quote:What if one of those things, in their belief system, is that God has told them that their religion is the only true one?
Is there a way of determining this other than having it inculcated into you? If so, I don't see how what boots is saying is necessarily in conflict with it.
If someone is raised to capable of making deep decisions and discerning true things from false ones, you don't need to put so much effort into making sure that they are trained into believing your "true" things.
If you have things that you feel have to be put into them and that they will not come to on their own, it seems to me like you might be doubting either their discernment, the truth that you are espousing, or god.
---
As an aside, the idea that other people were going to hell simply because they weren't Catholic, which is what I was taught in religion class at Catholic school, is one of the things that really moved me down the road of becoming an ex-Catholic.
I think teaching that or things like it are are very good way to bring your teaching into conflict with adults who are good at questioning things and determining the truth.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag's got a point -- you're one of the last people around here who should be throwing stones about fanaticism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
As an aside, the idea that other people were going to hell simply because they weren't Catholic, which is what I was taught in religion class at Catholic school, is one of the things that really moved me down the road of becoming an ex-Catholic.
Which was a problem for me too until I learned that it isn't true. It has officially not been doctrine since before I was born. This goes to what I was saying (in response to twinky) about some people not necessarily being qualified to pass down religion to children. It seems this is true for teachers as well as parents.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I would be happy to share my own conversion story, but not in a public place. If you would like to know, I am open to an e-mail conversation. For this thread, however, I would prefer not to have it as a topic of conversation and it is DEFINITELY NOT something I am going to put under your scrutiny.
I have no desire to scrutinize. That is, in fact, irrelevant to what I am pointing out. The example I used in my question to you had more to do with your admitted lack of understanding of a fundemental concept within a different religion. It wasn't an accusation, it was pointing out that we all learned our context from those who taught us to relate to the world beyond us and our family. I used the Spock/LDS thread as another example of that point. We do not begin as a blank slate and at some point around adulthood weigh the conditions without prior context. We learn to build on that original foundation, but it exists nonetheless. I don't see why we have to keep coming back to asking for a moral judgment on it from me, because I have none. My only judgment is that it is neither good nor evil, it is just an aspect of development. There are things that could be considered good or bad, but they do not make the process itself good or bad. There have been posts in this thread relaying experiences that have been both good and bad, but it doesn't change the reality and significance of the process and how it works. It just describes poignant moments in those individuals' processes that they feel had an impact on them, which only supports what I have been saying that it does, indeed, help to dictate the context by which we come to relate to those beliefs.
And steven: I have no idea where you are coming from with those comments, but all you seem to be doing is trying to pick a fight in a thread where it's been emphasized already that it's unhelpful.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I am curious for clarification on your world view.
Here are two quotes from you in reference to why people act the way they do as adults over religion. This first quote of yours (for other people's reference) is talking about people who reject religion because of rebellion. I agree rebelling from parents is a poor and immature reason to reject religion.
The second quote is an example of adults who chose religion after being denied it's influence as a child.
quote: km boots, I was talking about those people, of whom I know or have known several.
quote: So have I. The most fantastic part of my mission was when I was in Ann Arbor. We were teaching mostly Asians who were there for graduate school with their families, and most of them came from an atheistic background. It was an amazing and wonderful experience teaching them the very basics - about the existence of God, how to pray, and the importance of the Savior.
What we have here is two groups of people you have referenced: 1) Those who reject religion because they are immature and rebelling against their childhood. 2) Those who accept religion as a wonderful, life affirming event after being denied it as a child.
In your world view do you leave room for people whose personal rejection of religion is for a wonderful affirmation of life? Or are they all immature or rebellious?
I ask because we are often at odds in religious discussions. It is predictable since you are a sincere believer and I have moved away from the LDS church. When I have disagreements with someone, I try to avoid it being caustic.
When I talk with latter-day saints, they often reference "sin" or "rebellion" as a reason people leave the church. I find it frustrating that people seem to not be able to accept a third possibility. I am wondering if this is a "church sentiment."
