"Perfect teeth. Nice smell. A class act, all the way." – Homer Simpson describing The Lord in his dream.
What is the limit to discussing God, when you feel disrespected or offended? Is any discussion on a medium like Television too much, or can you handle anything including ridicule without much effect?
I, for one, am trying hard not to be offended by anything. Not to say that I’ll just watch anything because I’m not offended, but I may turn off the TV or change the channel because I think something is inappropriate and not be offended by it. When it comes to discussion of God I try to keep that up. So for me the question is more, when do I change the channel? Certainly any respectful discussion of God (either for or against) is fine with me, and I don’t even really mind a bit of joking. I think it’s really too much for me when one person is completely intolerant of another’s views. For instance, and atheist expounding on the complete ridiculousness of belief, accusing various Churches of committing all sorts of crimes and what not, or just generally mocking God. The other side is no good either, people of faith basically condemning themselves those who do not believe. When one side refuses to acknowledge that the other side posses any intelligence whatsoever, I change the channel.
The only other thing that really gets to me is people trying to score point using God. Once again, both sides. For instance, I was watching an Ellen DeGenerous (that’s not how it’s spelled is it?) stand-up a whole bunch of months ago, and she just started going on about a –black-female-God. I put the hyphens in not to emphasize but because after each of these “revelations” the audience clapped for about 30 seconds. She was scoring points by creating a PC God and it really ticked me off. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a black, female Lord (that’s not what I believe, but I don’t have a problem with someone else believing that) but when you score points on faith you lose respect for it.
Hobbes Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I pretty much don't have a problem with anyone describing their conception of who/what God is or isn't. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and who am I to say that I'm right and they are wrong. I haven't seen God, so I certainly don't know for sure what the deity looks like or sounds like.
What I do have a problem with is people who describe their conception of God and then proclaim that anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, evil, and shouldn't be allowed to express their own belief because it might "lead someone astray". As if the speaker has some special right to impose his or her idea of who or what God is on everyone else. I honestly don't believe that God has any problem at all with people picturing him or her in different ways. This goes for people who don't believe in any sort of God going around calling people stupid who do have a belief in some sort of deity. Each person gets their say, but they don't get to say that anyone else's concept is unacceptable.
Now, I may be getting ready to contradict what I just said in the previous paragraph. I don't think so, but some people might. Oh, well. I'm going to say it anyway.
The things that most offend me are the t-shirts I see around with things like "Lord's Gym - His Pain, Your Gain". I find these to be just so disrespectful and trivializing of a belief that I think should be treated with care and respect. These kinds of shirts, I think, have the effect of putting the atonement on the same level of, say, your favorite football team. Just drives me up a wall. I would think that someone who believes that Jesus is their messiah and savior would be a little bit more respectful than that. Of course, because I believe that everyone is entitled to their say I wouldn't dream of trying to prevent anyone from expressing themselves that way if that is what they feel they must do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Luckily there's no need to have to defend God against His many detractors, or worse, His supporters. It's nice to know that I don't have any responsibility to do that, because basically anything I could say would be superfluous. He's way above all that.
I don't think I mind anything being said about God that people are sincerely feeling. Like if someone told me they were angry at God and if they met God they would stab Him through the heart. But I do feel icky or something, sort of embarrased for the person, if, like you say, someone tries to score points off of God, or uses God to make some point about religious people or something.
Some people honestly believe they think nothing is sacred, though they DO think some things are sacred, always, it's just a matter of discovering what. But sometimes people will claim they think nothing is sacred and I feel that is very sad. Because of that, they don't get to experience the sacred. Never. At all. That is extremely sad.
So when people trample on things I feel are sacred, I try to remember that and feel sorry for them instead of annoyed but I don't always succeed in that. Sorry, this is rambling and incoherent. I guess I don't really know what I am saying. <laughs>
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I actually had an institute teacher once quote Carl Sagan (which I highly enjoyed), saying that people like to put God in a little box that they can understand. And I see this all around.
I am offended at times when people assume certain things about me when they know I'm religious. They assume I'm purposely ignorant or biased or self-righteous. But I am trying not to be offended, just to be true to myself and what I believe. And I think I'll probably make more of an impact by consistently living what I believe than by arguing the point.
And I'm also trying not to narrow my view of what God is and what He is capable of. I'm trying not to put Him in a little box.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
While somewhat on the same topic, I have to say that spending time on Hatrack and having Mormon friends have made me a LOT more sensitive to "Mormon Bashing Humor".
Lets put it this way - I was watching Gilmore Girls the other night (wonderfully written show), and a character was talking about how he moved to Utah. "I heard there are many opportunities for industious Mormons there," he said. "Oh," said Lorelai Gilmore. "I didn't know you were Mormon!" "I wasn't. So I converted. It took weeks for the paperwork to go through," he said.
Which alone would have been fine in its own right. It's pretty harmless, and would've stayed harmless if it had stayed there - but the character went on in a meant-to-be humerous manner to discuss why being a Mormon just didn't work out for him. And in the list, he mentioned something that literally made me gasp, and put my hand over my mouth, not believing that they said it.
For an idea of what they mentioned, see the Angels in America thread from a few months ago.
Due to the context and nature of which the glib was made in the GG episode, I found it was completely unwarranted. Now true, I don't think the writer knew how potentially offensive they were being, but that doesn't excuse them in my opinion.
:sighs: I get offended at Mormon jokes and I'm not even a Mormon. See what you've done to me, Hatrack?
And while this may seem to be contradictory to my posts in that previously mentioned thread, I think the context of this show, and the context of it in Angels in America are COMPLETELY different.
---
And back on topic, when I hear comedians use God-bashing as a way to score points, I do get angry. David Cross' latest CD - although I do find the man very funny in many cases - just made me boil with anger at a few rants and raves he and his audience seemed to find hilarious.
Bah.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I read page one, and it has you mostly posting questions, eslaine. I suppose I need to read the other umpteen pages to find your answers? I was feeling weary of religion threads at the time that one was current, I think, though clearly I ought to have read it. I will bump it so it will start going again, then maybe I can catch up. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Most of those posts were in one afternoon as I remember. I'll have to check out the times next time I go through it. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Okay, here's a quote from it:
quote:As we have seen in recent physical theories, our ideas keep getting revised (no time!). I think our ideas of theology must do so also.
I should hate to think that, just because I am a secular humanist, I should exclude all other thought on the subject of cosmology. I like to stretch that mental framework, test it, see if it will break.
I also should hope that more of the theological giants of this forum would post their remarks as well.
But please: None of this is an attack on any paradigm. It is an abstract discussion.
Thanks all again.
I'd say that pretty much answers Hobbes' original question.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I generally don't like discussing God, or beliefs. My personal understanding of it is that people don't use beliefs so much as a source of support and faith as they do for badges of their own personality. This occurs a lot more at college than in real life (I don't labor under the fantasy that college is real life at all), I'm sure, but I still find it pretty annoying. When people ask "What do you believe?" they really mean "Who are you? Or, who do you think you are?"
I guess I have faith that the world has order, which I think it does, and that order does not come from nothing.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Me...
Well, here's my view on this whole "god" thing. As a firm agnostic, I can tolerate religious folks attempts to convert me (I won't be converted because the whole faith thing goes against my very nature, as much as the non-existence of proof for a god doesn't make a valid argument against the existence of a god, in my mind), because that is what they feel they need to do. I won't however be subjected to someone telling me I'm evil and will go to hell, merely because I don't believe in a god. I feel that a person's behavior is a better gauge for their worth as a person than what they claim to believe. And if there is a god, I think he/she/it would feel the same, so don't attack me in the name of God. I know lots of religious people who behave in a less, er, I'll use the word righteous, manner than many non-religious, and I will not tolerate the former condemning the latter.
