I do hope I don't offend anyone with this title. If it does offend you, let me know and I'll change it ASAP. My question shouldn't really be that controversial. It's just something I thought of on my drive home tonight.
Two things spurred this thought. First off, for yesterdays Easter service, my church focused quite a bit on kids. There were numerous musical numbers... it was really very cute. One of my friends had 3 little siblings in the performance, and her parents had asked their parents (grandparents to my friend and the little performers) to come watch the kids. The grandparents are devoutly atheist, and from what I gather, very anti-religious. They didn't come. Secondly, there is this storage facility that I pass on my drive home that has quite a prominent marquee. About 50% of the time, this marquee has blatant Christian messages on it. I thought to myself, "I wonder if they lose any business because of that".
So my question is, how deep do your anti-religious (or anti-Christian) feelings go? If your grandchildren, or really anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church? And if you knew that a business was run by devout Christians, would you not go there solely for that reason?
[ April 20, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Dr Strangelove ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:If . . . anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church?
Yes, but not for the reason you are implying. My refusal to enter churches, or any houses of worship other than those of my own religion, is not anti-religious -- it's pro MY religion.
But I can fully understand someone who believes in no religion being equally uncomfortable in a house of worship.
quote:And if you knew that a business was run by devout Christians, would you not go there solely for that reason?
No, not unless I was I was being proselytized at just by opening the door (and I have been in places like that).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not a fan of organized religion, not really anyway. I was raised semi-Catholic, but my parents never really hammered it home like a lot of religious families do, and it didn't stick.
However, I am rather spiritual, after a fashion. It's the organized part of religion I don't buy into, not the higher power aspect.
But, I think that is a very personal decision. I don't judge others for being religious, I judge their actions. Thus, I would not punish a business for being pro-religious, or a politician. Likely, a politician's religiousity will have little or nothing to do with my vote, but if he supports policies that I don't like, and that just happen to be religious philosophies, then I won't vote for him, but it's not because of his religion (at least not directly).
Likewise, I would attend any event at a church, be it a cousin singing in an Easter show, or going to the wedding of a close friend. Just so long as they don't try and push it on me, I have zero problem with it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:If . . . anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church?
Yes, but not for the reason you are implying. My refusal to enter churches, or any houses of worship other than those of my own religion, is not anti-religious -- it's pro MY religion.
I have to say, I don't understand the reasoning behind that. If you had a close friend or relative that was getting married in a church you wouldn't go, as a show of support for your own religion? How does a boycott make you a better Jew?
Is this a common Jewish thing?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
So you know where I'm coming from - I'm an atheist, if that's the right short hand term for someone who absolutely does not believe in God. Personally, I prefer 'heathen' . I'm not questioning, not looking for religion, although in the course of coming to the conclusions I have about religion, I have learned a great deal about other's beliefs and read the bible cover-to-cover more than once. I have many problems with the concept of organised religion, especially when it is imposed on me, as it was while I was at school.
But I don't see the need to be disrespectful to other people's beliefs. I live with devout Christians and they know what I believe and pretty much accept it, as I do their beliefs. Does it bother me that they believe that I'm damned? Yeah, maybe a little.
I'm not anti-religious, in the sense that I believe that I have the right to tell people they are wrong. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a person isn't hurting someone else with their beliefs, that's fine by me.
But I suppose what I do feel a lot of the time is as is I belong to a slightly different ethnicity - I just don't see churches, holy days, etc as being connected to my life. As for setting foot in a church if a friend was performing - well, despite my beliefs I used to be in a gospel choir. So no, and I think it's a shame that these grandparents are missing out on these experinces. To me that sound like a control issue, that they're disappointed with their kids for having different belief than they do and are trying to punish them.
But it does bother me a little when people tell me that in order to be acceptable to society I should 'pretend to pray' in certain social situations. To me, if I were religious that would be the worst sort of blasphemy. So I'd totally go to church, but I would act, respectfully, as a non-participatory visitor - probably just as you would in a mosque.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyrhawn, it's not a "boycott." And it's not a "show of support."
I am forbidden to enter places of worship of other religions. Period. It is not a place that I belong. I'm fine with that -- why aren't you?
And yes, most (if not all) Orthodox Jews will behave similarly. (In fact, I got very odd looks from my rabbi when I asked him about being in the foyer of a church (outside the sanctuary) so I could sort-of attend a wedding last year.)
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Bella Bee, sounds like we agree quite a bit on our views of organized religion. The main difference being, of course, that I am a Christian .
I thought to myself when considering this question, if my best friend were Muslim, and they were performing in a mosque, would I not go simply because it was in a mosque? And likewise, if I knew for a fact that my storage facility was owned by Muslims, would I leave? To both questions I answered "Of course not!". It doesn't make much sense to me (though I can understand, rivka, that as a tradition or rule or whatever, it doesn't have to make sense, it just is. I respect that).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
rivka, it's not a matter of my being fine with it. It doesn't matter if I am fine with it. It's your religion.
I'm curious as to the wording of "a place that I belong" though. When I go to a concert, it's not necessarily a place that I "belong," it's a place that I choose to be for a specific reason. But since I assume there are doctrinal issues for why you can't be in another house of worship, I won't bother discussing diction, I don't know enough about Orthodox Judaism.
Just strikes me as odd, that's all. It wouldn't bother me unless I was getting married and I wanted to invite you to my wedding and you couldn't/wouldn't attend. But I don't know you well enough for a wedding invite (though if you want to send a present someday, I'll probably be registered at Best Buy when I do get married ).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It makes a lot of sense -- to me, anyway.
But I think this may come from a basic difference between Judaism and some other religions. We don't try to convert people (we actively discourage conversion) because we believe that both Jews and non-Jews have important roles in the world. That men and women have different tasks. That cohanim (priests), levi'im (Levites), and Yisraelim (Jews who are neither of the above) all have different jobs. (Of course, there are some tasks that overlap between groups, or that EVERYONE has.)
As a Jewish woman, there are places I belong, and places I do not. I do not belong in the middle of the middle of the Mir. And I don't belong in a church.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
1) I'd go. Even if the performance itself was overtly religious, I'd still go. But I'd be grumpy as hell with the parents for making their kids go through it. And I'd of course try and make heathens out of the grandkids
2) I would not patronize the business. They have every right to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to give em my money. I find that sort of religious advertising to be extremely distasteful. Now if I knew they were devout christians, but they didn't feel the need to advertise it like in the example you mentioned, then sure I'd patronize it. They've done nothing to me by believing what they believe. It's only when they feel the need to shove it in my face that I get grumpy.