Like most people, I like to be understood. I also like to understand other people. What are your thoughts?
EDIT: I would like to add that I am surprised that this video solicited such strong discussion about religion. I see very little about God or religion in the video. The video is just a bad case of parenting.
posted
Porter, I really don't think you get it. I am done talking about Dr. Price's work here. I've explained that multiple times. I guess you'll just have to see for yourself.
It's over. Hatrackers, in a general sense, don't want to hear that fish eggs are great for you. They don't want to hear that junk food makes children's teeth crooked. They don't want to hear about Dr. Pottenger's Cats. Am I wrong about that?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, what does that have to do at all with this thread? Why hijack it with a personal vendetta?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has officially not been doctrine since before I was born.
Yeah, but it still gets me that it used to be doctrine. I very suspivious of the other things said by people with that sort of framework.
---
There's a general class of things about peopel who aren't in your religion that I think really takes people out of it.
Many religions, officially or otherwise, teach things about the characteristics of people with different faiths or atheists (or gay people). In the current world, most people are going to have plenty of opportunities to realize that these negative things aren't true, which helps call into doubt a lot of the other things that they were taught.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Steven, what does that have to do at all with this thread?
To be fair, I'm the one that brought Dr. Price up, mainly as a way 1) to demonstrate to steven that his opinion of Kat is not shared by all and, in fact, is closer to the opinion some have of him, and 2) to show Kat - although I suspect she already knew this - that steven's opinion of Kat is not shared by all.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where is Squicky to help me combat the clique?
Dude, you are way out of line with your bevahior in this thread. If I thought you were being treated unfairly, I'd take your part, but I don't.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: King of Men, whose definition of sanity are you using? The last time I checked, there was no baseline for sanity regarding whether someone holds religious beliefs or not.
Check again. I'm using the definition that includes a healthy skepticism towards claims for which no evidence is advanced, including the efficacy of snake oil, insurance, used cars, and prayer.
(Wow, this thread has moved on while I wasn't looking!)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men: that is a subjective definition that has very little real value outside of rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Jutsa Notha Name, why don't you start calling yourself "Jutsa Notha Alt"?
Alt for whom? You should be positive I'm not a windmill before charging. I don't know you, all I know is that you are being disruptive at someone with whom I am having a conversation.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I won't discuss Dr. Price's work here, because of lack of anyone else caring. I have plenty of other BBs to discuss it on, with people who don't need 50 pages of explanation to be able to argue the issues I feel like arguing. I was never in the mood to educate an entire forum.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has officially not been doctrine since before I was born.
Yeah, but it still gets me that it used to be doctrine. I very suspivious of the other things said by people with that sort of framework.
I completely empathize with that. For me, there is enough that is true and worthwhile about Catholicism for me that I think it is worth "fixing" the stuff where we are wrong. And I see evidence of stuff being "fixed". Not enough and not fast enough, but still encouraging.
Totally a personal decision, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has nothing to do with Dr. Price, steven. It has to do with you and your comments about Kat.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I don't and didn't think anyone was taking steven seriously at all. I appreciate the thought. I'm really okay. People can discuss it if they want, but I'm not going to pursue a conversation with him.
-----
Lem: I do not believe that all rejection of religion is immature or rebellious.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think kat is an attention junkie. Does no one else honestly feel or see similarly?
No, I think she is sincere, kind, and sometimes makes me agitated--as does anyone who is that dead-set in their religion. But that says more about me then her.
I think you don't look at yourself, are arrogant, mean spirited in how you are attacking Kat, and are likely not to get much sympathy--especially when you characterize a need to "educate an entire forum."
At what point does it take someone to look at themselves and think, "It might be me."
btw kat, thanks for your response.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need sympathy, BTW, lem. I can absorb more abuse than any 10 Hatrackers, and come up smiling every time. Dunno why. I've always been tougher than most.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am determined to not let steven derail the discussion.
lem, it is an interesting discussion about rejection of religion. I think it can be carefully-considered, adult decision, although it isn't always. I think it is usually a combination of factors.