I'll also turn off any religious programming and walk away from anyone on the street preaching at me from the bible, because they are almost always condemning somebody, from what I've heard, and they really have no right to. One other thing is people who (in the same vein), claim to speak for God. There is a billboard on my stretch of interstate that reads "Stop Destroying My Mountains. -God". It gets me all het up every time I see it. (For anyone who doesn't know, I live in West Virginia, and mountaintop removal mining is a big controversial issue here.)
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
When I was in the car, flipping through the address book in the cell phone and trying to give someone a number while trying to play in traffic, and you were busy gripping the door and the seat I coulnd't help but think of a line from Fear and Loathing.
"You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands."
Would that have been acceptable humor? Did I manage to cross the line anywhere on that drive?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think discussion of religion is a good thing -- if you can't debate what you believe, then you don't really believe it very deeply -- and by the same token, hearing others' ideas and beliefs broaden perspective on the world as a whole.
I'm usually not offended by what others say about their religion/or lack thereof. I maybe sometimes feel slightly offended if they start making fun of the belief of God or of what others believe, or if they are arguing sheerly for the sake of just argument -- not in attempt to learn more or be open-minded.
But not nearly as offended as I am at other things -- such as the Simpson's tv show.
FG
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Whan God comes up, I usually let him get a quick breath before I plunge his head back under the water.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
When God comes out, I'm going to point at all the homophobes who used the Bible as justification for their bigotry and laugh.
Oh, come up...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not usually bothered by God coming up.
However, two things can bother me:
1. People who use religion INSTEAD of reason, as opposite to as a complement to it.
2. People who claim the right to get offended when I tell them I think their views on God are wrong.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't like the poster "He never said it would be easy... He only said it would be worth it." I mean, I know people who like to write their personal friends letters in His name, which I find mildly weird, but making up scripture and selling it seems dicey to me. I am LDS and I think the people who made that poster are LDS. I guess it's just two sides of the "open canon" coin.
The Billboards go in the mildly weird category because I assume they are paying to put them up rather than making money from them. But they are mildly weird and exhibitionistic.
Is that quote from the Simpson's where Homer starts his own religion? I used to think that one was funny. I kind of assumed Homer could be imagining the whole thing. I don't know what I would think now because my kids are the wrong age to watch it. I'm just too lazy to explain that many jokes to them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
New information: My husband calls and asks if I can tape "Joan of Arcadia" because some clients recommended it to him. I complained that it looked a little sacreligious (sp?) based on an episode I saw where her "mission" for the week was to get her driver's license. I don't know that it's worse than "Touched by an Angel". Since I only saw that twice.
I don't know how the whole deal started with her, but apparently random adults will suddenly be talking to her as if they were God. (Frumpy neighbor lady, Candy Machine Service Man, Balding commuter on bus) But not Bible-quoting God. More like omniscient but caring God. Two things were said that bothered me.
The first is when she was given her mission for the week, "Hold a Garage Sale" and she balks, the mouthpiece person says something about how everything she has been asked to do has been for her own good. Maybe, but I think even St. Peter and St. Paul endured a few things whose beneficialness was not apparent within a week's time. paraphrase of C.S. Lewis
The other thing was in the last communique, the messenger calls an act "evil" and says "I don't throw that word around lightly". (the act was a man who invaded a woman's dorm room and raped her). While this definitely falls in the evil category for me, I don't understand why the conception of God in this series feels a label of evil should be applied sparingly. Anyway, I am probably going to start a different thread on evil vs. crazy. Or maybe dredge up an old one. (meh, never mind)
[ January 24, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I feel the same as a lot of people. I don't mind talking about God, as long as it's openminded, and no one's being trashed. The board has made me really sensitive to Mormons, though, and I've been clashing with one of the pastors at my church, who is sort of stuck on Mormonism at the moment because the contracters building his house are Mormon. I finally figured out why we weren't communicating at all when talking about it- I learned about Mormonism on hatrack, from Mormons, simply because I wanted to learn and it interests me. He learned about Mormonism from protestants, and with the sole goal of finding flaws in Mormonism that he could use to convert Mormons.
I don't really understand how learning about different religons is so hard for so many people. Even "openminded" people tend to try to "learn" about Christianity from me by picking at all of the perceived flaws and forcing me to defend them, rather than just allowing me to tell them about what I believe. That's when talking about God stops being worth it to me, when it becomes clear that the person who wants to "learn" about my beliefs really wants to show me what an idiot I am for believing them.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Pooka, did you see the entire episode where her 'mission' was to get her Driver's licence? The reason wasn't so that she would get the licence. It's so circumstances lined up so that she'd be in a position to find her carjacked and wounded father on the side of the road. It she had resisted doing the thing she didn't feel ready to do and that seemed inconsequential - even though she was being told to do so by someone she knows from personal experience hasn't led her astray yet - her father very well could have died.
quote:the mouthpiece person says something about how everything she has been asked to do has been for her own good. Maybe, but I think even St. Peter and St. Paul endured a few things whose beneficialness was not apparent within a week's time.
Realize this is a Television show that needs to have a resolution at the end of each hour, Pook. Also, if you watch the show as a season, things that happen in a single episode (based on things Joan has done by God's command) DO have later repurcussions that effect everyone. One particular command that was VERY hard for Joan to do had a major repurcussion that had a NEGATIVE impact on Joan for several episodes, before the true positive aspects of it began to be shown.
As for the second thing that bothered you - 'evil' IS a word that people throw around lightly. "He made me eat that chocolate. He's pure evil.", or "That teacher failed you? How evil of him!"
And the premise of the show isn't 'people showing and speak as if they are God' - in the show, it IS God appearing in different forms (which I know clashes with the LDS doctrine of 'God has a single particular body of Flesh and Bone', but I don't think you view that as a major issue with the show, now do you?). And yes, it IS the God of the Bible (sometimes humerous references are made to previous commandments he made - I'm sure you can think of what He referenced when he told Joan in an episode to Build a Boat).
And even in the pilot episode, it was never explained WHY Joan of all people was chosen. But why, according to those who believe in the Bible, or prophets in general, are ANY chosen by God? Because by working through even the most unlikely of people (a stuttering slave-born shepherd?)faith is what allows things to happen.
And I'm not meaning to hijack, but since it was brought up, I'd like to repost a review I wrote of this show at the midseason point over at PWEB which, I think, may also apply to the topics and thoughts at hand:
---
Joan of Arcadia is, hands down, the best new show this season. It's the only one I found worth watching. (Although I will admit - I have never seen an episode of Cold Case, and my mother ADORES this show - the crime-of-the-week genre just doesnt interest me that much).
Joan does what all the best shows allow to happen to their characters, that most mediocre and especially poor shows do not -- they let them grow and change. Every single episode contains something that will effect the events of those that come after. The season is one continuous story - BUT each episode is also perfectly stand-alone, perfect to allow new viewers to become initiated.
This show deals with themes and elements that matter - and structured in a way that every single scene in the episode helps to reinforce that episode's MAJOR THEME. A seeming throw-away scene or line early in the episode will come back with deeper and expanded meaning. Everything in the end comes clear.
This is also a show where people's lives are in danger, and you, as the viewer - are actually worried about the outcome. Main characters are put in threatening situations, and it doesn't seem like 'Plot Device Of The Week' - it's absolutely and perfectly logical. And the reactions of the other characters to this situation seem perfectly real. There is not a single stereotype in the show. Yes, there are some characters who come very close to that label, but then they differ in a way that makes them seem real in a way characters that asctually do fall into the stereotype you THOUGHT these characters were in aren't.
Yes, it's a show where God is a major force.
But it's not a religious show by any means. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this is NOT Touched By An Angel. It is, however, a show about faith. Not necessarily Faith In God, but faith in other people. Faith that you can make a difference. Faith that that jerk in school isn't as bad as everyone makes him out to be. Faith that, even though you're going through a rough time, or even a disaster - that things are working for the better.
Faith that things will be okay in the end.
But it's not a passive Faith - it's a faith that needs to be acted upon. A faith where just just understanding that that kid who sits next to you in class is suffering deep emotional problems isn't enough.