Generally, I'm extremely anti-organized religion. Simply becuase organized religion generally leads to very very bad things. But I'm not at all anti-religious people. If they don't shove their beliefs in my face, I don't shove mine in theirs. I believe in live and let live. And really, if people want to gather together at one church or another to practice their beliefs, that's fine by me. It's only when said religious organization starts attempting to use its to a) aggressively recruit new members (ie loud religious advertising of the sort I strongly dislike) or b) foist its particular religion or view of morality on others (from billboard to political pressure, it all makes me grumpy) that I start to get very, very mean. And unfortunately, this very well describes a lot of christian organizations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, attending a wedding does give you a good opportunity to scope out the supports and such. You don't want to waste your dynamite on walls that aren't load-bearing.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Personally, I prefer 'heathen' [Smile] .
one for you,
quote:Well, attending a wedding does give you a good opportunity to scope out the supports and such. You don't want to waste your dynamite on walls that aren't load-bearing.
and one for you.
1) Of course I'd go; family's too important. In my opinion grandparents exist to a) spoil the grandkids, and b) incite mischief as a form of revenge against their children. That's hard to accomplish if you're not building rapport with the grandkids.
2) It really depends. I think the most important question for me is how the owners respond when/if they find out I'm an atheist. If there are any persistant conversion attempts, you can bet I won't be going back.
Christian themed stores just creep me out. Religion and consumerism make for strange bedfellows.
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
Even if it was some psycho religion I'd go to see the grandkids.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm an atheist.
quote:If your grandchildren, or really anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church?
I'd go, especially if they really wanted me there. I would not, however, participate in any of the rituals.
quote:And if you knew that a business was run by devout Christians, would you not go there solely for that reason?
It depends on the nature of the posted slogans. When I drive down the street here I see one or two signs that say things like "Prepare to Meet Thy God." If such a sign were outside a store I would definitely avoid buying stuff there. When I was in university, every term for four years I saw signs everywhere that said "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God!" With a meeting time and place for a Christian group at the bottom. Finally I got sick of it and one night in my final year I went to campus late at night armed with a stapler and a set of homemade posters that read: "Do you not know? Have you not heard? God does not exist!" And then, at the bottom: "Don't care? Great -- neither do we! A message from AWE -- Apatheists of Waterloo Engineering."
So evangelism, in the negative sense, irritates me. If, on the other hand, the signs posted outside the hypothetical store showed one of the many positive Christian messages (loving thy neighbour and the like), that'd be fine.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Very amusing, Twinky.
I wonder how you'd have reacted to the "Jesus has returned" posters that greeted me on my first trip to Harding University.
(Jesus turned out to be a Hispanic student active in the student government.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What was funny, in a sad way, was how many of the signs were torn or even torn down over the following couple of days.
Was there any indication of Jesus' identity on the sign at Harding?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
There was this church in my hometown that had a big sign over it that said, "Jesus Christ - Coming Soon." I always thought it deserved some response like, "WHEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNN!?!?!?" Nothing I could think of ever lived up to the sign itself though. Some things come with the best possible joke already included.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I don't recall any more...that would have been back in...'94? There might have been some indication, but I seem to remember having to ask what it was all about.
I wish that had been the year I actually enrolled, rather than just coming to investigate the school. Harding is one of my church's schools and I'd have liked to have seen the students' reaction, but it was a break period or something, and most people were gone.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:If . . . anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church?
Yes, but not for the reason you are implying. My refusal to enter churches, or any houses of worship other than those of my own religion, is not anti-religious -- it's pro MY religion.
I have to say, I don't understand the reasoning behind that. If you had a close friend or relative that was getting married in a church you wouldn't go, as a show of support for your own religion? How does a boycott make you a better Jew?
Is this a common Jewish thing?
Yup. We're not allowed to go into places that would be idolatry for us. Note: I'm not saying that Christianity is idolatry for non-Jews. But it is for Jews.
I'd go into a mosque. Whatever issues I have with Islam, that isn't one of them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lyrhawn, it's not a "boycott." And it's not a "show of support."
I am forbidden to enter places of worship of other religions. Period. It is not a place that I belong. I'm fine with that -- why aren't you?
And yes, most (if not all) Orthodox Jews will behave similarly. (In fact, I got very odd looks from my rabbi when I asked him about being in the foyer of a church (outside the sanctuary) so I could sort-of attend a wedding last year.)
You're allowed to go into a mosque, rivka. Ask your rabbi, if you don't believe me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm confused. Going into a church would be idolatry but going into a mosque wouldn't be?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I disagree with the idea that you should stay away from places of worship if they are for a religion you don't believe in. Similarly, I disagree with the idea that places of worship should try to exclude people who don't believe. A place of worship is just a place - it is not the thing being worshipped, and shouldn't be confused with that. I don't think being there means anything unless you choose to make it mean something by worshipping.
quote:When I drive down the street here I see one or two signs that say things like "Prepare to Meet Thy God." If such a sign were outside a store I would definitely avoid buying stuff there. When I was in university, every term for four years I saw signs everywhere that said "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God!" With a meeting time and place for a Christian group at the bottom. Finally I got sick of it and one night in my final year I went to campus late at night armed with a stapler and a set of homemade posters that read: "Do you not know? Have you not heard? God does not exist!" And then, at the bottom: "Don't care? Great -- neither do we! A message from AWE -- Apatheists of Waterloo Engineering."
Oh come on... even McDonald's has more pushy advertising than that. How would you want them to advertise? "God may or may not exist - but come to Bible Study just in case!" Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Juxtapose, I assume it's because of the lack of iconography depicting God in mosques.
quote:Yes, but not for the reason you are implying. My refusal to enter churches, or any houses of worship other than those of my own religion, is not anti-religious -- it's pro MY religion.
::knows where he'll hide if rivka is ever out to murder him::
But seriously, what about the interfaith worship rooms that they have in hospitals and airports? Are those off limits too?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
And why idolatry? Would it imply you were worshipping idols?
I mean I KNOW that idolatry is wrong ... but simply being in a place where people worship differently than you doesn't make you worship that way. I'm curious where this restriction got its start?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
1. I'd attend a church social function if I were invited. I would probably politely refuse a sermon or mass where the primary purpose was to "hear the word". However, if a relative or very close friend wanted me to come to a wedding, baptism, first communion, or something like that, I'd attend as a spectator, but not as a participant in the ritual itself.
2. I avoid places that advertise their Christianity. The only time I think it's appropriate is when the service or store is catering specifically to Christians, as in a Christian bookstore. In that case, it just makes sense. When businesses unnecessarily advertise their piety, it tends to raise my hackles. It's like they're saying "Shop here. We're Christian", implying that those who aren't are somehow inferior. I think it's important to note that I felt this way even when I considered myself religious, and for much the same reasons.
Rivka, I was surprised to learn that Orthodox Jews are forbidden to enter other places of worship. Is that for any reason? Could you not, for example, take a tour of the National Cathedral in DC? And what was the answer to the "foyer" question?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The foyer was okay. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
The type of signs this business puts up are those "clever" religious slogan type things. This weeks is "1 cross + 3 nails = 4given. Happy Easter!". Stuff like that. Never any of the hellfire and damnation stuff. I mean, they also have weeks where they have "Man who runs in front of car gets tired, man who runs behind car gets exhausted". So that's the thing, I don't get the impression they are pushy people. I can completely understand not wanting to go somewhere where you are preached to. That severly detracts from the enjoyability of ... whatever. And yes, these grandparents have been invited to just normal church services, and refused, which is understandable I suppose, again coming back to the fact that it simply wouldn't be enjoyable to be preached at, but when that lack of enjoyability outweighs the positive feelings you get from seeing your grandkids look absolutely adorable (and they really did. It was soo cute), that ... baffles me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I disagree with the idea that you should stay away from places of worship if they are for a religion you don't believe in.
