The pope leads Catholics. As an Anglican, Methodist or God forbid (pun intended) a Quaker if the pope leads them and they’d get a good laugh. There are absolutely Protestant denominations that accept biblical stories as absolute truth.

I apologize for the inaccuracy. But I hope my point of "blindly" accepting all faiths is understood.

No worries, I just thought some clarification was in order.

The Pope leads the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity. I don't think the Protestant denominations pay a lot of attention to what he says.

Pope is only leading the roman catholic church. There are several Christian churches which do not have such centralized leadership.

People need to be open to the idea that they're wrong, even atheists. Monocultures where other people are forced to accept your values create stagnation and dangers long term. There have been plenty of evil committed in the name of enforcing that which is righteous: communism, religions of all types, even democracy. It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices. You can choose to learn from them or reject to them, but applying pressure to change them is def incorrect imo.

This paints atheism as its own philosophy, but that would be inaccurate. To reject one philosophy does not automatically default you to a separate one.

A null state is still a state. Whether it's a philosophy or not is not a useful distinction in this context. That being said, I'm an atheist of course.

I can understand your point.

My point is that "accepting all faiths" has gone too far.

> It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices.

But accepting the people's choices without examining the content is strange. Don't you think?

Would you accept anything that you don't understand?

I understand there must be some balance. And we might be biased to accepting a faith. But, at least, we should exercise some common sense before accepting it.

And I know. The problem becomes: whose common sense is right?

What do you mean by "accepting" a faith? Accepting its tenets as true, or accepting the presence of its adherents?

My use of English isn't very good, I apologize.

Let me give a thought experiment.

Let's say: one religion believes that the person who leaves that religion should be killed

Should I be ok with the person with this religion? Should I do something about this?

I want to say there are good practices and bad practices. But our ideology is to accept all of them. That's not good.

Religions don't believe things, people believe things. Many religions, if the text of their holy books are taken literally, support violence, sacrifice, slavery, etc. And religions are practiced in different ways in different times, and different places. Not every religious person is an extremist.

My opinion is that you should judge people by the way they actually behave, not by the worst possible interpretation of how their religion says they should behave. Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.

> Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.

This is what I originally meant. I think you understand. We might use different words for the same thing here.

Christian people in the western world would reject many stories in the Bible. Even Pope seems to reject some ancient ideas from the Bible.

Or you can say I consider the old Christianity to be a different religion from the modern Christianity. Because the sets of beliefs differ.

But, in other parts of the world where society isn't as "developed", we just follow blindly what (most of) the book says. We reject very little. Since the book is often ancient, it becomes problematic.

At least, for me, it doesn't even need to be an action. For example, if a person believes that women are properties of men because the religion says so, I wouldn't want to accept that religion. (Let's say that person says it out loud)

Please note, by accepting, I mean "being okay that the person next to you practice this religion". In other words, you can live together in the same area.

I would argue that a western perspective is to wait for harmful action to connect with harmful intent or harmful planning. Then, for the act of harming, a person should be held accountable by society in a reviewable way.

Just to clarify: by accepting it, I mean "not practicing it, but be okay with the fact that the person next to you is practicing it."

please read the Bible before you make such foolish claims

>Christianity has a leader, which is Pope

Christianity has one leader, and savior (Jesus) who's birth the world is celebrating today. Everyone else is merely a messenger of Christ, although there is an increasing number of false messengers looking to profit off Christ[mas].

Please don't cross into incivility regardless of how wrong some other comment is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html