed from todays fundies.

I wouldn't trust them to show me which way was up.

I would trust him if he told "I'm going to kill you, you infidel!".

The problem with fundamentalism in of any opinion, be it religious, political or anything else is that the fundamentalist believes that he or she knows the undebatable truth and therefore won't accept a questioning of his or hers belives in that matter. I'm personally an ateist and left-anarchy sympatizer, but I have many religious friends and many friends with a different political (like moderately right wing) views, but that's not a problem as long as we all are ready to respect each others oppinion and discuss solutions to issues rather than post cathegoric statements:headbang:

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .How religious someone is isn't one of the most important criteria for trusting someone for me.

How religious someone is isn't one of the most important criteria for trusting someone for me.Hear, hear. Then again, how religious someone is may very well say something about how sane the person is, and sanity is a fairly important criteria for me.

How religious someone is isn't one of the most important criteria for trusting someone for me.
But religiousness is a direct indicator for somebody's overall mental setup and view of the world.

Hear, hear. Then again, how religious someone is may very well say something about how sane the person is, and sanity is a fairly important criteria for me.It may, or it may not. In the end "religious fundamentalist" is still too little information.

But religiousness is a direct indicator for somebody's overall mental setup and view of the world.Where do they feed you that bullshit?

depends on the fundie, really.

I don't trust any person who claims to get their morality from God, whether they be fundamentalist or not. Any person who is unable to generate internal morality, or who is unable to accept responsibility for the fact that they do so, is a person I do not trust.

I also don't trust a lot of people who DO have internal morality. :D

OK, this may sound super pessimistic, but I have often been called a pessimist:

I believe there is no such thing as inner morality. All people are inherently sinful. Furthermore, nobody could do anything without God, whether they give him credit for it or not. Anyone who wants to go against their sinful nature and do good, regardless of religion and/or lack thereof, is in a small way motivated by God, even if they don't believe in him. This does not excuse a person from their actions or take any of the responsibility off their shoulders. The morality comes from God, but it is still our responsibility to act on it.

As far as religious fundamentalists, I would consider myself one, that is, I take everything in the Bible that is meant to be taken literally (ie not parables) literally. But I also believe in that which can be supported by science. A lot of people tell me that these two viewpoints are conflicting, but if you look at it logically, they aren't in the least. I believe that God did create the world in seven days, some time before recorded history but no more than a few hundred thousand years ago, but gave it a four billion year history. It's like a sci-fi writer who writes a book set four thousand years in the future. For most of the book he writes about what happens to a set of characters in that futuristic setting, but he also writes, normally near the begining, about everything that happened in the four thousand years seperating our time from that of the book. It's the same way here. The saga of the earth takes place in a few measley hundred thousand years, but God gave us a four billion year history to put our world in context. Now, if any of the real wacko fundamentalist this topic is probably talking about (like the ones who think the grand canyon was fromed by the great flood? please...) tell me that this is contradictory to the Bible, I just tell them to show me the passage in the Bible it contradicts, and they can never find it.

Well, anyways, that's my philosophy, do with it what you will.

Where do they feed you that bullshit?That's not bullshit. That's observable everywhere you look. Read through this forum and you will find that those who are 'believers' are generally less educated and their view of the world lacks certain details.

That's not bullshit. That's observable everywhere you look. Read through this forum and you will find that those who are 'believers' are generally less educated and their view of the world lacks certain details.
*coughVetaliacough*

*coughLunaticgoofballscough*

I thought meth was very… conducive to a bit of the old gayitude?

No. The other way around, possibly, but for meth to be condicive to "gayitude" would mean that a drug makes you gay.

And I belive it was a reference to that Pastor who led a massive evangelical Church, was a rabid opponent of gay rights, and turned out to have purchased crystal meth and gay sex from a gay prostitute.

But now he's prayed the gay away and is a straight man again. He just likes to get his penis professionally washed sometimes. Spit-shined of course. The old fashioned way.

*coughVetaliacough*
*coughLunaticgoofballscough*Oh, come on, someone who really believes in the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, cannot possibly be in a right mind. And that's what you can experience everywhere you meet folks who actually believe that ideological crap.

I'm actually inclined to trust fundamentalists (really, really fundamentalist--hardcore believers here) less than people who aren't so devout. See, I think the mind of a fundamentalist has a lot of properties in common with crazy people, especially those fundies who claim to have some sort of personal connection to the supernatural.
1. They will disregard any and all evidence from the world around them if it contradicts their beliefs.
2. Some of them believe that an invisible man is talking to them, and will obey this perceived voice unquestioningly.

This doesn't lend itself to rational behavior. Now, I've met some fundamentalists who I would trust with some things, but my first instinct when I hear "extremely devout ____" is to think "crazy person."