I don't think that's what rivka's saying -- if the prohibition in Orthodox Judaism is against idolatry and depictions of god are therefore inappropriate, then depictions of Jesus by members of a religion that claims he is the son of god would be idolatrous to Orthodox Jews, no?
quote:Oh come on... even McDonald's has more pushy advertising than that. How would you want them to advertise? "God may or may not exist - but come to Bible Study just in case!"
What's wrong with "Bible study group meets weekly at time X?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly what's wrong with what they did say, though?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I think there's something different between, "Bible study group meets weekly at time X" and, essentially, "Did you know that my beliefs are correct and yours are not?"
Don't you see the difference?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Given that I don't believe in god, it's false advertising.
Are you asking if I think there was something morally wrong with it, if it was against school regulations, or why I didn't like it? Those are three separate questions.
Added: As to question three, Chungwa's got it. Added 2: The answer to both of the first two questions is "no."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm not sure how accurately the "anti" religious title fits me or many that have posted on this thread. When I think anti-religion, I think KOM or other people that act agressively against religion. I think that non-religious is probably a better title for me and the way that I perceive many who have posted.
quote:If your grandchildren, or really anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church?
I wouldn't refuse to go. When my niece was being blessed, my sister asked me to attend and so I did. The entire family, on both sides, was coming and she wanted me to be there. I did not in any way feel that she was trying to convert me. My dad, on the other hand, frequently invites me to church events and his intent to convert is crystal clear. I can't imagine that any event would make me accept his invitation.
quote:And if you knew that a business was run by devout Christians, would you not go there solely for that reason?
As others have said, it would depend on how obnoxious they were about it. From what you described, I would have no problem.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think there's something different between, "Bible study group meets weekly at time X" and, essentially, "Did you know that my beliefs are correct and yours are not?" Don't you see the difference?
It seems to me that you dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that you disagree with. Although, by merely stating "God exists" one is certainly also including the thought "and those who don't believe that God exists are wrong," the same can be said of any statement of belief.
"Did you know that my beliefs are correct and yours are not?" is not the same as "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God!" The only way "yours are not" is included in that statement is because stating any positive belief carries an implicit statement that other beliefs inconsistent with the stated one are wrong.
It seems like your criticism, as stated, could be applied to any positive statement of belief.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't agree. "The Lord is the everlasting God!" on its own would have been quite tolerable. The "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is condescending, and is the irritant (for me, at least). That's why I replicated that part verbatim in my parody.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Dag... how in the hell can you not see how that statement could be extremely offensive to someone who doesn't believe in god.
Just as his response was extremely offensive to anyone who does believe in god. The tone in that statement: "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God!" is basically "What, are you a moron? God exists! And he's your lord!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't agree. "The Lord is the everlasting God!" on its own would have been quite tolerable. The "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is condescending, and is the irritant (for me, at least). That's why I replicated that part verbatim in my parody.
Why, exactly? That's what I'm not getting here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag... how in the hell can you not see how that statement could be extremely offensive to someone who doesn't believe in god.
Whoa, there, sparky. I've asked why it could be offensive. That should pretty clearly indicate that I don't see how it could be offensive.
You've also moved it up to "extremely offensive" with this response.
quote:Just as his response was extremely offensive to anyone who does believe in god. The tone in that statement: "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God!" is basically "What, are you a moron? God exists! And he's your lord!"
No, it's using evocative phrases from scripture.
I'm confused as to how "Did you not know" becomes "you moron."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm pretty sure the words are written that way because they are the direct lyrics of a song (and also directly taken from the Bible? Not sure, but I think so...) - presumably something that the target audience of that poster would recognize.
It's also a way of speaking that sounds very Biblical - sound of like saying "Thou Shalt".
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Just FYI, that advertising was probably meant for exisitng Christians, not to convert anyone. The question/affirmation format is quite common, particularly around Easter. (Have you not heard? Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed!) They probably didn't even consider how it would sound to someone not familiar with the tradition.
(And now I've been delayed by a phone call and this post is probably way later. )
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I am an atheist but I often perform religious songs in Churches with choirs. I like them because often they are quite beautiful buildings with candles and stained-glass-windows and really great acoustics. I've been only once to a proper church service- to sing in a choir.
I suppose it doesn't bother me that much because I went to a church school when I was younger and (although I never was religious) I was taught by my parents to go along with it so I did spend some time learning about Christianity. We had a lovely old large medieval church nearby and on special occaisions we'd go as a school. Not to the service but for a school function. Anyway, the result was I learnt to appreciate churches in a secular way and so entering them in a secular capacity usually doesn't bother me. I do however, feel very uncomfortable at a religious service.
I also feel very uncomfortable when religion enters in to an otherwise secular environment, e.g. someone adding "God bless you" or something more non-denominational, especially since most of the time there are non-Christians present.
I guess my view of religion is that I'm in the middle of all religions. Organized religions are around the edges like the pointy bits on the circumfrence of a drawn sun. I suppose I don't feel that I would be as offended as other religions because I'm in the middle of them all by having none.
As for businesses, unless they were actively obnoxiously advertising, I don't care what religion they are. I would probably be somewhat wary of a place with signs and pictures everywhere just because it's not exactly open to anyone but whatever religion the advertisement is for. I would never work in an overtly religious environment.
I'm not Anti-Religion, and churches are lovely buildings and very useful for musical performances, but I don't like having religion publicized and advertised in my face. I also don't like people trying to convert me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Twinky, does the fact that the entire phrase, including the "Do you not know, have you not heard" part is a direct Bible quote make any difference? It's not just something the person making the posters made up to say "hey you dummies, what's wrong with you?"
Also, I think you didn't quite catch rivka's meaning in your explanation. I'm pretty sure it's considering Jesus divine in the first place that's the problem, not images (which most Protestant churches don't have anyway.) If you don't accept the premise that the One and Only God became flesh, then worshiping Jesus would be worshiping something other than said One and Only God. Hence, idolatry.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You should keep in mind that when Christians say something like "Do you not know?", they are thinking of spreading their religious beliefs as literally telling "good news". It's "Do you not know?" as in "Do you not know? You just won the lottery!" The implication is not supposed to be that you are an idiot. The implication is supposed to be that they are excited to bring you such good news.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God" -- Isaiah 40:28 (NIV)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The fact that it uses phrases from scripture in a format Christians are familiar with doesn't change my opinion, no.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not that interested in what their intent was. My point in producing the parody was to demonstrate how the quote parses to anyone who is not immediately familiar with it -- which, I'm willing to guess, is the vast majority of the engineering student population attending UW.