I had a roommate in college whose dad was a sociologist of the LDS church, and he said (I know - horribly citations - take the following for what it is worth) that in a study done by the church, the number one reason people go inactive is because of a lack of a social connection. I can't remember what the other reasons were, but absence of a testimony (i.e. not believing it) was in the top ten although not the top five.
Dang it, I wish I could remember the list. Anyway, I remember being surprised when I read it because it wasn't what I expected. However, it did make me realize that there are complicated reasons for joining, staying in, and leaving the church.
For my opinion (and this is just my opinion), I think a lack of testimony comes from not feeling the Spirit. I don't know all the possible reasons for that. Sometimes we don't listen, sometimes we are trying to listen but other things get in the way, sometimes what we are praying about isn't true so the Spirit won't testify, and sometimes - and I don't know why this is - we simply aren't receiving anything.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, that father of your friend in college, based on your interpretation of what was said, may have been elaborating on a very good point. The same influences I described regarding our childhood continues as adults, and naturally that would apply in our religious leanings as well. It surely has an impact on our social and political leanings, so there is no reason that it would not have an equal effect in a congregational setting for religion.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's power down a little bit, folks (not all, but more than one, and that's as specific as I'd like to get). Thank you to those who are attempting to rerail the discussion, and are endeavoring to keep the discussion, loaded as it may be with disagreements, respectful.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... in a study done by the [LDS] church, the number one reason people go inactive is because of a lack of a social connection. I can't remember what the other reasons were, but absence of a testimony (i.e. not believing it) was in the top ten although not the top five.
Dang it, I wish I could remember the list. Anyway, I remember being surprised when I read it because it wasn't what I expected. However, it did make me realize that there are complicated reasons for joining, staying in, and leaving the church.
That finding may be specific to LDS, or not. I remember commenting to a librarian after reading Lost Boys that it was enough to make me want to convert to LDS just for the incredible social support network.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, I'm not sure why you think the people who disagree with you here should have to prove a negative. You're alleging that kat is an attention junkie, but all I've seen is that she disagrees with some folks, and wants to discuss the disagreement. That's hardly unusual for a web forum.
I don't see any evidence that she has another motivation beyond that, and it seems like you're making an unfounded accusation.
Before demanding evidence to counter your claim, you should probably have some evidence to support it. Your own conclusions from attempting to read kat's mind don't count Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit as evidence that more threads on this side of the forum derail to becoming about Kat than any other hatracker. Granted, she is one of the oldest of the old-timers, and one of the more prolific posters, but....how many threads derail to becoming about TomD or any of the other high-post-count old-timers? Just sayin'.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: That finding may be specific to LDS, or not. I remember commenting to a librarian after reading Lost Boys that it was enough to make me want to convert to LDS just for the incredible social support network.
I am also impressed with the social network portrayed by the LDS community. I don't know anything about it first hand, but there seems to be a great deal of planning built in for emergency situations.
Personally, I'm disappointed in human nature to the extent that people seem much more willing to help those within their own group than the population at large. I understand it completely, but it's still a hard pill to swallow.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep waiting for someone to validate my point openly without insulting me or condescending to me, or scolding me. Basically, agree with me without pissing me off in the same breath. Then, and only then, might I willingly shut up about this.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if no one agrees with you, you'll never shut up about it??
That doesn't compute.
edit: 2 out 2 6:01pm posters agree! hopefully, this is my last post on this topic. Cheer up, steven!! Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Personally, I'm disappointed in human nature to the extent that people seem much more willing to help those within their own group than the population at large. I understand it completely, but it's still a hard pill to swallow.
I definitely agree that the LDS Church members could do more in their relationships with non-members.
However, is it really strange and terrible that someone would help someone in their own family, tribe, community, or whatever before they help someone outside of that group? For example, if both your son and the neighbor's son needed 1 hour of your time to help repair their cars, and you only had 1 hour to give, wouldn't you help your son?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm really okay. People can discuss it if they want, but I'm not going to pursue a conversation with him.![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
