by jimwalton » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:37 am
There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding here, so some clarification would no doubt be beneficial. By my reading of what you said, you seemed to be equating someone's acceptance of homosexual orientation and lifestyle (belief in the acceptability of particular choices) as the equivalent of religious faith (belief in the truth and implications of spiritual realities). While they both involved belief, they obviously conform to various definitions and arenas of belief. I don't see belief as able to be simply and unilaterally defined, but as nuanced in adherence to its context. I don't at all equate acceptance of LGBT orientation and lifestyle as the same kind of belief as theism.
I am by no means concluding that the only beliefs that can be true beliefs are based on religion. That's nonsense. Science, as you pointed out, is a valid example, as is math and a hundred other things.
Religion is not just a proverbial leap in the dark. Christian faith (possibly different from other faith systems) is always based on evidence and stems from evidence. While religious truth can't be KNOWN to be true, there is enough evidence to show that (1) belief in God is rational and warranted, and (2) inferring to the most logical conclusion takes us clearly in a theistic direction.
Contrary to what seems to have come across, I have no problem acknowledging the right of other people to believe something different than I do. It's a basic human right to have the freedom to believe what you want to believe. By the same token, I don't subscribe to the equality of beliefs. Just because I or anyone else believes something doesn't make it true. Beliefs by themselves are worthless (just because I sincerely believe I can fly doesn't mean I should jump off a tall building). Beliefs have to be grounded in truth, or they are merely opinions. But people have a right to believe what they want. I am quite convinced, having examined the evidence for years, that my religious beliefs are true; I wouldn't hold to them if I wasn't convinced based on the evidence. It's on that basis that I feel that, while others have the right to believe differently, many beliefs are not true. Constructive dialogue finds its impetus in following the truth wherever it leads, not in denying it just to hold to an opinion.
> The difference between us is that I can recognize that my beliefs are subjective and other people may come to their own truth.
I believe that truth is truth; there's an undeniable objectivity to it. 2 + 2 never equals 5. The color blue on the spectrum is always blue and nothing else. Truth is very narrow, and it's objective. There are laws in the universe. While my beliefs are subjective, and other people are free to believe what they want to believe, there is such a thing as truth, and the object is to find it and hold to it. There isn't a different truth for me than there is for you. There is a body of truth, and there are opinions and beliefs. Beliefs can't be called truth until they conform to reality. Anyone is welcome to hold to an opinion—it's their right—, but once the truth is known, some opinions are discovered to have been true and others false.
> I do not believe I can take what I believe and force others to abide by my rules.
I agree, to some extent. The exercise of law is exactly that: taking a belief and forcing others to abide by it. By law we outlaw murder, rape, and theft, as well as speeding, disturbing the peace, and parking in the wrong place. Morally we jointly believe that genocide is wrong, sexual abuse is wrong, and child abuse is wrong, and we believe that strongly enough that we force others to abide by those rules. And we are right in doing so. By the same token, I don't have a right to make anyone wear the same style clothes I do, follow the religious convictions I follow, or conform to my political opinions.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:37 am.