Religion
Related: About this forumuriel1972
(4,261 posts)Grabs popcorn.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)indie9197
(509 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)You could have engaged the OP, and put forward a case why you disagree with some or all of it. You could have ignored it, since you have nothing to say. But, instead, you give a reply that has nothing to do with the OP, or the group. You may as well have said "shut up". A few days ago, you twice replied in one thread with just 'And?'. And now you reply again, seeming to think you've contributed something to this thread.
rug, we don't need to hear from you in every thread. If you've got nothing to say, then don't spam threads with meaningless replies.
rug
(82,333 posts)Speaking of meaningless replies, what is this?
Now Muriel, who is this "we" you speak for?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)It's that simple.
My reply was not meaningless; it was pointing out that the 'advice' in your post is far more applicable to you that anyone else in this thread.
'We' is everyone who isn't you, rug. This is advice to you on how to behave, with anyone.
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's some advice for you, Muriel. Don't offer unsolicited advice. It's tantamount to proselytizing. Your condescension will find a better response elsewhere.
And your reply, as many of them are, was weak personal snark. Keep it to yourself if you want further conversations to have any value. Not that I mind exchanging snark, particularly with people who mistakenly believe they possess a rulebook on proper posting.
And no, "we", is not anyone who isn't me, Muriel. That would be "they". I don't blame you for not publicizing who you consider kindred souls. It is readily apparent. I wouldn't want to publicly associate myself either.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Why, you could even apply it to perfectly true statements in relevant discussion forums. Seems like a stupid attempt to imply the OP is assholish with a non-sensible post.
For a real definition of an asshole, I recommend Assholes: A Theory. Turns out the Abrahamic God fits the definition pretty well.
rug
(82,333 posts)Unsurprising the moths it attracts.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It's so ridiculous that you have to ask yourself, why do only 1.6% of Americans identify as atheists? I mean what need is Christianity fulfilling for people? The need to be stupid? The need to be superstitious? Or what?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Also, once you've studied the human brain and its tendencies, you begin to understand why having an "answer," even if it's wrong, is such an important thing for our brains.
Crudeness of the original message aside, can you explain what fundamental details it has wrong?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It's missing the spirit of the thing - it's missing why it has meaning. Granted I do understand that to you it has no meaning, but I prefer to look at things a little deeper. I have made studies of other faiths - including Islam, Buddhism, Mainstream Christianity and Cahtolicism, Judaisim and the like - and while in each case you can boil down the central story to an absurdity, I haven't found that to be a particularly fruitful or insightful way to do things. Rather having a little empathy or understanding, even when I fundamentally disagree with their position, has proven more useful.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You just don't want anyone to say it like that.
Funny thing is, a lot of people who have rejected the faith they were indoctrinated into did it because they were finally able to analyze that central absurdity. I don't think that viewpoint should be silenced if it is a message that helps someone else grow or change as a person.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)So as a Christian - assuming I don't read that and immediately become an atheist - what am I morally allowed to do? Or was my initial statement offensive or immoral in some way?
I do believe in sharing the Gospel with those who are interested, but have always felt that when someone clearly isn't interested you should let them be - you should share, but shouldn't ever force. That said, many who do favor forcing their opinions on others would make strikingly similar arguments to yours - "What does it matter if some are offended if other's souls are saved?"
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Someone posted a graphic. You can choose to read it, reply to it, or not. There are posts here that celebrate religious occasions, musical performances, etc. Would you say those are being forced on everyone else?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)it isn't a perfect parallel, and I apologize if you feel I implied it was.
So was there something offensive in how I initially replied to this post? Or was it that I responded at all?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Argumentum ad populum.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I'm saying that the fact that there are a lot of them should preclude simplistic mockery along the lines of the initial poster. But then again I try to understand everybody's point of view, even if I disagree with them.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What you said was sort of a reverse argumentum ad populum - atheists must be wrong since there are so few of them.
The number of people who hold an opinion should have no relevance on whether that opinion can be mocked or discussed. That kinda scares me, that simply because an idea is held by many, you think it deserves special treatment.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I think that opinions should be respected across the board, no matter how many people have them (unless such ideas/opinions/beliefs directly encourage causing harm to other people). In other words, America has a lot of Christians and relatively few atheists, but both Christian and atheists opinions/beliefs should be treated with respect and consideration.
Perhaps in retrospect I didn't make a very clear argument.
I'll also point out that I think the OP had every right to post that image; freedom of speech means people can say largely whatever they like, even if I strongly disagree with it or if it annoys me or angers me.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I don't think opinions automatically deserve respect. They have to earn it. And they earn it with open discussion and debate, which might just include mocking at times. Mockery, satire, and ridicule aren't off-limits in any other arena (politics, sports, etc.) - why should religion be any different?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I guess I could point out that there is intelligent satire which understands what it is satirizing and makes interesting points, and there is simplistic crude mockery, but both should be allowed. But that's in the eye of the beholder.
It somewhat the difference between what a Michael Moore or a Molly Ivins might do and calling someone a "Rethuglican." One has more value than the other in my opinion. So if I am going to mock someone I would rather do it intelligently and with an understanding of what I am mocking.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)you yourself are crossing the line and attacking the person instead of the idea - implying the person who put this piece together is unintelligent and does not understand what they were mocking.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)In my experience, for most that means hemming and hawing and intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance and just downright terrible logic, or complaining about being offended, or both.
This is not "forcing" beliefs on anyone. It's in a religion forum on a discussion board that people voluntarily come to.
From what I've seen, on open discussion forums with a sizable atheist contingent, believers don't post their beliefs much because they are impossible to defend and easily called out.
I was indoctrinated, like the vast majority of people were, into my faith. I reacted to stuff like this with anger and frustration because I was insecure in my beliefs, and I couldn't defend my beliefs on substantive grounds. My fear of what it might mean to not believe kept me able to use a lot of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to dismiss or ignore any substantive criticism of my beliefs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Your an Atheist because you believe in tangibility, you only Believe what someone has convinced you is factual and can be proved, or until it's disproved, known. God Bless You .
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)anyone to believe anything like that, to the best of my knowledge
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)What belief makes you Christian then? I thought Jesus' death/sacrifice to redeem the world from original sin was the centrepiece of Christianity. I was under the impression that was the whole point of retaining the Old Testament.
I'm not trying to be rude, but am trying to get my head around the whole thing.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)-- Practice in Christianity, I
Perhaps it is somewhat of a scandal, to hold such a view, that The Word -- that is, The Word that has from the Beginning, where there seems only a formless dark abyss, called Light into existence -- became flesh and came to live among us -- to repeat, not as a mighty epic hero or terrible and glorious conqueror, but in the form of weak human flesh, subject to human suffering and death, living among very ordinary people, even among social outcasts
It is certainly a view that cannot be supported by any normal logic or by any careful historical investigation. And here I might let Schweitzer speak:
... The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma ... Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity. The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. That is not possible ... History can destroy the present; it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to the making of the present is not given unto it ... But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it ... The names in which men expressed their recognition of Him as such, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, have become for us historical parables. We can find no designation which expresses what He is for us. He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time ...
-- The Quest of the Historic Jesus
But I will give the final word to John: And the Light still shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never understood it
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)It isn't the Word of God? The existence of Jesus is the important factor then? I'm still trying to get my head around this. I don't know if the majority of Christians would take this path.
Still, it seems to me you have to believe before it make sense, which puts me out of contention.