A faith where doing something which seems hard or impossible, and will bring down temporary hardships on you will really be worth it in the long run.
Maybe this comes accross as sappy to people. But I think those people are exactly who need to see this show.
For people who already understand this concept - well, maybe you need this show to give you a nudge to put it into practice.
----
-Dave
[ January 24, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Taalcon wrote: Lets put it this way - I was watching Gilmore Girls the other night (wonderfully written show), and a character was talking about how he moved to Utah.
I totally saw the same show and agree that it was unwarranted. I normally watch the show for the fast paced dialogue and quick wit, but this bit struck me as a cheap shot. The guy from The Kids in the Hall show was saying the dialogue, too, and I like those guys ("I'm crushing your head!"). Mormons take way more heat than they deserve.
quote:Hobbes wrote: She was scoring points by creating a PC God and it really ticked me off.
Some things. First, it's standup. You probably already know that race, religion, politics and sex are all fodder for the standup comedian. Expecting that, you still got angry. Second, it was a lesbian doing stand up. Of course she's going to have material about God when so many religious people are telling her that her lifestyle is wrong because God says so. I kind of wonder why you were watching her standup when probability would indicate that she's going to say something that's offensive to you as a Mormon.
Third point is a bit different. I don't think "black-female" God is so much PC as it is pointing out that the image of God that many people have has been created in a European-dominated, patriarchal society. I think it questions where our ideas originate, as well as questioning the Bible (again, Ellen probably wants to encourage that since people use the Bible to criticize her sexuality - her audience isn't exactly fundamentalist Christian either so they clap for 30 seconds).
Another example about the PC thing. I was sitting in an English class and someone talks about this Baskin Robbins billboard that has an Asian kid, a black kid, and a white kid all eating different flavor ice cream cones. And the person was complaining about how PC it was. I saw it as BR pointing out that people come in different flavors too and that they have ice cream as individual as you are.
I think bringing God up is about tolerance vs. religion. I generally don't bring God up around religious people because I will probably offend them with my views. I'm pretty tolerant, and when someone invites me to go see their services I usually go because it's interesting to see their religion's different qualities and styles that are displayed. To me, religion has a strong aspect of judgement in it. Are you good or evil? A believer or non-believer? You can only get into heaven through our religion. We're right, and everyone else is wrong. There are religious people who are tolerant, but they seem to be few and far between so I play it safe and don't talk about God.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I have to admit that I enjoy talking about God, even at the same time it makes me nervous. Time was, I got a kick out of arguing about religion (and philosophy, and politics). To some extent, I still do, but I've learned both my tendency to offend people and my difficulty with remembering the whole argument I meant to use.
Of course, I grew up hearing that debates were a useful means of convincing people (they were, once upon a time, under certain circumstances) and that if you really believed something you wouldn't back down.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I enjoy talking about God, but only with people who have already formed well-thought-out opinions. Otherwise, I feel like I'm trying to force my opinions on someone else, when really I just want to see if anyone else thinks I'm onto something (as opposed to "on" something).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
JNSB, I was actually not Mormon when I was watching this. I like Ellen, and none of her lesbian jokes tick me off, in fact, she hardly made any lesbian jokes really. What was ticking me off was she was just spitting out PC phrases for applause, and she was doing it about something that was very sacred and very important to a lot of people.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wouldn't really take exception to the different appearances of God. While He does have one body by our doctrine, all of his followers can receive His countenance. I was assuming that it was something more like that. What I do have a problem with is that she shouldn't be sassing off to Him. And I know the mission led to more important stuff. But it's still kind of a lucky-chance thing in my view. I don't know if Hubby will keep wanting to watch it. But I don't think it's a good show for my little kids. Watching the show will mean I let computer games babysit them. Which I'm told is a no no.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
The God Question has Christians at a disadvantage, because, to atheists and agnostics, it's often seen as an obsessive hobby, and one not mentioned in tasteful company; for Christians (the good ones, anyway), they're worried about everybody getting to live on after death.
It seems like Christians that really believe the Gospel are neccessarily going to irk a lot of atheists, simply by believing in God. Irk and amuse. To nonbelievers we Christians can look pretty silly.
But the people who really get annoyed by practicing Christians are the people who, despite themselves, believe in God but are really mad at Him.
Don't forget that atheists don't have to deal with that commandment to love everyone, even those who flame you online.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I'm pretty open to almost any discussions of God. And I can usually deal with humorous shots at most religions, so long as it's clearly humorous, as most of the jokes come from an "outsiders" point of view so it makes sense to the general public. What I dislike is when somebody that is knowingly an ex-Mormon (just since that seems to be the most discussed religion in this thread; this really goes for all religions) pokes fun at some of the Mormon beliefs. You know, with jokes like "I used to be a mormon..." blah, blah, blah.
Another thing that annoys me is when people thank God when they win a game or get an award. It's not that I doubt their conviction that God had a hand in it; it's that I don't doubt any of the other competitor's either. And I'm not one of those people that think the quality of your life is judged by the quantity of your faith. Of course, I'm not saying that faith in God won't give your life a purpose - just that it won't improve your chances of achieving your goals.
Billboards, bumper stickers, t-shirts, and are just some of those things that make me roll my eyes and ignore. I do think it's pretty pathetic to bring God down to that level, but not big enough a deal to make an issue out of.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: But I don't think it's a good show for my little kids. Watching the show will mean I let computer games babysit them. Which I'm told is a no no.
I have no clue what you mean by this.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:What I do have a problem with is that she shouldn't be sassing off to Him.
Why? I have to honestly say that I don't understand the attitude that God is going to start throwing bolts of lightning or something just because someone is upset and talks back to God. Didn't Sarah basically laugh in God's face when he told her she was going to have a baby, finally, at the age of ninety-something? Didn't Moses pretty much just up and tell God He'd gotten the wrong person to be the spokesman and leader for the Hebrews, and actually recommend someone he thought might be a better person for the job? It seems like sassing back to God is quite a long-standing tradition.
I truly believe that God has no problem with honest differences of opinion, and I think that the idea humans must always, only, and constantly praise God all the time is a projection of a very human attribute - the wish and need for praise and affirmation - onto God, who we humans seem to constantly be trying to put in a box by always insisting that God "must" do this, or "would never" do that. We just don't know, really, when it comes down to it, what God would or wouldn't, can or cannot, do. There may be hints in scripture and tradition, but that's all they are. Hints. Not the full story at all.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Hobbes wrote: JNSB, I was actually not Mormon when I was watching this. I like Ellen, and none of her lesbian jokes tick me off, in fact, she hardly made any lesbian jokes really. What was ticking me off was she was just spitting out PC phrases for applause, and she was doing it about something that was very sacred and very important to a lot of people.
Ah, somehow I missed that you weren't brought up in the LDS Church. I'm sure you must have written something on your conversion on this board. Would you link to it here or email the link to me (in case you don't want to derail the thread)? I think that would be a pretty interesting story.
As for the PC phrases, like I said before, I don't think they were PC (see reasons in previous post). I think many religious people attacked something sacred to Ellen (her sexual identity) and she was using her forum to defend herself in a humorous way by questioning the common image of God. The movie Dogma did this, too. I don't think anyone would accuse Kevin Smith of being politically correct.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think the problem I would have had with the routine (I've never seen this woman, so this is just guessing from what's been sad here) is that she's basically just making up God. I don't think you can make up God, and I think to do so is a direct insult to every religous person, no matter their religion.