There's a lot of truth to that. In the DSMV (doctors diagostic reference book) the only difference between a religious fundamentalist and a schizophrenic is the words "that are not typical for their culture." Meaning the only reason a religious fundamentalist is not considered schizophrenic is because he's got some more people around him that are as delusional as he is.

Oh, come on, someone who really believes in the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, cannot possibly be in a right mind. And that's what you can experience everywhere you meet folks who actually believe that ideological crap.
Um, yeah, I think we can all agree religious fundies are morons. But you seem to be implying moderate religious people are less mentally stable than atheists/agnostics, and I'm pretty sure that's not quite right. And define "teachings of Christianity/Judaism/Islam".

Come to think of it, how could I forget Smunkee? She's pretty devout.

Only as far as I could throw one, umm sooo perhaps a dwarf?

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

No. I'll even take it a step further, too: if the religious person had ever specifically/loudly commented on the sin of theft, I would immediately assume they were the thief.

Which, I freely admit, is not entirely a good idea, since maybe they knew the other person was the thief and were trying to hint at it to get my attention. But, in all honesty, whenever I hear a religious person talk about what a "sin" it is to do something, I feel fairly certain that they engage in that sin on a regular basis.

No. I'll even take it a step further, too: if the religious person had ever specifically/loudly commented on the sin of theft, I would immediately assume they were the thief.

Which, I freely admit, is not entirely a good idea, since maybe they knew the other person was the thief and were trying to hint at it to get my attention. But, in all honesty, whenever I hear a religious person talk about what a "sin" it is to do something, I feel fairly certain that they engage in that sin on a regular basis.

In the end different factors might lead me to believe that one of the employees is the thief but since I have no proof yet... there really is no way to know. What little I know of their personalities would lead me to suspect one and someone who is loudly religious would make me suspicious.

Okay, I'll give a specific, hypothetical example. Say you are the manager of a retail store, and you realize that someone is stealing money from the till. Your two main suspects are both relatively new employees, so you don't know much about the character of each, but you do know that one of them is sincerely religious, and the other is not. Would you tend to doubt that the religious one was the thief?

As a further question (not related to the poll) would your doubt be strong enough that you would rule out the religious person entirely?

Nope. I'd suspect both.

I only trust a religious fundamentalist to see me as one of the unclean unsaved.

OK, this may sound super pessimistic, but I have often been called a pessimist:

I believe there is no such thing as inner morality. All people are inherently sinful. Furthermore, nobody could do anything without God, whether they give him credit for it or not. Anyone who wants to go against their sinful nature and do good, regardless of religion and/or lack thereof, is in a small way motivated by God, even if they don't believe in him. This does not excuse a person from their actions or take any of the responsibility off their shoulders. The morality comes from God, but it is still our responsibility to act on it.

As far as religious fundamentalists, I would consider myself one, that is, I take everything in the Bible that is meant to be taken literally (ie not parables) literally. But I also believe in that which can be supported by science. A lot of people tell me that these two viewpoints are conflicting, but if you look at it logically, they aren't in the least. I believe that God did create the world in seven days, some time before recorded history but no more than a few hundred thousand years ago, but gave it a four billion year history. It's like a sci-fi writer who writes a book set four thousand years in the future. For most of the book he writes about what happens to a set of characters in that futuristic setting, but he also writes, normally near the begining, about everything that happened in the four thousand years seperating our time from that of the book. It's the same way here. The saga of the earth takes place in a few measley hundred thousand years, but God gave us a four billion year history to put our world in context. Now, if any of the real wacko fundamentalist this topic is probably talking about (like the ones who think the grand canyon was fromed by the great flood? please...) tell me that this is contradictory to the Bible, I just tell them to show me the passage in the Bible it contradicts, and they can never find it.

Well, anyways, that's my philosophy, do with it what you will.


Or God used a very long time to create the world and the tale of the creation in the Bible is a parable. Also, Jesus was killed for telling peope to care abouth each other. Imagine if he or some prophet of God went around and told people how the world really was created or that God created us all from monkeys that in whon he saw the potential of becomming something more. Imagine how many would follow Moses if when he came down fromt the mountain with the 10 Commandments (or whatever they are called in english) told them: "and by the way, God told me that we all descend from monkeys). Of course God, if he does in fact excist, something I don't take for granted, couldn't tell people how things really work before their minds were ready to understand it. Also, think of how much history shapes the way people think. Maybee we couln't become what we are today without the hardships people endure today and have endured. It can werry well be that to develop a consience, compassion and ideas of justice people would have to develop, and that if God just gave everything to us, we would just be cavemen with flashy cars?

If a person is vowed not to lie, and has been raised under the belief that acting contrary to those religious and moral teachings is severly punishable in the spiritual sense (i.e. going to hell, karma, what have you), then if that person gives me his word of honor I will be inclined to trust that word over that of a person who has made no such formal obligations to himself.