To such a person, the implication of "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is that the only ways you might not already believe in their religion are (1) you just haven't heard about it yet, or (2) you're some sort of heathen. The suggestion, then, is that both of these regrettable situations can be rectified with a quick visit to their meeting.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
But how do they know where to draw the line? If someone were to come into my house, there might be some rosaries and a crucifix or two around the living room. Maybe. Go to an interfaith area and there might be Jewish symbols and Christian symbols there(actually I have no idea if that could happen) or maybe the room is used for Christian prayer 12 hours a week and the rest of the time it is merely an empty room. And what's the difference between a foyer and the back of a church, other than a foot of space?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I'm not sure how accurately the "anti" religious title fits me or many that have posted on this thread.
Count me with Amanecer. I meant to bring this up in my previous post, but forgot. I don't consider myself "anti-religious" although I'm very much non-religious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point in producing the parody was to demonstrate how the quote parses to anyone who is not immediately familiar with it
An intent which probably failed, because those who are familiar with it probably thought you were simply altering scripture to spread your own message, which is very different from the way you interpreted it.
quote:To such a person, the implication of "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is that the only ways you might not already believe in their religion are (1) you just haven't heard about it yet, or (2) you're some sort of heathen. The suggestion, then, is that both of these regrettable situations can be rectified with a quick visit to their meeting.
Only if you're reading a LOT into the questions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To be perfectly honest, I'm not that interested in what their intent was.
Maybe, but you should be, if you are getting offended. If they are intentionally insulting you, then shame on them. If you are finding offense where there is none intended, and getting angry at them as a result, then shame on you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I never said I was offended. I said I was irritated enough, over a period of four years, to produce a parody.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:To such a person, the implication of "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is that the only ways you might not already believe in their religion are (1) you just haven't heard about it yet, or (2) you're some sort of heathen. The suggestion, then, is that both of these regrettable situations can be rectified with a quick visit to their meeting.
Only if you're reading a LOT into the questions.
I disagree completely. I think this is the natural implication to a native English speaker who is unfamiliar with the Bible.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Whoa, there, sparky.
Sorry, Dag, no sleep + lots of caffine = bad time to post. I was up all night working on a very rough programming project, so my mind's kinda in tatters. But there was kinda a point to using that tone in my post. The same tone I used in the post is how that poster sounds to those of us not familiar with its tradition in christianity. It's the "how the hell do you not know?" tone. It sounds arrogant and condecending. Now that I know the tradition behind it, I'm not as offended.
Perhaps the posters could take that into account next time they make one. You know... show the bible quote, have a little fine print blurb about the history of the phrasing and its significance around Easter time. Something like that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I never said I was offended. I said I was irritated enough, over a period of four years, to produce a parody.
True. Alcon, on the other hand, would apparently be "extremely" offended. (Edit: Not now that he knows where it comes from.)
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:To such a person, the implication of "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is that the only ways you might not already believe in their religion are (1) you just haven't heard about it yet, or (2) you're some sort of heathen. The suggestion, then, is that both of these regrettable situations can be rectified with a quick visit to their meeting.
Only if you're reading a LOT into the questions.
I disagree completely. I think this is the natural implication to a native English speaker who is unfamiliar with the Bible.
Why, though? You're making this huge leap in intent, and I still haven't seen a cogent explanation as to why this is the natural implication of those questions.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:I am the Lord thy God, do not worship any other Gods but me.
Well, I'm agnostic there could be one I just simply don't know if their is and nor could I join a religion since i would be unable to take it as seriously as other people or possess the faith to be a member of it.
But If friends were perfoming in a Church I would go to provide support, not like I'll burst into flames for being a pinko commie bastard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's the "how the hell do you not know?"
Every time someone tries to explain this to me, they add words ("how the hell") which make the offensiveness clear. My question is why does adding those words make sense?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Because that's just how it sounds to someone not familiar with the tradition. How else can we explain it? That's the tone I read it with when I see that. That's the implication that seems to be there.
Once aquainted with the tradition that tone/implication vanishes. But before that... *shrug* that's how it reads in my head.
Try looking at Twinks prank. What tone do you add to that statement? (though perhaps it will be hard for you to see it, already well aquainted with the tradition...)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, to me, as someone who is not overly familiar with the bible, it implies that the most likely reason that the reader would not believe in God is that they are either ignorant ("do you not know?") or have somehow managed to get all the way to engineering school without having been let in on the fact that God exists ("have you not heard?").
Edit:
There's no third option of "have you examined the evidence/lack thereof and reached the conclusion most logical to you?". It just assumes that the only two possiblities are that you've just never heard of God, or are somehow still confused even though you've heard of God.
Further, the sign attempts to remedy the situation for you. "You don't believe in God? Well, either you haven't heard or you are simply mistaken. In either case, I'll solve that for you by telling you that God is, in fact, our everlasting lord. Glad we've cleared that up for you. You're very welcome."
Knowing the passage is from the bible, now, I can see that the sign was meant for current believers, and is not addressed to non-believers. But not knowing the bible verse, it appears directed at non-believers, and in an extremely condescending way.
[ April 18, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Try looking at Twinks prank. What tone do you add to that statement?
Parodying atheist. The same tone I associate with the dawrin fish w/ legs on the back of a car. *shrug*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee,
I think the offensive tone may come from the use of the negative (to those unfamiliar with the verse). "Don't you know" rather than "do you know" does, at least to me, imply some fault in the listener or at least some surprise that the listener didn't know.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why, though? You're making this huge leap in intent, and I still haven't seen a cogent explanation as to why this is the natural implication of those questions.
I'm not making a leap in intent. I assume that the people who created the poster didn't do so to be intentionally condescending.
The other implications that have been proposed are dependent on outside knowledge (of the Bible, Christian tradition, etc.). If one does not have that outside knowledge, I'll try to break down how I think it parses:
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? X is true!"
From this, if you do not know that X is true, the most likely cause is that you haven't heard that X is true. If you hear X, then, you must be very likely to immediately see that it is self-evidently true.
If you've heard X and haven't accepted it as true, it conveys incredulity, since all you should need to do in order to accept the truth of X is to hear it.
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Try looking at Twinks prank. What tone do you add to that statement?
Parodying atheist. The same tone I associate with the dawrin fish w/ legs on the back of a car. *shrug*
Including the text at the bottom? Also, could you describe this tone a little more fully? Is there negativity associated with it?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It sounds like the opening line of a song in a musical.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I feel similarly to twinky on this one. It gives me the same kind of feeling as when I admit to ignorance on a certain topic and someone stares at me and replies, "you didn't know that?" albeit, to a lesser extent.
Tresopax, Very probably offense wasn't intended. But they should understand that some people will view that kind of text as offensive, or in my case, just annoying. And twinky told them so, if rather snarkily, which I can't really blame them for. It's not like he was callous about it.
Text of that flavor can be annoying or offensive precisely because some people actually do use it in a condescending way or even threatening way. It's even happened to me within the context of higher education, though more rarely, so I wouldn't say Twinky was wholly out of line.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: the most likely cause is that you haven't heard that X is true.