The same thing bothers me when people say things like, "I could never believe in a god who does..." The implication being that belief is a matter of figuring out a god you'd like to believe in, and then believing in that god. I can accept different people believing different things about God. But when they start randomly making him up and taking the attitude of "this is the god I'd like to believe in today." I get a little annoyed. I'm a conservative Christian, and while I try to get as close to God as I can in my understanding of Him, it's not even possible for one teenage girl who can't even understand herself to fully comprehend the Maker of the Universe. The idea's ridiculous! I think we have to try as hard as we can to understand Him, but realize that He might not be exactly as we would like Him to be. Personally, I would be really scared if God felt exactly the same way as I do about everything; I'm not capable of running my own life, much less the rest of the world.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Makes me anticipate the day when He will come back down.
quote: . . . I have to honestly say that I don't understand the attitude that God is going to start throwing bolts of lightning or something just because someone is upset and talks back to God. Didn't Sarah basically laugh in God's face when he told her she was going to have a baby, finally, at the age of ninety-something? Didn't Moses pretty much just up and tell God He'd gotten the wrong person to be the spokesman and leader for the Hebrews, and actually recommend someone he thought might be a better person for the job? It seems like sassing back to God is quite a long-standing tradition.
This is true, but look what happened to them. Once they saw that God meant what He said, they wised up and never sassed Him again; at least not without serious repercussions. Moses, for instance, was never allowed to enter the Promised Land after abusing God's power he was given.
quote:The same thing bothers me when people say things like, "I could never believe in a god who does..." The implication being that belief is a matter of figuring out a god you'd like to believe in, and then believing in that god. I can accept different people believing different things about God. But when they start randomly making him up and taking the attitude of "this is the god I'd like to believe in today."
Almost always the only people who say this are those who don't believe in God and think Religion is made up anyway.
[ January 25, 2004, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ocassional -- I have seen several religious people on hatrack use the "I could never believe in a god who" line. Also, I think it is in fact inherent in (most) religions. Most (all?) subsets of Christianity, at least, have some very specific ideas as to what God is like, and several of them are different. This is a way of discriminating amongst them. Presumably you yourself have done so. I know in your faith you believe you were divinely inspired as to which faith to choose, but even then a choice remains, else you would not need a certain degree of hell, eh? (and for religions without that distinction, else there wouldn't really be free will, eh?)
[ January 25, 2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The same thing bothers me when people say things like, 'I could never believe in a god who does...'"
I'll be honest. While I could possibly BELIEVE in a God who did certain things I find odious, provided He or She demonstrated His or Her existence in some way, I would actively oppose such a God. The destruction of all life on the planet, with the exception of one boat full of people, is one such act.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
So you are sufficiently confident that you know the difference between right and wrong better than an omniscient being?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have no other frame of reference when it comes to my sense of right and wrong than my own personal frame of reference.
If a being claiming to be omniscient persists in doing something I believe to be evil, I would expect it -- since it is, after all, omniscient -- to find a way to explain its actions to me in a way I could at the very least understand, if not sympathize with, if it expected my compliance. If it failed to take this step, I see no reason why I should believe it to be omniscient -- or benevolent, for that matter.
I am, quite frankly, aghast that anyone here would pretend that they would behave differently. If a being claiming to be God and clearly possessed of some special knowledge descended from the sky and started eating our babies because it insisted it was for our own good -- or, say, sent a giant flood to wipe out all but the Clinton family -- I would expect all of us to resist to the best of our limited ability.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:This is true, but look what happened to them. Once they saw that God meant what He said, they wised up and never sassed Him again; at least not without serious repercussions. Moses, for instance, was never allowed to enter the Promised Land after abusing God's power he was given.
I don't know. I was always taught that God is ultimately forgiving. In the Bible, God forgave a whole lot of people for a whole lot of things. It is my impression, for example, that He forgave Saul, who became St. Paul, of all of his activities in the persecution of the first Christians. Those things, it seems to me, were a whole lot more serious than a little bit of sassing back in the process of trying to learn the will of God. Isn't that what grace is for, and the atonement?
Call me stupid, or naive, or whatever you want, but I have never been under the impression that God is in the business of trying to catch people out in the smallest thing, like a cop lurking next to the interstate with a radar gun. And sassing back really is, in the great scheme of things, pretty darn small.
Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll go to hell or the telestial kingdom or whatever. But it seems to me that if God is that nitpicky, there aren't going to be a lot of people accompanying Him through eternity. I don't think he'd even get the 140,000 or whatever number it is the Jehovah's Witnesses believe will be saved. I'm not, for those who were concerned about it, saying that I couldn't believe that God would be that particular. I'm just saying that this is not the impression I have gotten in my study of scripture.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Actually, what I find most amusing, is that Moses sassed God all the time, and God commended him for it. it was only when Moses tried to take God's place that God condemned him.
Posted by kidyanna (Member # 6148) on :
I think people should talk about God. The more his name comes up the better the chances are that somone whose never heard about him gets interested.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
I really do have to agree with Tom on this.
I also have to add that I don't see any reason for an all powerful being to act in accordance with "good". You've only got His word to go on. What if the whole concept of good is like Santa, and just something the omniscient tell us innocents.
I suppose He could just define whatever his actions are as good, I mean, if He says it's good and he's the ultimate power, sure it's good, even if it's killing every blue eyed girl born on a Friday in May. Even if I believed in God, if that was His system, I don't think I'd follow him.
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
God Darn it! I don't know what to think. You're all convincing and articulate and...Right!
Bloody Hell.
At least it's food for thought.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From a Mormon point of view God is good because He is following Universal Law, and not from arbitrary rules He created. Just a thought.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Right. So Mormons, especially, have no reason to obey someone claiming to be a god who's acting in a way they consider evil -- because any god that did would, by their own definition, not be a god anymore.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If a being claiming to be omniscient persists in doing something I believe to be evil, I would expect it -- since it is, after all, omniscient -- to find a way to explain its actions to me in a way I could at the very least understand, if not sympathize with, if it expected my compliance. If it failed to take this step, I see no reason why I should believe it to be omniscient -- or benevolent, for that matter.
So you expect God to come down and explain himself to everyone who might consider anything He does to be evil, every time He does something? What if His reasons for doing something involves future events? Does He have to tell everyone the future? That would, at the very least, seriously upset our world.
And don't be so 'aghast' at the idea of obedience to a higher and more knowledgable power. Are you suggesting it would be absurd for children to obey/trust their parents when their parents make a decision they don't agree with? Or are you arguing a parent should have to convince the child of every decision they make, before the child should trust that parent's decision? If that were true, you'd certainly have a lot more problems with children.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So you expect God to come down and explain himself to everyone who might consider anything He does to be evil, every time He does something? What if His reasons for doing something involves future events? Does He have to tell everyone the future?"
Since He's presumably omnipotent, as well, this is easily within His abilities and would not constitute an undue effort. Moreover, I would assume that God would be able to tell when this kind of input would be necessary for the person's understanding and sympathy, and when it would not be. (For example, I WOULD expect God to tell everyone in the world -- directly -- exactly why He was sending a flood to wipe them out. If we're dealing with some long chain of Rube Goldbergian circumstances that would eliminate free will from someone's life forever, I would suggest that God -- if free will is important to Him -- not intervene at all, since it is after all the intervention itself and not the individual's foreknowledge of events that would eliminate the choice.)
Most importantly: if God feels the need to behave in a way that someone thinks is evil, and does NOT -- for whatever reason -- feel the need to explain himself to that person, He has no reason to expect compliance, obedience, or gratitude from that person.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Um, if a child's parents did half the things to them that God allowed to be done to Job, that child should still obey them blindly?
Ha.
I can't wait to be a parent!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tom, I think the Lord is free to commmand or reveal a variety of things. Last night we came across a picture of an Angel stopping Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, and my daughter was really curious about that one. I don't know if you are familiar with Nephi being commanded to kill an unconscious man in the Book of Mormon, but that's a similar thing where the Lord commands someone individually to do something He has generally forbidden.
The "sassing off" point isn't whether the Lord would feel disrespected, it's more whether Joan would begin to be more thoughtful. Like I said, I only watched the one show so maybe she is thoughtful compared to how she used to be. My mom related the episode where they went to a family therapist, and Joan started wondering if the therapist was speaking for the Lord. I guess my point is that truth can come from anyone's lips if we are looking for it rather than filtering everything through an agenda.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I often feel fairly uncomfortable when the subject of G-d comes up. This is because the people who bring the subject up with me are most often Christians who, I feel, have a hidden agenda of trying to convert me, or convince me that their point of view is right.