If a person is vowed not to lie, and has been raised under the belief that acting contrary to those religious and moral teachings is severely punishable in the spiritual sense (i.e. going to hell, karma, what have you), then if that person gives me his word of honor I will be inclined to trust that word over that of a person who has made no such formal obligations to himself.But what if those religious and moral teachings are lies, does the word of a person adhering to such teachings have any worth? And is it lying if someone just doesn't know any better?

I only trust a religious fundamentalist to see me as one of the unclean unsaved.unclean and unshaved, huh?

If a person is vowed not to lie, and has been raised under the belief that acting contrary to those religious and moral teachings is severly punishable in the spiritual sense (i.e. going to hell, karma, what have you), then if that person gives me his word of honor I will be inclined to trust that word over that of a person who has made no such formal obligations to himself.

If somebody needs threat of punishment to make them keep their word, then what is their word really worth? All they're saying is, "I'll keep my word for as long as is necessary to help me escape punishment."

If somebody needs threat of punishment to make them keep their word, then what is their word really worth? All they're saying is, "I'll keep my word for as long as is necessary to help me escape punishment."

Thats a fair point really.....:D

OK, this may sound super pessimistic, but I have often been called a pessimist:

*snip*

Well, anyways, that's my philosophy, do with it what you will.

So you think god is deliberately deceiving us?

So you think god is deliberately deceiving us?WWLD - What Would Loki Do ;)

No. I can't trust fundies with anything, I'm sorry.

WWLD - What Would Loki Do ;)

A question I ask myself daily.

I still wouldn't trust a fundamentalist, though.

i would like to have seen "about as far as i could throw one" as one of the options.

i don't think even the revealers of organized beliefs themselves would trust one.

i do recall a certain charismatic leader who was wrongfully exicuted by a paranoid colonial government a couple of thousand years ago saying something to the effect that he would rather dine with those others considered undesirables then with the hypocracy of fanatacism.

one need only witness events of the past six years i should think, if one not be a totaly brainwashed fundimentalist cultist.

=^^=
.../\...

So you think god is deliberately deceiving us?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think God really did create the Earth (well actually the universe too but thats irrelevant) in seven days, and that the creation story in the Bible is a literal account of what really happened. But he also created a history for the earth, ie, when he created it the Earth looked the way it would have if he had created it 4 billion years ago and humans had just then achieved sensience. He's not deceiving us, he's just not telling us everything. He gave us intelligence and logic so we could figure stuff out on our own without him telling us. Adam and Eve talk to each other in the Bible, so we know they had to have been created in a time in Earth's history when humans could talk, but Earth's geologic history tells us that the Earth is 4 billion years old. So if you take the Bible literally, as I do, but you also believe in scientific evidence, then the logical conclusion I arrived at is that God created the Earth rather recently, geologically speaking, but gave it a 4 billion year history.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think God really did create the Earth (well actually the universe too but thats irrelevant) in seven days, and that the creation story in the Bible is a literal account of what really happened. But he also created a history for the earth, ie, when he created it the Earth looked the way it would have if he had created it 4 billion years ago and humans had just then achieved sensience. He's not deceiving us, he's just not telling us everything. He gave us intelligence and logic so we could figure stuff out on our own without him telling us. Adam and Eve talk to each other in the Bible, so we know they had to have been created in a time in Earth's history when humans could talk, but Earth's geologic history tells us that the Earth is 4 billion years old. So if you take the Bible literally, as I do, but you also believe in scientific evidence, then the logical conclusion I arrived at is that God created the Earth rather recently, geologically speaking, but gave it a 4 billion year history.
There is absolutely no logic in this post.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think God really did create the Earth (well actually the universe too but thats irrelevant) in seven days, and that the creation story in the Bible is a literal account of what really happened. But he also created a history for the earth, ie, when he created it the Earth looked the way it would have if he had created it 4 billion years ago and humans had just then achieved sensience. He's not deceiving us, he's just not telling us everything. He gave us intelligence and logic so we could figure stuff out on our own without him telling us. Adam and Eve talk to each other in the Bible, so we know they had to have been created in a time in Earth's history when humans could talk, but Earth's geologic history tells us that the Earth is 4 billion years old. So if you take the Bible literally, as I do, but you also believe in scientific evidence, then the logical conclusion I arrived at is that God created the Earth rather recently, geologically speaking, but gave it a 4 billion year history.Edwardis?

Edwardis?

Can't be. This guy is too confused even for Edwardis' standards...

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .

never, absolutely the most untrustworthy, on top of the list with lawyers...I prefer to trust someone who has his/her own moral code and not someone who needs a book of myths to guide them through life...

