Printable View
We have been discussing religious beliefs on this forum ever since (and even before) I have been a member here. I have observed that most people here (including myself) get more defensive about their own beliefs that they begin disrespecting each other's beliefs (and even each other). My question that I put forward for us all is:
How do we discuss religious texts, concepts, and questions without being so cut throat and demeaning toward each other?
Peace in our times, hey?
I think that is only possible if people stay in the realm of the factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
For instance, questions like "What does the Bible say about this?" or "What does this section mean?" can be answered (more or less) factually and without offense, so long as people stay to the topic and no one injects arguments as to whether or not the religious text is to be believed.
"How do we discuss religious texts, concepts, and questions without being so cut throat and demeaning toward each other?"
Simple. You discuss religious texts, concepts, and questions without being so cut throat and demeaning toward each other. There's no global "how"; everyone's completely in control of the words they type, and everyone makes a choice to be civil or snarky or worse, so any "how" is personal and internal.
My own way was to adopt a nic that describes not what I am, but what I'd like to be. My natural state is sarcastic, misanthropic, and in general impatient with people. However, I long ago realized that 1) this is counterproductive in discussions and 2) this is not the way I want to be or should be anyway, so I use Calidore (the Knight of Courtesy in the book with the least manly title in all of literature, Spenser's Faerie Queene) as my alias in newspaper comment sections and on this forum. As a result, when tempted to respond with pointless negativity to something, I would ask myself, "Would Calidore write that?" and put the brakes on. Now, after years of this, I'm seldom tempted anymore, and when I am, it's much easier to stop. It's just a matter of changing one habit for another.
All of which is more than I intended to type when I started. Was there a Knight of Brevity also? I could use that one as well sometimes.
"What does it mean to respect another's religious beliefs?"
Surrender and defeat.
That's interesting Calidore. A good way forward. :biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Just discuss the ideas - not the people. Ideas can't be harmed, offended or damaged. Ideas, in fact, don't even ask to be respected. It's the people who hold the ideas who warrant respect.
It's entirely possible to challenge an idea aggressively without lacking respect for the person holding it. The problem comes, I think, when either the person doing the challenging has a shot at the person holding the idea rather than at the idea itself; or when the person holding the idea identifies so closely with it that he feels any attack on the idea is an attack on himself.
This is what makes it so difficult to talk about religion - it's an idea that defines people, so an attack on the idea is easily taken for an attack on the person holding it - and, actually, sometimes that's what it is.
Religious people are always quick to claim the high moral ground whenever all hell breaks out because of their bullying and bluster. Respect that, never!
I now feel like I know a little bit more about the history of Calidore, and I quite enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
I agree with cl154576 and MarkBastable 100%.
I find the above ideas spot on. I'm not sure I can add anything new, but to achieve my necessary word count I'll just add...
1) Someone can be an awesome, smart, nice person and still be completely wrong. I need to remember that when addressing them. If they can be nice and still be no less wrong than they would be were they a troll ( or even, say, an ogre) and wrong, then I have no interest and no need to attack or bash the person. Political discourse fails at this almost always and too often discussions on religion do as well.
2) While I understand what MarkBastable is saying and agree it is an observation often accurate, I find on the personal level to function differently. I find I have a more emotional response to attacks on ideas I hold to be true than I do to attacks on my person. But regardless of what my emotional response is, I need to separate my emotions on a topic from my reasons (unless, of course my reasons are emotional, but that's another topic entirely).
The problem with religious people is, one minute they're rams, the next minute they're lambs.
Ditto. Thanks to you and Paulclem for the kind words also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Mark especially made a good point that conflict can originate with the listener as often as the speaker.
"Respect," not "adopt." There's no surrender or defeat in respecting another's beliefs, at least provided those beliefs aren't thenselves inherently disrespectful of others. Which, granted, many people's beliefs are, but when you overgeneralize and attack everyone, you're doing exactly what the people you claim to deplore are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
{edit}
The OP asks:Please share your opinions if they are directly related at the topic at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Those posts who contain inflammatory, personal and/or off topic remarks will be removed without further warning.
God has spoken, and we must listen?!
Please address the topic of this thread, instead of mere randomness.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Not to listen to a person when they are speaking to you is the height of bad manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Anyway, getting back onto the actual topic, I think part of the problem is in many cases everyone thinks they're having a different discussion then the one they're actually having. And often people bring in their personal baggage that complicates matters.
Yeah, back to the actual topic...like I was saying, no-one listens to no-one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
What did you wish to say? I assumed your "G-d has spoken" comment referred to the moderator's intrusion into the thread. Did you mean something else by it?Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Can you elaborate on what you meant?Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Something like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I said, "God has spoken, and we must listen?!" Should we listen to a raving loon? I have tried comedy and that just gets me infractions. I change tack and that gets me an infraction. Obviously, there is a lot of people on this forum who simply tolerate me because they think that I am a nut.
The Bible is God's Word. Should we listen to what it inspires or ignore what it inspires?
Everyone has their own agenda, and boy do they like to push it. I know that I do.
To respect someone beliefs you have to believe they are believable. If you cannot bring yourself to believe in belief, you'll not achieve real respect.