There is an exception to this discomfort: I don't feel uncomfortable discussing G-d and beliefs with people I know well, because I know that they respect my beliefs and are not trying to change me.
**Ela**
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I often feel fairly uncomfortable when the subject of G-d comes up. This is because the people who bring the subject up with me are most often Christians who, I feel, have a hidden agenda of trying to convert me, or convince me that their point of view is right.
Why does it make you uncomfortable when someone is trying to convince you of a point of view?
quote:There is an exception to this discomfort: I don't feel uncomfortable discussing G-d and beliefs with people I know well, because I know that they respect my beliefs and are not trying to change me.
What kind of friend would believe you are (for instance) going to hell eternally and not do anything to help you? Not a very good one, I'd think.
If I had a friend who wanted to, say, kill themselves (something terrible, although probably not as terrible as eternal damnation if there is such a thing) I would try to stop them by any means possible, regardless of whether my friend wanted me to 'respect' their beliefs. Isn't that what a real friend would do?
[ January 26, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Joe Peschi 'Nuff said
AJ
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Tres, you have just provided a perfect example of why I don't like to discuss this subject with people who think I ought to convert to their beliefs.
**Ela**
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think the Lord is free to commmand or reveal a variety of things."
By definition, an omnipotent and omniscient being is free to do whatever the heck He wants. But what an omnipotent being CAN do and what He SHOULD do -- particularly if He actually cares about being good -- are two different things.
I refuse to cheapen my definition of "goodness" just to let a god in; any god worth worshipping, in my opinion, shouldn't require that you cheapen morality to do so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thank you, Tres, for illustrating Ela's point so well.
[Edit: Heh, Ela said it faster. ]
[ January 26, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, you have just provided a perfect example of why I don't like to discuss this subject with people who think I ought to convert to their beliefs.
Why? (I'm thinking my post is a perfect example of why you SHOULD discuss things with people who'd like to change your mind. )
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
did you not see my post? or did you decide hell was probably the best option for me?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Do you really need to ask?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Clearly there aren't enough George Carlin watchers on this forum regardless of what you think of his opinions on God are.
AJ
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Peter,
Who, me? I don't believe God sends non-believers to hell and I don't really have any arguments to prove His existence, so I'm not so much worried about trying to convince people He should be trusted and stuff like that. I'm much more concerned about convincing folks with the "Don't try to change me attitude" to change their minds, because I believe it is a major source of conflict and foolishness in our society. I believe if people were more open to discussion, everybody would end up a little bit wiser about things and there'd be a lot less anger towards those who (understandably) feel it is important to show others the truths they think they know. And as a general rule, I think less anger is better.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Jon Boy has officially not lost the funny.
AJ, I got it. I'm pretty sure I've even made the, "why don't you trying praying to me and see if your results are any different?" joke on this board.
Tres, or people who wouldn't neccessarily follow him if they did believe in him? I'm pretty sure that's the one requirement of entry. But because I'm not phrasing my intention to not convert to your point of view as discomfort, that's ok?
[ January 26, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: peter the bookie ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, no, I don't believe God would send people to any sort of damnation for any reason as trivial as whether or not they follow him or not. Actually, I don't think I believe in eternal damnation at all. So, although I guess I would like you to come to agree with me if I am right (or, vice versa, correct me if I'm wrong!), it doesn't seem too critical to me. (Keep in mind - I don't have time to discuss everything I believe with everyone!!)
<Is still waiting for Ela's response>
[ January 26, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Don't forget that atheists don't have to deal with that commandment to love everyone, even those who flame you online.
And yet many of us somehow manage to be quite civil without being commanded. I wonder where the idea came from that atheists and agnostics are necessarily less moral than believers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wonder where the idea came from that atheists and agnostics are necessarily less moral than believers."
This is just a guess, mind you, but: believers?
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
If you don't think that He's concerned with a lack of belief or a lack of loyalty, how does it matter to you what Ela or any other person chooses to discuss? Isn't being wrong, being wrong?
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Tom Richardson wrote:
quote:"I wonder where the idea came from that atheists and agnostics are necessarily less moral than believers."
You are right that it came from believers. The reasoning goes like this: 1. I believe in God. 2. I believe God gave us a moral code to follow. 3. Therefore God defines morality. 4. Since God defines morality, anyone who doesn't believe in God must not follow a moral code.
It's an illogical conclusion of course.
I'm curious (and maybe it's a topic for another thread or a private discussion)--from where do you derive your moral code? You clearly have one. -Skeptic
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
I want to address the original question "how do you feel when god comes up"
First, let me point out that I try to avoid emotion on this forum because I want to play the role of the pure skeptic. Skepticism is a large part of my real personality--one of the parts I am proud of.
As a person, when god comes up I feel left out. Emotionally, I would love to believe. All of my family does. When I married her, my wife was also an agnostic. She got baptized LDS about 2 years ago. I supported this because it seemed to make her happy. I don't understand her belief and I'm jealous. Christmas is depressing for me. I don't believe--even though the benefits of belief are tremendous. People tell me that belief is a choice. If that is true, then I guess I choose not to believe. I know that I choose to be honest. And if I am to be honest, I don't see any objective evidence that suggests that god exists. On the other hand I don't see any proof that god does not exist. Still, the most parsimonious model is best.
-Skeptic
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: And yet many of us somehow manage to be quite civil without being commanded. I wonder where the idea came from that atheists and agnostics are necessarily less moral than believers.
I would say believers and unbelievers are equally civil or uncivil. I think it has more to do with human nature than it does with whether or not you're religious.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It's always struck me as odd that the Christian "golden rule," "Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you," does not have God as part of the equation.
It strikes me as odder that "humanism" is demonized by Christians, when their founder's slogan is inherently humanistic.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:"Don't try to change me attitude" to change their minds, because I believe it is a major source of conflict and foolishness in our society. I believe if people were more open to discussion, everybody would end up a little bit wiser about things and there'd be a lot less anger towards those who (understandably) feel it is important to show others the truths they think they know. And as a general rule, I think less anger is better.
There's a certain amount of respect that goes along with tolerance. I think it's the people who insist on forcing their religion on others (even once given the chance to proselytize and are listened to and then declined) that cause anger because they are disrespecting their friends and their decisions.
The thing about suicide is that it is immediate so you take immediate and drastic measures to stop your friend from killing him or herself. However, that friend is going to be pissed at you for quite some time because you interfered in their freedom to choose what they will. With morality about suicide, in most cultures, it is an unacceptable action across the board. Therefore you can react in society accepted way in stopping your friend from committing suicide. If that friend wasn't ill in some way, then they would also be stopping a would-be suicide were the tables turned.
Religious conversion doesn't go quite the same way. While society for the most part agrees that suicide is wrong, society has not come to an agreement about the existence of God, the make up of God, the name of God, the proper way in which to worship God if you believe in him. Anger and fighting occurs when one religion sets out to convert others in the name of "saving" them from eternal damnation.
If you believe in it, it's eternal, it doesn't happen till you die, you don't have to take immediate and drastic measures.
The thing is, because God IS subjective in terms of how we believe, we cannot know the True way in which he exists OR in which to worship him OR if he does exist. You can know for yourself, but you cannot transfer that knowledge onto someone else. For proselytizers, if only it were that easy. Hell, it took one of the apostles actually putting his hand into the wounds of the Risen Christ to believe. Those of us on earth don't exactly have that luxury.
Suicide is fairly easy to prove its results--death. It's hard, but can be done, to prove to a person that suicide isn't necessary. But to prove the existence of God..it can't be proven. It's a matter of belief. You either know or you don't know, or you're waiting for...something...to let you know either way.