This is the sticking point, I think. Where does it imply this?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Have you not heard?" is the only cause that is listed. That suggests to me that it's the most likely cause.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Including the text at the bottom?
You mean the "Don't care" stuff?
quote:Also, could you describe this tone a little more fully? Is there negativity associated with it?
Not really, any more than parody/satire usually generates.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Consider this, Dags.
A. Do you not know that you stop at red lights?
B. Has no one told you?
C. Stop at red lights!
Expression A expresses surprise that the person did not know that you should stop at red lights.
Expression B following statement A implies that the most likely reason that the person did not know A, is because they had not heard A.
Statement C solves the ignorance of A and B in a self evident manner.
Edit: Replace "stop at red lights" with "God exists" or "God is a homosexual" or something else which is completely NOT self evident, and it can be offensive.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Although I probably wouldn't have been terribly offended by the posters (annoyed, but not offended), I really like Twinky's prank.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Including the text at the bottom?
You mean the "Don't care" stuff?
Right.
quote:
quote:Also, could you describe this tone a little more fully? Is there negativity associated with it?
Not really, any more than parody/satire usually generates.
Okay. Thanks for elaborating.
This was more than two years ago now. I'm starting to get a little nostalgic for those days, what with all this talk of when I was in fourth year.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Out of context, I think the most likely interpretation of the verse is exactly the one that Twinky came up with. Which is why I would not choose that particular verse to use on outreach-type publicity.
In context, the verse has the exact same connotations, except that it's directly aimed at people who have heard and do (supposedly) know. The chiding tone is definiately there, but it's directed at insiders who aren't acting in accordance with what they claim to believe. Our non-religious friends are not reading anything into it that isn't already there -- it just isn't aimed at them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Although I probably wouldn't have been terribly offended by the posters (annoyed, but not offended), I really like Twinky's prank.
Like I said, that's exactly how I felt -- irritated. Posting my parody around the engineering buildings (about a dozen copies) definitely helped assauge my irritation, so you could say that my motivation was partly selfish. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I understand the impetus behind the parody. The flyers probably wouldn't have prompted me to do anything, but every time I saw one I'd mentally reply something like "yeah, been there, done that."
But I do understand the feeling. Every work day I drive by a church on a hill that has "JESUS" written across its roof in lights. I want to put "SATAN" on the roof of the building across the street if for no other reason than to provide some yang for that yin. What bothers me about that one, though, is the inanity of it. Are they advertising that this is a "Jesus" church instead of, say, a "Bob" church? Are they marking the church so Jesus will notice it when he comes again? I think I'd be less irritated if it at least expressed a complete thought, like "JESUS SAVES" or something.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah. Every time I drive to Ohio I pass (among other things) a big barn that has "JESUS" on one side of the roof and what I can only assume is the family's last name on the other side. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
This past Christmas, both my kids were in the local Church's Cristmas play. My daughter danced the part of Mary. My son helped with the tech.
I'm agressively atheist, as is my son (one of his best friends is devoutly Christian--no, really!). My daughter is agnostic; my wife is lapsed Catholic (though she did take communion that one time last year at the Cristmas Mass).
We were fine. My friends, who lead the lay-mass (and who are pretty much the music directors for this church) know our religious beliefs; they were fine about it, too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I'm confused. Going into a church would be idolatry but going into a mosque wouldn't be?
We have more stringent rules for idolatry than those which apply to others. The whole trinity thing in Christianity is in opposition to the Jewish belief in absolute monotheism. That makes it idolatry for us.
Islam is purely monotheistic.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
When foods that were essentially kosher versions of non-kosher foods (like Baco's or that fake shrimp and crab that's made from Alaskan pollock) first came out, there was actually a ruling that you couldn't serve it without the packaging being in plain sight. Nowadays, it's so ubiquitous that this isn't necessary.
If I go into a church, it's too hard for people to make the distinction. It could appear that I'm worshipping there. It's probably less likely if I'm walking through ruins.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: But how do they know where to draw the line? If someone were to come into my house, there might be some rosaries and a crucifix or two around the living room. Maybe. Go to an interfaith area and there might be Jewish symbols and Christian symbols there(actually I have no idea if that could happen) or maybe the room is used for Christian prayer 12 hours a week and the rest of the time it is merely an empty room. And what's the difference between a foyer and the back of a church, other than a foot of space?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches consecrated? That's a difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches consecrated? That's a difference.
Catholic churches definitely are. At least some Protestant churches aren't, but I'm not sure which ones.
Many congregations meet for regular worship services in school assembly halls and such.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
As I've said, I wasn't offended, so I assume that part isn't addressed at me. However, advertising a Whopper is quite different from advertising a religion -- in the latter case, the advertiser purports to have the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything, so to speak. In the former case, they're just saying their hamburger is the best one. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In context, the verse has the exact same connotations, except that it's directly aimed at people who have heard and do (supposedly) know. The chiding tone is definiately there, but it's directed at insiders who aren't acting in accordance with what they claim to believe. Our non-religious friends are not reading anything into it that isn't already there -- it just isn't aimed at them.
I was really glad that someone pointed this out (that wasn't me, because I would gotten my head bitten off). It was bugging me and I was itching to post it, but I didn't think it would help coming from me.
---
While I may be "anti-religious" in that I think that many religious institutions have many damaging effects on society, I think my complaints deal more with the temporal societies than with the spiritual things (although to be fair, I do regard some interpretations of religion, at their root, to be evil). I am generally supportive of genuine, committed religion and believe in the validity of most people's religions.
As such, I have no trouble attending and even participating in religious stuff, with the caveat that I didn't feel that the religion was evil.
As to whether I'd buy from a overtly religious business, I would, but I'd be more wary of them than I would one lacking that quality. The overt religion thing, while quite likely harmless, suggests to me that something might be a little off. Although that'd be a function of the religion and the approach to it displayed and not so much a hard and fast rule.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
Cultural context, the dynamics of power, and historical artifact.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I would go into a church. I would pretend to pray. I would not take communion, though, out of respect to the beliefs of the church I was visiting.
I don't have a god to offend. What does it matter if I pretend to take part in someone elses faith? It's just being polite. And most things they pray for are things I would pray for too if I believed. It's not like I disagree with the sentiment.
I've gone to Seders with my husband. We lite the menorah (when I remind him!) around channukah. I fast with him over Yom Kippur. I do these things, not because I'm jewish, (I'm not) but because I want to show my support for him and his faith.
I would not go into a mosque.
Pix
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would not go into a mosque.
Why?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [qb] I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So it the purpose (or a purpose) of mar'it ayin to demonstrate otherness to the larger non-Jewish societies that Jews have typically found themselves surrounded by over the centuries, or is it an inward focused thing intended to demonstrate solidarity to other group members? Or if the purpose is something else entirely, what is it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
I wouldn't take offense, but I'd roll my eyes at their smug sounding advertising campaign. Before I read this post I was actually going to post something saying that I would be just as irritated by that slogan if it were used to sell some commercial product rather than a religion.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
MPH: I don't believe they would be praying for things I would be pray for if I believed in god. I don't like their treatment of women. And there's the whole Terror connection.
