posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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. )
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 318 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!!)
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 318 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 318 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 68 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
posted
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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