So everyone has their own belief (atheist, agnostic, religion, whatever) that is, in their opinion, the most True path to God (or in no god at all). By telling them that they are absolutely wrong, you disrespect them and their choice and their intelligence. Once you've presented your case, and they've considered it, explained their own, and wanted to move on, let it drop. That's tolerance. Laying your cards out on the table so they're seen. If the other person wants to engage, they'll lay down their own and start to trade. If not, you move on in the game of life.
The immediate is this current life. Convert or die doesn't seem to work anymore, and wouldn't e true conversion anyway. You have to convert of free will, and your free will is taken away when you've a sword pointed at your throat.
Ela and Rivka are my friends. I respect them and I respect their religious choices because I know they are intelligent and wise and good people. They know my religious choices and I know theirs, and we have a good enough friendship (I think) that if anyone had any questions and wanted to talk about it, we could, without feeling threatened or pressured.
Pressure causes anger. Tolerance does not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*tackle hugs mack* Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think it's the people who insist on forcing their religion on others (even once given the chance to proselytize and are listened to and then declined) that cause anger because they are disrespecting their friends and their decisions/
True, but in such a case the problem is not with the people proselytizing. It's with the people who get angry and feel disrespected when someone questions their views.
People (especially adults) have a problem, I think - they like to have their ego stroked. They don't like to be taught, or told they are mistaken, or be called fallible in any way, even if it's good for them. This is what the sort of "respect" you are talking about amounts to. It's probably best exemplified by the teenager who resents the advice his parents give him, even though his parents only do so to try and help him. His anger is misdirected. After all, would his parents really be respecting him more if they let him do whatever he wanted, and didn't bother to help him? Perhaps in some sense of "respect", but I don't think that's the sort of respect it's healthy to demand. Criticism and advice can be bad tasting medicine, but it's dangerous to not take it.
If you demand that sort of respect, my advice would be to stop demanding it. If you do demand it, it will mean people either cannot help you very easily or must anger you to do so.
The sort of respect I would suggest between friends (and even strangers) is a different sort. It involves caring about the welfare of one another, and being willing to try to help a friend if they hold some view you think will endanger their welfare. It also means believing they are capable of seeing the truths you see. It means taking the statements of others in good faith as attempts to help you, not as attempts to attack you.
quote:Pressure causes anger. Tolerance does not.
True, being tolerant does not create anger. However, demanding tolerance from others may create anger when others feel the need to question your ideas. And, as I said, I don't see the benefit in demanding such tolerance, beyond a sort of ego boost from not being called mistaken.
As for pressure - well, pressure is something very different from criticism. There is a imporant difference between trying to convince someone of something, and trying to FORCE them to believe something. When you force someone to believe someone you are overruling their autonomy (as opposed to appealing to their own judgement to see the validity or error of your claims), and I definitely wouldn't say that's acceptable. But, I don't think much forcing comes into play in your average conversation about God, or even your average proselytizing.
quote:By telling them that they are absolutely wrong, you disrespect them and their choice and their intelligence. Once you've presented your case, and they've considered it, explained their own, and wanted to move on, let it drop.
The trouble with this approach is that I believe (since I assume people are as smart as I am, if not more so) that if someone cannot see the validity of a claim I believe in then either I have explained it poorly (and thus have not finished my case), or they know something I don't (in which case I want to know it!) With complex issues like God, it's rare, if not impossible, to have considered all angles and details.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, let me offer an analogy. I have a friend who is a huge believer in homeopathy and herbal medicine. I believe many herbals are effective (although I have some concerns about the fact that they don't have full FDA oversight), but believe (with apologies to any adherents) that homeopathy is utter hogwash.
We debated the issue, both presented our points; after a few iterations, we both agreed that neither was going to change the other's mind. I smile and nod when she talks about homeopathic stuff, and she knows not to expect more than that.
It has nothing to do with "stroking her ego" -- she knows full well what I think. It's called RESPECT for her ability to think for herself.
If I don't know you very well, then trying to proselytize at me assumes a relationship that does not exist. Those who I do have a close relationship with would, I think, not wish to harm that friendship with pressure -- and the reverse is true as well.
But the main issue you fail to take into account, Tres, is that someone who feels their core beliefs to be under attack will ABSOLUTELY NOT be open. Showing clear disrespect for what I hold sacred is a great way to get me to dismiss much, if not all, of what you say.
So not only is it exceedingly rude and relationship-destroying, pushy proselytizing is rarely effective, especially long-term. There is a huge difference between offering information or being open to questions; and forcing your opinions on someone else.
quote: However, demanding tolerance from others may create anger when others feel the need to question your ideas.
And you wonder why some of us are very hesitant to discuss those ideas or ideals we hold sacred!? Someone might have an unquenchable NEED to question them.
quote: There is a important difference between trying to convince someone of something, and trying to FORCE them to believe something.
Sometimes the line is VERY thin. Persistent, unrelenting, unwanted "convincing" when you have made it clear you have no interest requires both incredible hubris and lack of concern about the relationship that is being destroyed. I have, sad to say, been on both sides of such "discussions." I now do my best not to be on either end; and to conduct myself with courtesy and respect when I am.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But the main issue you fail to take into account, Tres, is that someone who feels their core beliefs to be under attack will ABSOLUTELY NOT be open.
This absolutely not true. I know I'm often open to criticism, and I know many other people who are too, some more so. There is no reason you can't be open when someone questions or attacks a core belief of yours. In fact, you SHOULD, because it will probably help you understand better, and in the worst case will just leave you no worse off than you started. What reason do you have to be closed to criticism?
quote:And you wonder why some of us are very hesitant to discuss those ideas or ideals we hold sacred!? Someone might have an unquenchable NEED to question them.
And I still wonder - what's wrong with that? Again, what are folks so afraid of when it comes to having their core beliefs questioned?
quote:It has nothing to do with "stroking her ego" -- she knows full well what I think. It's called RESPECT for her ability to think for herself.
No, it isn't. You can respect her ability to think just as much when challenging her beliefs as you can being silent. Do you think that because I disagree on this matter with you that I doubt your ability to think for yourself? Do you think I'd be respecting your ability more if I merely thought you were wrong but didn't say it?
In fact, I'd argue (if anything) it's much less respectful to give up on a person's capacity to see truth, under the assumption that she'll never be capable of seeing the truth you do.
I suspect the real reason you avoid talking about it is because you hope to avoid arguments and anger. But the only reason you would get angry over criticism is if your ego gets in the way. As I said above, there is no difference in respect between the person who criticizes and the person who silently thinks you are wrong. The only difference is that it is unpleasant for you to hear your ideas being criticized - it's bad-tasting medicine. This is the real source of the problem - not open discussion and criticism, but the desire to not be criticized. It's a nearly universal desire, I think, but it is a very troublesome one - perhaps the most troublesome one of all. It needs to be placed in check, because the only other two options, fighting and silence, promote conflict (fighting) or prevent understanding and learning (silence).
[ January 27, 2004, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:It's with the people who get angry and feel disrespected when someone questions their views.
For most, quiet discussion and questioning won't bring out anger. It's when they feel, from body language, tone, word order, that they are under attack for their beliefs, not just being asked to discuss them. When you back someone into a corner, they can't run, they have to lash back, so they get angry.
quote:People (especially adults) have a problem, I think - they like to have their ego stroked. They don't like to be taught, or told they are mistaken, or be called fallible in any way, even if it's good for them. This is what the sort of "respect" you are talking about amounts to.
No, that isn't the respect I'm talking about. It isn't a matter of ego boosting. Intellectual discussion can ALSO boost the ego. It's about a person's core beliefs, what helps to structure them in their perceived personhood. If they are attacked, they have to fight back. If they are allowed, in a non pressured, non hostile environment, those with the most secure beliefs will not lash out in anger. Most likely, they will welcome the discussion.
quote:Criticism and advice can be bad tasting medicine, but it's dangerous to not take it.