Anyone who deserts rational thought for unverifiable beliefs does not deserve my trust, in most matters at least.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think God really did create the Earth (well actually the universe too but thats irrelevant) in seven days, and that the creation story in the Bible is a literal account of what really happened. But he also created a history for the earth, ie, when he created it the Earth looked the way it would have if he had created it 4 billion years ago and humans had just then achieved sensience. He's not deceiving us, he's just not telling us everything. He gave us intelligence and logic so we could figure stuff out on our own without him telling us. Adam and Eve talk to each other in the Bible, so we know they had to have been created in a time in Earth's history when humans could talk, but Earth's geologic history tells us that the Earth is 4 billion years old. So if you take the Bible literally, as I do, but you also believe in scientific evidence, then the logical conclusion I arrived at is that God created the Earth rather recently, geologically speaking, but gave it a 4 billion year history.

Since God isn't supposed to change. Since Jesus is God. Since Jesus spoke in parables. Could Genesis be a parable?

When someone says a million years to me, I have no concept. I'm sure a bunch of sheep herders would feel the same. When the geologists describe the earth they put the history into a year or a day or a week. Something my mind and a sheep herder's mind can understand. Why wouldn't God do the same?

Since God isn't supposed to change. Since Jesus is God. Since Jesus spoke in parables. Could Genesis be a parable?

When someone says a million years to me, I have no concept. I'm sure a bunch of sheep herders would feel the same. When the geologists describe the earth they put the history into a year or a day or a week. Something my mind and a sheep herder's mind can understand. Why wouldn't God do the same?What sheep herders? And isn't the word for that shepherds?

What sheep herders? And isn't the word for that shepherds?

You have never heard of the concept of synonyms?

Since God isn't supposed to change. Since Jesus is God. Since Jesus spoke in parables. Could Genesis be a parable?

When someone says a million years to me, I have no concept. I'm sure a bunch of sheep herders would feel the same. When the geologists describe the earth they put the history into a year or a day or a week. Something my mind and a sheep herder's mind can understand. Why wouldn't God do the same?

don't you think a shepherd would find it just as difficult to understand an unseen sky god could create the entire living world in a day or week?... you can conceptualize this sky god creating a planet and every living thing on it in a week... but can't conceptualize it being done over 4 billion years?????

If you knew someone who was religious and who took his/her religion very seriously, would you trust that person more than you would trust someone who was non-religious or who was only nominally religious? (This is assuming the religion in question teaches against things like lying, theft, murder etc.)

Poll coming . . .

I suspect i would trust that i could use them like i could any other singular, obfuscative, delusional mentality that uses an readily accesible, contradictory text.
Money works too, though.

don't you think a shepherd would find it just as difficult to understand an unseen sky god could create the entire living world in a day or week?... you can conceptualize this sky god creating a planet and every living thing on it in a week... but can't conceptualize it being done over 4 billion years?????

What I was trying to say is to me Genesis is just like every movie I've ever seen on the subjects of geology or evolution, or any subject that extends over long time spans.

Something like (don't hold me to this it's off the top) For the first 10 months the world was hot and bombarded by asteroids. For two more months the earth cooled. With a week left in the year life came about. In the last 10 seconds of the last day of the year humans appeared.

How many times have you heard something like that? They weren't talking of a literal year, but a way for the mind to get a concept of the order of the way things were done. This parable sure does help me understand the order of things and how they are spread out. I can see how God wouldn't say "Well, the first billion years I pulled the gasses of chaos together into stars, the next billion years I formed little clumps of dirt......." I've lived over 50 years and have no concept of a billion years. I don't think there's a geologist alive who has a concept of a billion years. I think they all use the year or day or week parable to get their minds around it. Why would God confuse and short circuit human minds by throwing out such numbers.

Since God isn't supposed to change. Since Jesus is God. Since Jesus spoke in parables. Could Genesis be a parable?

When someone says a million years to me, I have no concept. I'm sure a bunch of sheep herders would feel the same. When the geologists describe the earth they put the history into a year or a day or a week. Something my mind and a sheep herder's mind can understand. Why wouldn't God do the same?

I happen to work for the Section of Minerals at a museum, and I've never heard geologists put history into a year, let alone a day. Geologic changes happen over thousands of years. When glaciers scrape away rock as they slide, when rivers erode canyons, when one plate slides over another... all take thousands or millions of years, and all are described as such.

There is absolutely no logic in this post.

Yes there is... but if you really believe that there is no logic in the post, show me. Point out anywhere in the post where I twisted logic and if it is truly valid, I will acknowledge it.

If you can't, and you're just saying that because my philosophy doesn't fit your purely secular beliefs, then you're just as closed-minded as the religious fundamentalists who refuse to accept science at all except to support their own arguments.

A couple of my friends are fundies, so yeah I’d trust them.

I greatly dislike most religious fundamentalists I've heard of. Something of a pet peeve to me.