Essay talk:Religious tolerance
wut?[edit]
"Religious tolerance has two main sources. The first is a callous disregard for the eternal salvation of unbelievers. ... The second cause is related to the morphing of Christianity in to something so wooly and watered down that it's more a vague kind of hope than a real belief.
Er, no. Its source is not being allowed to smite the unbelievers (and their families and entire ethnicities) any more. It's "tolerance" as opposed to "intolerance", frequently "barely tolerating." It's thus unclear what the point of your essay was - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I mentioned in the conclusion that secularism has forced Christianity in to a position of tolerance, but yeah, I should have mentioned that in the definitions. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not secularism, but economics. Furthermore, the tolerance seems to last precisely as long as the economics forces it to. This makes the doctrinal discussions in this essay silly - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd see economics as being part of the secularist influences. For example, it's pretty difficult to trade with someone if you're unable to put aside your belief that they should be placed on spikes and burnt. There are obvious religious and philosophical influences as well, but probably too much to cover there. I'm not sure which parts of the doctrinal discussion are silly. Could you point at a few examples? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 17:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I mean attributing any force to the doctrinal discussions at all - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was a fairly quick essay, so I'll have a proper look again tomorrow. Right now I'm going on the razzle. Providing some sources for the influences on doctrine is probably best done while sober. Ole! CR. 62.40.36.13 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I mean attributing any force to the doctrinal discussions at all - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd see economics as being part of the secularist influences. For example, it's pretty difficult to trade with someone if you're unable to put aside your belief that they should be placed on spikes and burnt. There are obvious religious and philosophical influences as well, but probably too much to cover there. I'm not sure which parts of the doctrinal discussion are silly. Could you point at a few examples? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 17:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not secularism, but economics. Furthermore, the tolerance seems to last precisely as long as the economics forces it to. This makes the doctrinal discussions in this essay silly - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This is so long[edit]
SusanG doesn't like long texts. I broke up with her but the reason why I started dating her in the first place was that we shared the dislike of long texts. Long = boring. I read only two sentences and it didn't catch my attention.
By the way, if you want some pottery you can order it aany time you want. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cool story bro. CR. 62.40.36.13 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Removal of red link[edit]
Dear Concernedresident,
I humbly beg your forgiveness for editing your article. My only edit was to change "[[Abrahamic]] religions" to "[[Abrahamic religion]]s" in order to remove a red link, as the redirect page for same has been deleted. If you disapprove, by all means revert this edit. Thank you for your understanding.