There's constuctive and destructive criticism. When you attack someone in a critique, they're going to react with anger and NOT take any advice you offer, because they find you to be hostile. If it's constructive criticism, it's non-hostile and non-pressured, and leaves the person to choose for him or herself. The other thing is that every person is the authority on knowing their self. I know myself best. You know yourself best. Rivka knows herself best. When given all choices and options and presented with all viewpoints, we're each going to decide what's best for ourselves. At times, it could be completely against all societal values--suicide, perhaps, or murder--and others can intervene in an unconstructive way, a way in which the personal relationship will be destroyed. But if a life isn't in danger, then constructive criticism should be used, because the personal relationship will remain true and in place and keep the channels open.
quote:If you demand that sort of respect, my advice would be to stop demanding it. If you do demand it, it will mean people either cannot help you very easily or must anger you to do so.
Except I know myself best and know that your interpretation of what I believe is respect is wrong. I also have a problem with authority--don't try to tell me what to do, especially if I don't ask. I'm likely to thwack you one. Ask jenny gardener.
quote:The trouble with this approach is that I believe (since I assume people are as smart as I am, if not more so) that if someone cannot see the validity of a claim I believe in then either I have explained it poorly (and thus have not finished my case), or they know something I don't (in which case I want to know it!) With complex issues like God, it's rare, if not impossible, to have considered all angles and details.
Exactly. But you reach a point where you tell the other person to hush (or to shut up if you've been unconstructive in your criticism) and let life go on, because human life is immediate and eternal life questions can be taken up later. If we spent all of our time debating and attempting to communicate truths that have yet to be communicated fully between all humans in the past couple thousand years, we won't get a chance to actually LIVE life.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tres, you might also consider, that if one person in the conversation is pushing out of “concern for the other’s soul,” it might be that person who is going to have a problem listening/learning from the person they’re proselytizing, not the other way around.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Again, what are folks so afraid of when it comes to having their core beliefs questioned?
Okay, I have to ask. What are YOUR core beliefs, Tres?
quote:What reason do you have to be closed to criticism?
Because people like yourself assume to know me or anyone else better than WE do. But you haven't lived our life or in our bodies...I'm assuming.
quote:This absolutely not true.
quote:In fact, you SHOULD, because it will probably help you understand better,
quote:No, it isn't.
You speak in absolutes and that leaves no room for discussion. When you tell us that something is absolutely not true, you are saying that nothing WE say has any validity at all. So the dicussion is over.
quote:I suspect the real reason you avoid talking
quote:The only difference is that it is unpleasant for you to hear your ideas being criticized
Again, you claim to know rivka better than she knows herself. How can she discuss anything with you when you seem to belief you are the authority for rivka?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Mack, if you think I'm advocating attacking someone's beliefs in a pushy or harsh or mean fashion, that's definitely not the case. I certainly agree that there's a right way to criticize and discuss things, and a wrong way.
My points here were in response to Ela's claim that she flat out doesn't feel comfortable discussing core beliefs. I can see how she would not be comfortable with someone attacking her beliefs in a rough fashion, but my argument is that she shouldn't have a problem with calm and civil criticism. That is to say criticism itself isn't inherently bad.
quote:Tres, you might also consider, that if one person in the conversation is pushing out of “concern for the other’s soul,” it might be that person who is going to have a problem listening/learning from the person they’re proselytizing, not the other way around.
dkw, I think that's true. The same problem occurs from the other end - when people who are unable to convince others to agree with them feel THEY have been somehow "disrespected." Then they get mad and, perhaps, uncivil.
quote:Okay, I have to ask. What are YOUR core beliefs, Tres?
Many things... this is probably one of them. Throw in things like God, belief in the goodness of people, belief in reason, belief that killing is almost always wrong - well, pretty much the stuff I discuss on this forum a lot.
(Edit: By the way, who do you think I should feel most disrespected by in this thread? The people who have said I'm wrong, such as yourself?)
quote:What reason do you have to be closed to criticism?
Because people like yourself assume to know me or anyone else better than WE do
Not true, but even if it was, so what? What does it matter to you what I assume, and more importantly, why should it matter more if I say it rather than just think it?
quote:You speak in absolutes and that leaves no room for discussion. When you tell us that something is absolutely not true, you are saying that nothing WE say has any validity at all.
So are you, right there! So did rivka ("someone who feels their core beliefs to be under attack will ABSOLUTELY NOT be open") who I was responding to. You can't really avoid making absolute claims, unless you're not ever going to discuss stuff.
But why do you think such claims imply nothing you say has validity? I think that might be part of what I'm talking about. People tend to feel attacked when criticized, as if saying they are wrong on one thing implies they are just wrong in general.
quote:Again, you claim to know rivka better than she knows herself. How can she discuss anything with you when you seem to belief you are the authority for rivka?
I claim to have made observations about people in general that I suspect may apply to rivka (or you). I do not claim to be an authority though, and I assume that if I'm wrong she'll simply not agree with me (as you did), and possibly convince me or show me how I'm wrong. But again, what does it matter to her what I assume? How would it prevent discussion? It might prevent me from gaining stuff from such a discussion, but I doubt it would prevent her from gaining stuff from it, and it certainly shouldn't hurt her.
[ January 27, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
But you haven’t showed her that you have anything she’d wish to gain. So why should she want to have a discussion with you?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm still waiting for skeptic to prove of the existence of Tom Richardson.
Calvin Maker (in the books, not the dude on Hatrack) discusses the case for non believers being more moral than believers. Since the believers expect a reward for moral behavior.
But I don't think believing means one always expects a reward.
I will admit I haven't read Tresopax's posts in this thread since he's posing as a straw man of a proselyting Christian.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote: You speak in absolutes and that leaves no room for discussion. When you tell us that something is absolutely not true, you are saying that nothing WE say has any validity at all.
So are you, right there! So did rivka ("someone who feels their core beliefs to be under attack will ABSOLUTELY NOT be open") who I was responding to.
I would point out a difference. I was making absolute statements about myself and a group I am part of; you were making statements about a group you claim to not be part of.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
who is tom richardson? is he someone I should know about?
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm guessing he is a typo, of sorts, by skeptic. I have two brothers named Richard and David, so I can see me making that mistake. But I'm not skeptic, I promise.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
I've met Tom Davidson, is that proof enough? Or are you going to run off to Slash's thread to see who's real?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
How do I feel...
I don't really draw a line, and here's why:
I'll talk about God all day, until someone starts talking about God as having characteristics that contradict what is in scripture. At that point, I assume they are no longer talking about God, but are now talking about a "god" and I'm no longer able to be offended. They can say "god" is a two-headed baby eater. That can't offend me because they are not talking about God. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom-Richardson seems to be a sub-group on the (Usenet) alt.christnet. Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I think a fallacy of many who are skeptics, or who are philosophers, or who believe in everything always being open to discussion, and so on, is the idea that everything can be explained. The idea that words are sufficient to convey important life experience, vital concepts, and understanding of what it means to be alive. I think it's patently obvious that quite a lot of experience and existence simply cannot be adequately described using words. And any sort of approximate attempt to do so can only result in real communication if the person is already very curious to know what you are trying to tell them, and trying very hard to understand you, believing what you say to be important and meaningful to them personally.
A good example might be parents teaching children life lessons. The typical scenario goes like this.
Parent to child: You don't want to skate on that particular hill, it's too dangerous. There's a steep drop off with a lot of sharp rocks down below. If you skate there, it's quite likely you will be injured or killed. Find a better place to skate. Child to parent: Okay mom. <then goes and does it anyway> <child doesn't get hurt the first few times, thinks: Hmmm, this is fun. Mom's fears are unfounded.> <Child continues to skate there. Eventually in a moment of inattention, or some unusual distraction, slips up and accident occurs. Child breaks a wrist.> Parent to child: <while doctoring the wrist, taking child to the ER, paying medical bills, etc.> That's why I told you not to skate in that place. It's too dangerous. There are lots of safer places to skate that are quite fun. Child to self: <ouch ouch ouch>
<laughs>
Most things can't be told. They have to be experienced. That's why, when it comes to kids, I teach but don't really expect to be heard until after the life-experience proves the lesson. THEN, the fact that the child heard the lesson before and has it reiterated afterward, can lead to it actually sinking in.