Pix
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Thanks for explaining Lisa. My mother used to use the phrase all the time, "Avoid the appearance of evil." (Evil being relative in this case...)
What if a Christian friend's home is dedicated to God? Would it be forbidden for you to enter there? Is there something inherently wrong in being in a place where people are dedicated to living contrary to your beliefs, even if you maintain your own beliefs while you're there - or is it more the aspect of not wanting to be mistaken for a Christian? You certainly couldn't be accused of idolatry just by being in a room of idolaters (by God anyway - of course men could accuse you).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:We have more stringent rules for idolatry than those which apply to others. The whole trinity thing in Christianity is in opposition to the Jewish belief in absolute monotheism. That makes it idolatry for us.
Ahh, I see the distinction now. Thanks.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am not anti or non-religious- actually a devout LDS. When my brother in law married a wiccan, they had a wiccan service, which I attended and enjoyed. Afterwards, I went up and told the priestess that I enjoyed the service in the line thingy. I also attend other Protestant services throughout the year (other family) and stand when they stand. I don't repeat words that I don't believe though (ie Nicean Creed). I also have when invited attended Budhist and Jewish services. So, despite the fact that I don't believe in those religions, I will go out of support and also curiousity. However, if the sermon took a hateful tone, I would leave, despite attempts to show respect for my relatives. I can't condone hatred by sitting still. Of course, I would also and have left my own services when a speaker got out of line (problem with allowing anyone to talk sometimes they say stupid things).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches consecrated? That's a difference.
Catholic churches definitely are. At least some Protestant churches aren't, but I'm not sure which ones.
Many congregations meet for regular worship services in school assembly halls and such.
Well, I wouldn't have any problem going into a school assembly hall just because it's also used for such services at other times.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [qb] I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So it the purpose (or a purpose) of mar'it ayin to demonstrate otherness to the larger non-Jewish societies that Jews have typically found themselves surrounded by over the centuries, or is it an inward focused thing intended to demonstrate solidarity to other group members? Or if the purpose is something else entirely, what is it?
I suppose there could be an issue with non-Jews getting the wrong idea, but that's not the primary one. If a Jew who doesn't know better sees me apparently eating a cheeseburger, he might conclude that he's allowed to eat a cheeseburger. This would be a "stumbling block before the blind".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pixiest, you don't have to pretend to pray to be polite. If you just sit quietly and are not disruptive, that would be even more polite.
I, too, would walk out if things got offensive. If it were in my own Church, I would also make sure people heard about my being offended.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Thanks for explaining Lisa. My mother used to use the phrase all the time, "Avoid the appearance of evil." (Evil being relative in this case...)
What if a Christian friend's home is dedicated to God?
I assume you don't just mean God, right? 'Cause I'm actually big on God.
Look, for some things, there really is a "don't ask, don't tell" thing going on. If I went to a Christian's house, I sure wouldn't ask such a thing. And if I was told it, I might have an issue where I'd have to ask a qualified rabbinic authority whether that creates a line I'm not permitted to cross.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Would it be forbidden for you to enter there? Is there something inherently wrong in being in a place where people are dedicated to living contrary to your beliefs, even if you maintain your own beliefs while you're there - or is it more the aspect of not wanting to be mistaken for a Christian? You certainly couldn't be accused of idolatry just by being in a room of idolaters (by God anyway - of course men could accuse you).
It wouldn't be idolatry for me to be in there, but we're very careful about idolatry. We have a concept of "the dust of idolatry", which means anything even remotely associated with idolatry.
There are three categories of sin in Judaism that we're supposed to die rather than transgress, and idolatry is one of those. So we have a very wide margin of error, just to be safe.
Think about it. I'm standing among Christians, and something falls out of my pocket. Not thinking, I bend down to get it. Get it? That would be a huge desecration of God's Name (which is, actually, a fourth category that we're supposed to die rather than transgress, but it's general, so we usually just talk about the Big Three.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I suppose there could be an issue with non-Jews getting the wrong idea, but that's not the primary one. If a Jew who doesn't know better sees me apparently eating a cheeseburger, he might conclude that he's allowed to eat a cheeseburger....
So Lisa, if I understand correctly, if a Jew were to see you in a Christian church, he might mistakenly get the idea that you accept Jesus as the Son of God, and therefore it's alright to be Christian. Is this where the concern about idolatry comes in? - that you might lead away your own people into thinking this is okay?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote: I don't have a god to offend.
Exactly what I thought! Not pertaining to myself, but the only reason I can think of for an atheist to refuse to go into a house of worship is, as has been mentioned some here, a vendetta of sorts against organized religion. And I just see that as stupid to allow your hate of religion to take away from the pleasure of life. Heck, the grandparents in case probably don't have long to live anyways! harrumph.
Edit to erase redundant question.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't have a problem going anywhere. I don't pray (I bow my head slightly, to respect the people who are praying) but I will sing along with hymns if I know them or can pick them up. I listen politely. I don't even heckle.
Religions aren't offensive to me, I just don't believe in them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Because there are certain aspects of Islam (which I listed earlier) that would offend *me*.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It seems to me that you dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that you disagree with.
I think that the "Bible study group meets weekly at time X" certainly implies that those people have a belief that god exists and is therefore not in agreement with me. Yet T find absolutely nothing wrong with it.
So, no, I don't dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that I disagree with so long as it is done respectfully.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Exactly what I thought! Not pertaining to myself, but the only reason I can think of for an atheist to refuse to go into a house of worship is, as has been mentioned some here, a vendetta of sorts against organized religion. And I just see that as stupid to allow your hate of religion to take away from the pleasure of life. Heck, the grandparents in case probably don't have long to live anyways! harrumph.
It'd have to be a pretty good reason to go into such a place though. I just get generally uncomfortable around that kind of thing. Nothing really bad, just a vague feeling of not belonging.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It seems to me that you dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that you disagree with.
I think that the "Bible study group meets weekly at time X" certainly implies that those people have a belief that god exists and is therefore not in agreement with me. Yet T find absolutely nothing wrong with it.
So, no, I don't dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that I disagree with so long as it is done respectfully.
But with "Buble study group meets weekly at time X", nothing is being said that you disagree with. Implied, yeah. but not said.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Exactly what I thought! Not pertaining to myself, but the only reason I can think of for an atheist to refuse to go into a house of worship is, as has been mentioned some here, a vendetta of sorts against organized religion. And I just see that as stupid to allow your hate of religion to take away from the pleasure of life. Heck, the grandparents in case probably don't have long to live anyways! harrumph.
This phrasing seems a bit rude to me. Just because it's the "only reason [you] can think of" doesn't mean it's the only reason possible. I can imagine an atheist not wanting to go into a church for many reason that have nothing to do with a "vendetta" of any sort. Perhaps he or she simply does not feel comfortable among those he feels are actively promoting a group self-delusion. Perhaps he or she has had many experiences of over-zealous missionary types and is loath to meet them on their own turf. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I'm standing among Christians, and something falls out of my pocket. Not thinking, I bend down to get it. Get it? That would be a huge desecration of God's Name...