I agree with this completely. While I respect human beings, I cannot find any respect for beliefs which are preposterous to me. For example, people differ on which books they like. One person may love crime serial dollar novels, another person may read the same books and find them laughable, cheap, and under-researched. Should the person who so loves the crime serials be offended when the other reader rejects and dismisses them? Respect of a person's feelings should not automatically gain respect for belief sets of which one finds distasteful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
I love the Kill Bill movies. I have a friend who can't stand them, but is still very fond of my company. Though we have gone round and round about it, I still like him just fine. When it comes to religion, the problem is that it effects a person's way of life and, by extension, the lives of those around them. I like Kill Bill. If I went around like a perverted samurai, severing heads and limbs to the tunes of Asian girl band performed surf rock music, I would expect someone to have a problem with my behavior.
...Then I would make them pay for their insolence (just kidding!).
Funny, When it comes to Kill Bill I have no problem with the combat violence but the element of sexual sadism prevelent when Beartrice is in the coma in hospital is deeply unpleasant. I rather think it reflects QT's personality. He certainly lacks taste. The whole thing is a bit cartoony, reflecting its manga influences and origins in a graphic novel. QT - definately a child of the 70's.
There is a difference between respecting beliefs and just being civil. If you feel repelled or appauled by someone's attitudes then perhaps it's just better not to engage with them. If you choose to do so then you should just show good manners and refrain from responding to provocation. If someone is incapable of making an argument for their position, what's the point in engaging in a slanging match?
Alternatively, providing you have the right contacts and a sufficient budget, you could just have them killed, or better still, do as Varenne suggests and take care of things yourself! (I'm kidding too) (Honest!!!) (But only about the last paragraph...)
I agree. I have definitely given too much energy to these arguments in the recent past, I must admit. Being serious really doesn't suit me, so I'm going back to silly mode. It's something that everyone can enjoy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
I think QT is sick in the head, and wealthy enough to overindulge the id. Generally I think his collaborations with Rodriguez are the most fun. Jackie Brown is a decent flick. Deathproof wasn't tolerable for me. Girls talking in cars for two hours = boring! I'm about to get in some kind of trouble for derailing this thread, so here I go shutting up. :D
Actually, I don't understand your comment, Arrowni, at all, and suspect I would disagree with it--if it only made sense to me. We are all crammed with beliefs that are unbelievable, including the self-defined atheists. Personally, I don't believe in unbelief including atheistic belief in unbelief. (Hmm. Does that even make sense? :) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
My goal is not to get angry with a person expressing beliefs that I refuse to accept for myself. That alone should lead to civil discussion. That doesn't mean I will practice some wimpy behavior keeping the anger hidden within myself. It does not mean I won't offer an opposing viewpoint. What it means is I will refuse to get angry, even silently within my own mind. I'm not sure I've achieved this state, but reading forum posts is good practice.
Both Hawkman and Varenne Rodin mentioned Kill Bill. Take any of these action heroes from any movie. In general, the good guys don't lose their cool. They don't get angry even when they are kicking their opponents into submission. The bad guys, on the other hand, lose it completely.
I am silly to point this out, but you must not have seen Kill Bill. The good guy is angry for pretty much the entirety of the movies. The bad guy is extremely cool and composed. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it applies to what we were saying. There was no mention of holding in some secret anger. It's almost the opposite. It's the letting go of feeling effected by someone who is set in their ways. That's as nicely and clearly as I can put it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
"losing one's cool" and "getting angry" aren't necessarily the same thing. Maybe it would just be a semantic difference for some people. Anyhow, I can see "being angry" as being different from "losing one's cool" pretty clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
In Kill Bill, the protagonist has a huge store of anger within her, and it gives her strength. She doesn't flail around and act with uncontrollable lizard-brain rage at the sight of her enemies, however.
Many athletes are powered by such emotion, as well--Michael Jordan often got angry at opponents, and to see Asashoryu wrestle in his prime, just the look on his face (the complete disdain for his opponent) was enough to assure all who were watching that he would win.
I am cracking up at this mental picture!Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
No, she chops them up in a very calm manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I have to disagree. It seems to me that this is the road to intolerance. A Muslim or Christian's religion is based upon the belief in God/ Trinity/father Son etc, whereas in Buddhism there is no creator God, and Hinduism has a multitude of Gods. There's a lot of grounds for contention between them.If it was the case that there wasn't - on the whole - mutual respect, there woud be many more problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
In fact the religions of the Book - Christianity, Islam and Judaism have experienced many more problems in the modern era, and their belief in God is very similar, if not related.
I don't find anything believable in religion. I don't know how people believe in it at all. But I get the fact that they do, and I can't change it, so I just keep quiet. I don't particularly respect it but I accept it.
What's important to me is how people are. If they are tryin to shove it down my throat then I don't respect that. I don't find that much here though. In my work i mix with Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and we all get on. Belief doesn't come up, but there's a lot of respect because of how peple conduct themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
I work for the local authority teaching english and maths to many people from different countries as well as english people. I don't tend to find anyone broadcasting their beliefs either. It's just not an issue on an interpersonal level. I'm not sure ifthat's the same in other countries - there seems to be a bit more evangelism in the US. I would find that a bit annoying I think.
Religion is something that I am never going to respect, however I accept its existence and that it brings a lot of people a lot of happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
It depends entirely on where you are. US is so large and mixed a country that there is no way to generalize. I would say in the more industrialized places people are quite open-minded, especially since there are many immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
may you should know when you are discussing _ taking and giving _ and when yor are arguing. and none of them is wrong or wright. and the truth sometimes has more than one face but sometimes only one face.this is of course my point of view)
I understand this is so. Varenne has described it in another thread, and I was referring to those parts that are.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576