As for religion, I will usually explain my own beliefs if someone seems to sincerely want to know. But everyone has to come to their own understanding of things, given their life experience and the internal knowledge they are given.
As for suicide, I truly believe that taking someone's agency away is a worse evil than suicide. I would far rather be dead than have the decision of whether to live or die be taken out of my hands. I hope I would be strong enough to do the same for someone else. I do know that being able to tell someone how you are feeling makes a huge positive difference, and if you don't trust someone not to commit you, you truly can't tell them how you are feeling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'll talk about God all day, until someone starts talking about God as having characteristics that contradict what is in scripture."
What you really mean here is "that contradict what I believe is in scripture," right?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yep, and by "what I believe" I mean, what I read and what I have put together. I know there are many different ways to interpret scripture, is that your point?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. Just being snarky. Whenever somebody says that they only stick to what it says in the Bible, I like to point out that they're really sticking to what they THINK the Bible says -- which is another thing entirely.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But you haven’t showed her that you have anything she’d wish to gain. So why should she want to have a discussion with you?
How often do you begin discussions by first explaining what the other person will gain by talking you? I don't think discussions work like that, partially because a lot of what might be gained from discussion is created during the discussion itself.
quote:I will admit I haven't read Tresopax's posts in this thread since he's posing as a straw man of a proselyting Christian.
Hmmm... you haven't read my posts but you know I'm posing as a strawman? How?
(I'm not, by the way. Will you go back and read my posts now? )
quote:I think a fallacy of many who are skeptics, or who are philosophers, or who believe in everything always being open to discussion, and so on, is the idea that everything can be explained.
Excellent point.
quote:Most things can't be told. They have to be experienced. That's why, when it comes to kids, I teach but don't really expect to be heard until after the life-experience proves the lesson.
I agree. But here's my question - was the parent disrespecting the kid by trying to explain it to them first? Was it wrong for the parent to criticize the kid's view that he or she should go skate on that hill? My point is that not only is this not wrong, but it's the parent's responsibility. Similarly, it is also the friend's responsibility to warn their friends if they are about to do something wrong.
The other side of the coin is this: Is it wise of the kid to resent their parent being critical of them? Should the kid have gotten mad? Should the kid shy away from any discussions with the parent to avoid conflict and anger? My point here is that, no, the kid is making a serious mistake if he or she stops accepting advice from the parent. Instead, the kid should learn not to get mad when criticized - that's the only safe solution that avoids fighting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The flaw in your analogy, Tres, is that the relationship between a child and his parent is NOT the same as that between two adults. Implying that it is, is rather insulting to the adult in the "being taught" position.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
In the case of two adults, they are each both the kid and the parent - learning from one another.
And yes, many adults get insulted when they are in the kid role - that's the ego issue I kept talking about above. Adults (and often kids too, as they grow older) tend to think they are too smart to be taught, especially by a peer. That's where the anger comes from. But if conflict is to be avoided, I think adults need to try not to be insulted by this. I think it is doable.
[ January 27, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, with two adults learning from each other, neither should be in the role of child. Again, I do not view this as a question of ego, but of mutual respect.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:In fact, I'd argue (if anything) it's much less respectful to give up on a person's capacity to see truth, under the assumption that she'll never be capable of seeing the truth you do.
Which "truth" are you talking about? Your view of the truth (with respect to discussions about G-d) is most likely different than mine. If you keep at me about your version of the truth, hoping that I will eventually "see it" - well, this is the sort of attitude that makes me want to avoid religious discussions.
quote:My points here were in response to Ela's claim that she flat out doesn't feel comfortable discussing core beliefs. I can see how she would not be comfortable with someone attacking her beliefs in a rough fashion, but my argument is that she shouldn't have a problem with calm and civil criticism. That is to say criticism itself isn't inherently bad.
But I don't care to have you criticize my religious beliefs. I have lived long enough to have heard many Christian points of view. I am happy with my religion and my religious beliefs, and have no wish to change them. So once you have questioned my beliefs, discussed my beliefs and your beliefs "in a calm and civil" fashion," and I have said I am not interested in changing my beliefs or discussing your and my respective beliefs anymore, it is disrespectful, as rivka and mack pointed out above, to continue trying to discuss them with me.
**Ela**
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:How often do you begin discussions by first explaining what the other person will gain by talking you?
Every time you engage in any persuasive speech, Tres. You're taking their time and asking for their trust - you have to give a reason.
You don't persuade someone by telling them how their changing will benefit you, but by telling them how their changing will benefit them.
Posted by shadowmaker (Member # 6155) on :
You have a good point. People's beliefs shouldn't be decided by other people, and everyone has a choice. Instead if they really want them to, you should tell them about your religion and leave the door open for them if they want to talk about it. If we can talk about anything else, why not religion? This comes to the question: Why isn't talk about religion allowed in schools?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Something I've come to learn (and appreciate) is that Belief isn't just a willful thing. There have been many things I've WANTED to believe, but have been unable due to nagging thoughts and, yes, logic. Even if the 'logic' centered protests are things that have rationalized answers, you can't force yourself to believe something that your brain won't let you - no matter how much it may ring 'true' otherwise.
Proselytizer's need to learn that sometimes just planting the seed is enough - that they don't need to be greedy and try to be the reaper as well, something which may end up spoiling the crop entirely.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: My point here is that, no, the kid is making a serious mistake if he or she stops accepting advice from the parent
I disagree wholeheartedly except in the case of young children and pre-teens. At a certain age "kids" start developing reasoning skills and a broader understanding of the world around them and what drives other people. If a teenager is being told, at say, what's an acceptable age for you all? 15? 16? by a parent that the God of his/her parent's church is the one true god and everyone who doesn't believe will never reach enlightenment/will go to hell/with never be happy...and the kid says "Well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me..." and starts questioning his parents, how is he/she "making a serious mistake?" Ever? Sure, parents are entitled to teach their beliefs and morals on their children. They get a good many years to do that too, and to teach those things in a way that the child either doesn't want to question or all his/her questions are adequately answered. A teenager, though still looked upon as a child in their parents eyes, is completely entitled to stop accepting advice from their parents if they decide at some point that that advice is not compatible with their thought processes. My mom is very spiritual, though not religious. My father is, as far as i know, a believer in the christian god, though to what extent i don't know. My dad gave me a copy of the new testament the other day. I told him I'd read some of it, but it really hadn't done anything for me. He seemed a little disappointed, but didn't push. Should he have pushed? Should I have accepted even though I have no desire to read it? I'm under 21, a child still in most of this country's eyes...was I not entitled to not accept his advice?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief."
My first thought upon reading this: What on earth?
I think I understand some of what he was saying, though. I don't think Faith comes as one huge package, and that's it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Sometimes I know some principles, I believe other principles, and some principles simply escape me - I don't feel anything, and I'd like to believe but I can't. Maybe that's what Jarius' father was asking for help with? "Lord, I believe you just did a miracle. I believe in the love that was shown. I believe there is something for me here, but I just can't beleive the Son of God thing. Please help my unbelief."
[ January 28, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I think I can put my core beliefs out there.
I do believe there is a god. I'm not sure, exactly, the True way of his worship. I do know that I wouldn't be able to exist well in any type of religion that has an authoritative structure. Probably while I haven't been active in the Catholic church in a long time. One thing is that I've found confession...unnecessary. I mean, I have to make things up to confess, because I've never deliberately turned away from God (mortal sin) and that's the sin that REQUIRES confession.
And the hierarchy kills me. There are so many issues that I don't see eye to eye with the theology. Sure, I can legitimately dissent, but at what point do you say, screw this, the ideal is just not present anymore?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I complained that it looked a little sacreligious (sp?) based on an episode I saw where her "mission" for the week was to get her driver's license. I don't know that it's worse than "Touched by an Angel". Since I only saw that twice.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)