Um, I'm going to have to say, No, I don't get it. Picking up something that has dust on it from the floor of a Christian church (I assume when you say you're standing among Christians you mean in a Church) means you're now guilty of idolatry? Or of desecrating God's name because something in your pocket now has "Christian dust" on it? Can dust possibly have any connection to idolatry? Isn't idolatry in the heart and actions of a person?
... Or am I totally misreading what you mean in saying that you can't drop something, surrounded by Christians, and then pick it back up and put it in your pocket?
I'm not trying to belittle anything, just really trying to understand the reasoning behind this, if there is any. And of course "God told us so" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, if that's all there is.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, if someone in a store put up a sign saying, "We Believe God is Almighty" I wouldn't have a problem shopping in the store so long as nobody who worked their starting talking about God to me.
I really don't think I'm a disagreeable person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I read that (and I could be totally wrong) as bending over might give the appearance of genuflecting.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:I'm standing among Christians, and something falls out of my pocket. Not thinking, I bend down to get it. Get it? That would be a huge desecration of God's Name...
Um, I'm going to have to say, No, I don't get it. Picking up something that has dust on it from the floor of a Christian church (I assume when you say you're standing among Christians you mean in a Church) means you're now guilty of idolatry?
No, the dust is just a metaphor. Part of the means by which Christians worship involves bowing down. If I were to bow down in a church, even for purposes other than worship, I would be committing an act of idolatry.
Many old monasteries were built with low doors, in order to force those entering to bow down. The act means something even without the intent.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Or of desecrating God's name because something in your pocket now has "Christian dust" on it? Can dust possibly have any connection to idolatry? Isn't idolatry in the heart and actions of a person?
Consider the monastery example. The idea isn't unique to Judaism, but yes, Judaism is very strongly built on law. We don't do things that are illegal and excuse them on the basis of intent.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I'm not trying to belittle anything, just really trying to understand the reasoning behind this, if there is any. And of course "God told us so" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, if that's all there is.
Maybe I'm not explaining it well. We hold that there are certain actions which are inherently idolatrous, and other actions which are contextually idolatrous. The rabbis give an example of an idol whose worship involved defecation. And the law is that if I were to defecate on a statue of that idol, even if I did so with the intent of showing my contempt for it, I would be transgressing the prohibition against idolatry. Just the way it works.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That was how I took it as well, Kate.
Lisa, thanks for the further explanation of mar'it ayin.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:I suppose there could be an issue with non-Jews getting the wrong idea, but that's not the primary one. If a Jew who doesn't know better sees me apparently eating a cheeseburger, he might conclude that he's allowed to eat a cheeseburger....
So Lisa, if I understand correctly, if a Jew were to see you in a Christian church, he might mistakenly get the idea that you accept Jesus as the Son of God, and therefore it's alright to be Christian. Is this where the concern about idolatry comes in? - that you might lead away your own people into thinking this is okay?
Yes, that's a big part of it. But there's also the legal issue of actually doing things that are, physically speaking, the same as methods of Christian worship in that place.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Okay. That makes much more sense.
I really didn't think of the "genuflecting" aspect of it because we really don't do it at my church. It just never occurred to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. We don't do a lot of genuflecting, and it's never called that, so the word genuflect reminds me of Tom Lehrer. I'm sorry.
2. It's not uncommon for there to be some things that someone will not do because it resembles something they would never do. I'm uncomfortable with those pretty bottles of sparkling apple cider because I think it looks like "I'd drink alcohol if I could, but I can't." Other people don't think it looks like that, and that's fine, but I think it does for me, so I won't. For that same reason, my mom never let us get the candy cigarettes as a kid.
I figure the Jews avoiding Christian churches is something like the same thing. Is that accurate?
Added: Oops, I missed the second page, so this has been covered a little bit. I think it fits. Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
As I've said, I wasn't offended, so I assume that part isn't addressed at me.
Indeed, I had Alcon's comment more in mind.
quote:However, advertising a Whopper is quite different from advertising a religion -- in the latter case, the advertiser purports to have the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything, so to speak. In the former case, they're just saying their hamburger is the best one.
Yeah, so? In both cases, the reader is equally free to dismiss the claims and go on about his business.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You're allowed to go into a mosque, rivka. Ask your rabbi, if you don't believe me.
If it comes up, I will ask. But my understanding is that it is not as universally accepted as you imply.
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: And what's the difference between a foyer and the back of a church, other than a foot of space?
There is inside the sanctuary (which is a space designated for worship, whether consecrated or not), and there is the space outside it.
And . . . my rabbi's initial reaction was that there really ISN'T a whole lot of difference, and that it might be better if I didn't go. And while I am glad that I did, I would be unlikely to do so again.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
Anything that is forbidden for reasons of ma'aris ayin is forbidden b'cheder chadarim -- in complete privacy. A soy cheeseburger that really looked like a meat one is a problem anywhere. Fortunately, most soy burgers really don't look much like meat. And most people are familiar enough with soy products that even if those that are fairly convincing are probably fine.
Lifnei iver is in wikipedia? For two years? Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Yeah, so? In both cases, the reader is equally free to dismiss the claims and go on about his business.
Or make a parody of it, which people have the same right to dismiss...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Irregardless: That's harder to do when the claim is relevant to something important to you, which is why so many people get riled up by King of Men's posts.
As an aside, while I should have said "addressed to," is "addressed at" still correct? I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be, but for some reason it parses as wrong to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Part of the means by which Christians worship involves bowing down.
Part of the means by which Christians worship involves respiration and circulation, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:which is why so many people get riled up by King of Men's posts.
Do people still? I thought, for the msot part, we'd finally come to a point of realizing 'Oh, that's just KoM. He always does that.' and moved on.
In some ways it's the same as a church that routinely puts those pithy, sometimes silly, Jesus messages on their billboards by the road. I guess the first time you see it, if it offends you, you go ICK. But after you've driven past that same church 600 times, it's just "Oh that's just them. They always do that."
Back to the original post of this thread: I'd be disappointed in grandparents who were so adamantly atheist they felt they couldn't come see their grandchild in a church play. It's not like their god is telling them that it's idolatry (a concept I strongly respect, though it hadn't occurred to me previous to reading this thread). It's that they're so prejudiced against churches they love their prejudice more than their grandchild. That's how I'd have to interpret it unless they could explain it otherwise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on, hang on. I hereby define the religion of Hatrackism; its worship involves posting on Hatrack. There is no God but Hatrack, and KoM is its prophet! Yea, verily, all the faithful shall post at least thrice a day, lest they be cast into the furnace of Ornery, where there shall be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Have I just prohibited all practising Jews from posting on Hatrack? If not, why not, and how much 'religion-ness' would I need to add to Hatrackism?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not.
A single mad prophet does not a religion make.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that answers the first question, but I'd like to point out that Hatrackism has a lot of followers, in the sense that there are plenty of people who post thrice a day.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are also many people who breathe. And eat.
