We often see things debated that run the fine line. Be it ethics, faith or just plain manners. I'm curious where people draw the line.

FOr example if you truly believe that God wants you to spread the word of God, is not doing so a form of tolerance for others beliefs or are you remiss in your duty?

What about visions, if a prophet says he saw God then he's considered important. If a regular person does he's considered Ann Heche.


Where do you draw your lines in your personal beliefs. And where do you draw the line for others.


I think for many people on this forum we forget that our boundaries simply identify what behavior we consider allowable for OURSELVES. We can't draw boundaries around other people's behaviors or enforce them.


Or can we.


What say you?

Well, I have my basic laws of interaction. It draws a line for me, around myself. I actually posted that because there was so much flaming and bickering and all. Going by them I have yet to set a foot wrong, or make an enemy, create hostilities.

I'm tempted to start my own religion around it

I go where I go regardless of boundaries. Any issue of the sort is left up to God. It usually always works out perfectly.



EDIT: Didn't want to go off topic.



I agree, God never said he was finished when Jesus died and rose. That was just the first half of it.

I believe when God lays something on your heart, it's almost impossible to ignore- Whatever message it may be. The spirit guides us through these messages- we must do this as selfless as possible. If we take it upon our self to go outside of this message and become selfish, or self absorbed in the message that's when it becomes intolerant, and does more harm than good. It's a fine line to walk. If we ignore this message, then, are we in remiss in our duty that's been laid upon us.



It's sad, but I think there are people with genuine visions, messages from the divine even now, and are confused as being mentally ill. Who are we to say that God doesn't give these visions still- It could be (any) person who receives such messages, or visions.. We are not above that to say who is worthy and who isn't. IMO.

What you're discusing is ethics. Ehtically/morally what is considered correct behaiviour?

Everyones ethical values and morals differ just slightly which is why we have to have rules that allow people thier own personal freedoms. Yes this in itself is an oxymoron, rules to implement freedom but they protect the rights of all individuals.And it is important to point out I am refering to not just the rules here at U.M. but the ones we follow in every day society.

The moderators at U.M. regularly openly discus the ethical implications of any actions or policy changes that take place. For this reason alone after being influenced by these discussions for sometime my own personal ethics are allways drawn to three basic questions...

Do my own descisions affect anyone other than myself?

and if not

Should I consider the feelings of the other people affected by decisions and actions?

and if I can't avoid affecting others

What is best for the majority?

excellent post kismet and i agree i always ask how will my decisons affect another , i see no seperation between me and anyone how i treat me is how i treat others and i place a very high standard on this.... my standard is do no harm to the best of my awareness..good to see you posting ((HUGS)))

That's an interesting point. Because "what is best for the majority" is not necessarily what is "RIGHT" you can look at things many different ways.

But for example it was best for the majority in this country to allow slavery. It is best for the majority to deny homosexual marriage.

I'm glad you made this point because people who make this point and stand by this kind of argument are very often some of the most immoral people in the world.

Tyranny of the masses comes to mind.

As a loner, I tend to see what I think is MORAL and if the others don't agree with me they can piss off. It won't change my mind.

I just had to note right here, that I think the fact that the North winning the Civil War means the majority did not want slavery.




"But remember that the Captain belongs to the most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom, the solid unmoving cattle of the majority. Oh God, the terrible tyranny of the majority."~Professor Faber (Fahrenheit 451)

That's not what the statement said. The statement said "What's best for the majority" and Slavery was a very good industry in the US. This country was built by slaves.

Oh, well in that case, what's best for the majority is a lot of times bad for the minority even to the point of the minorities extinction.

That's my point. Using the argument "what's best for the majority" seems like a noble statement. (Not dissing you Kismit I think you brought up the Crux of the problem in beliefs)

Its all well and good to say that tolerance for example is sophisticate. But is it? Is it really? The more we tolerate the more we are worried about the majority and the more we tend to get away from what is RIGHT.

Ethics is like... Chemistry. Different reactants produce different results. One should be flexible, but with a firm foundation of morality that ultimately ensures continuity of the whole.

Another interesting topic.


(Matt 28:18-20)
This Passage is known as The Great Commission. This is the passage most Christians quote, when they say God has told them to "Spread the Word." The interesting thing is that people use this as the reason why they go around telling people they need to accept Christ as their Savior, and then they walk away, when really if you pay attention to the actual command it's "make disciples" Making disciples takes time, it takes having a relationship based on mutual trust and it requires a great deal of investment from the one(s) making disciples and it demands that they be disciples themselves, be the example. God never said go door to door bothering people. He set the example Himself, He washed the feet of his disciples, He was close to them, He shared life with them, they followed Him because they knew Him, respected Him, and loved Him and knew He loved them. So, yes, I see my role as spreading the Word, but not by running around shouting in peoples faces, "You're going to Hell if you don't accept Jesus!"

I think that's why we have the Bible, we have a way of verifying the visions of people. I have known people who've had visions, both, "God showed me an actual vision" and people who feel they have been given a particular idea by God. However, if their "vision" does not match what God has already revealed in the Bible, or their vision does not seem to be supported by what the Bible says, then I am leery of what they feel has been revealed to them.

Excellent post, True! I've been thinking on this for some time and can only come up with one conclusion: you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time. No matter how one tries to consider every perspective in the decision making process, someone will always be left wanting. The same will be said in the decisions of ethics. The best choice one can make when regarding others is the choice of the lesser of two, or more, "evils". There will always be someone who is offended, disregarded or "oppressed" by any choice one can make.


Well, then...*throws a pie at chaostrom*...that's for being so perfect!


The Civil War was fought for many reasons besides slavery, my friend! Slavery just happened to be the main propaganda to boost enlistment for the North. Not that I'm for slavery, mind you, I merely feel that people should know the whole of the story.


So God's REALLY talked to my mother-in-law when she starts "prophesizing" about the end times? Lord have mercy!

Nice to see you've chosen fish, Superman! I was beginning to wonder if you'd change your avatar to an Indiana Jones theme as well.

For me, visions, whether claimed by prophets or ordinary Joe Bloggs, are much of a muchness. I don't credit one more than the other. I reject both equally.



I question everything. No element of any religion is off limits. Everyone is able to do the exact same thing. I don't expect any more for myself than I expect for others.

Everything about any religion is up for questioning....how else is anyone going to learn anything if they dont question it?

The problem is that questioning an aspect of any religion can be seen as an insult by the person who follows that religion. Questioning is perceived as criticism, stating an opinion can be seen as criticism... actually, anything short of total agreement can be seen as criticism. It's a shame, but sometimes faith is that fragile.

Well yea it all depends on what and HOW you question a faith of any sort...there are suttle ways and then there are brutal ways

*Ducks!*

Hey, that was unnecessary! I just try my best, no perfection to it mate. I didn't come up with that list overnight, y'know. Years of observations and experimental interaction went into it...

Yes...yes it was unnecessary, but now you know how it feels. I didn't want you feeling left out!
*throws another*
That's for trying your best! We do things half-a$$ed around here, pal!

That's one of the nicest things I've ever heard on these forums

Dude you're awesome, I'll keep in mind I'm supposed to do things "half-a$$ed" around here

It's not when you question the faith that I get angry, it's when you question, think you have the answer, have answered wrong and then make all your judgments based on that initial wrong answer, and even further go on to not listen to the adherents of that faith when they try to tell you that the info you have is wrong. People like that drive me up the wall (however as an angry person I am driven up the wall a lot). If you question about my faith, I will answer you. If you don't like the answer and complain about it, you make me want to beat the hell out of you (not you personally, but anyone.)