I plan to continue doing both.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Regarding mar'it ayin. I am a home care nurse, and I spend my day going from one patient's house to another. I prefer not to ask my patients to use their bathrooms when I am just there for a visit. If I need to use a bathroom, I will stop into a Dunkin' Donuts and use theirs (in New Jersey, we have a Dunkin' Donuts placed conveniently every mile or so -- every town seems to have at least one -- and some of them are even Kosher). Often, I'll even get me a cup of coffee, too.
But today it is Passover. There is nothing at Dunkin' Donuts (not even the coffee) for me. And, of course, I needed to use the bathroom. I made an exception to my policy of not asking my patients to use their bathrooms, because I didn't want anyone seeing an Orthodox Jew going into the Dunkin' Donuts on Pesach. It would just look wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Huh. I would have absolutely NO problem going into a Dunkin' Donuts to use the bathroom during Pesach. I have gone into McDonaldses and Burger Kings to use theirs on occasion -- and I imagine plenty of travelers stop in places just to use the bathroom.
Wild, isn't it? I did a search on lifnei iveir to get the verse, and that came up. I was blown away.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
King of Men, the Mad Prophet of Hatrack. I like that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Part of the means by which Christians worship involves bowing down.
Part of the means by which Christians worship involves respiration and circulation, too.
For the purposes of Jewish law, I think we can let Jewish law determine what's significant and what isn't. Don't you?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not.
A single mad prophet does not a religion make.
Amen.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:And . . . my rabbi's initial reaction was that there really ISN'T a whole lot of difference, and that it might be better if I didn't go. And while I am glad that I did, I would be unlikely to do so again.
Can you share why not? I understand if it's too personal to share details. Is it because of the building, or the service itself? I.E. Would you attend a Christian wedding that was outside, say, in a park somewhere? Or in a Moose lodge or something?
Would you attend a completely a-religious commitment ceremony of two men?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Regarding mar'it ayin. I am a home care nurse, and I spend my day going from one patient's house to another. I prefer not to ask my patients to use their bathrooms when I am just there for a visit. If I need to use a bathroom, I will stop into a Dunkin' Donuts and use theirs (in New Jersey, we have a Dunkin' Donuts placed conveniently every mile or so -- every town seems to have at least one -- and some of them are even Kosher). Often, I'll even get me a cup of coffee, too.
But today it is Passover. There is nothing at Dunkin' Donuts (not even the coffee) for me. And, of course, I needed to use the bathroom. I made an exception to my policy of not asking my patients to use their bathrooms, because I didn't want anyone seeing an Orthodox Jew going into the Dunkin' Donuts on Pesach. It would just look wrong.
I feel the same way. I mean, my rav once explained that getting a Coke at McDonalds isn't technically a violation of mar'it ayin, but it feels weird, and I imagine that even if it's okay to go into a Dunkin' Donuts during Pesach, I still wouldn't.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heh. KarlEd, you're mixing issues. When Havah and I had our commitment ceremony, it was anything but "a-religious", and while many of our friends who were also Orthodox came, some didn't, because they didn't feel comfortable doing so. But that's because of the gay issue, and isn't the same thing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Some Mormons should be able to relate to that, starLisa. After all, there are many Mormons who won't drink caffeinated sodas even though they are not explicitly forbidden.
Edit, this was in response to your second post above this one.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Would you attend a completely a-religious commitment ceremony of two men?
Are there wedding bells in the future? I'd come!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Heh. KarlEd, you're mixing issues. When Havah and I had our commitment ceremony, it was anything but "a-religious", and while many of our friends who were also Orthodox came, some didn't, because they didn't feel comfortable doing so. But that's because of the gay issue, and isn't the same thing.
Well, I'm not really so much mixing issues as I am asking separate questions. That's the reason for the new paragraph for the second question.
I guess I could have qualified my question with "is it forbidden" or "advised against", or "is it against Jewish law to", since as the questions stand rivka could respond simply with her personal preference that had nothing to do with being a Jew. So, for the record, I'm asking in terms of Law. Please feel free to answer with personal preference, if you want. I'd just like to know which is which.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Wild, isn't it? I did a search on lifnei iveir to get the verse, and that came up. I was blown away.
Just goes to prove, sooner or later, EVERYTHING ends up on wikipedia. (Heck, my dad even has a page there.)
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Can you share why not? I understand if it's too personal to share details. Is it because of the building, or the service itself? I.E. Would you attend a Christian wedding that was outside, say, in a park somewhere? Or in a Moose lodge or something?
It was the service itself, so probably not.
quote:Would you attend a completely a-religious commitment ceremony of two men?
No. [Edit based on Karl's clarification above: I consider this both a question of Law and my own comfort, but I am not willing to debate this with sL. Again.]
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: . . . it feels weird, and I imagine that even if it's okay to go into a Dunkin' Donuts during Pesach, I still wouldn't.
Which I entirely understand, and there are plenty of things that are perfectly ok that I won't do because they make me uncomfortable. I just distinguish between things I choose not to do and things I may not do.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Would you attend a completely a-religious commitment ceremony of two men?
Are there wedding bells in the future? I'd come!
There will be* once it's legal for me, so don't hold your breath. But you'll definitely get an invite, Tante.
(*Assuming Chris will still have me )
Posted by Goldenstar (Member # 6990) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I do hope I don't offend anyone with this title. If it does offend you, let me know and I'll change it ASAP. My question shouldn't really be that controversial. It's just something I thought of on my drive home tonight.
Two things spurred this thought. First off, for yesterdays Easter service, my church focused quite a bit on kids. There were numerous musical numbers... it was really very cute. One of my friends had 3 little siblings in the performance, and her parents had asked their parents (grandparents to my friend and the little performers) to come watch the kids. The grandparents are devoutly atheist, and from what I gather, very anti-religious. They didn't come. Secondly, there is this storage facility that I pass on my drive home that has quite a prominent marquee. About 50% of the time, this marquee has blatant Christian messages on it. I thought to myself, "I wonder if they lose any business because of that".
So my question is, how deep do your anti-religious (or anti-Christian) feelings go? If your grandchildren, or really anyone you loved, was performing in a church, would you refuse to go on the sole grounds that it was a church? And if you knew that a business was run by devout Christians, would you not go there solely for that reason?
Yes i would refuse to go, not because it involes going to a church but listening to an hour+ sermon would cause me to go suicidal. If you taped or i only had to go for the part where the relative was perform that'd be fine. My general views on athiesim(is that spelled right?) are that, yes i'm an athiest, i recognise that you're a religous person, that's fine with me, i respect that. But as soon as you start trying to push religion on me we have a a problem. You leave me alone and i'll leave you alone. *shrug*
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: but listening to an hour+ sermon would cause me to go suicidal.
Fortunately, not too many churches have hour+ sermons. I think that went out with the pilgrims.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:but listening to an hour+ sermon
My church doesn't lock the doors to keep the sermon victims from escaping. I knew we were doing something wrong.
Posted by Goldenstar (Member # 6990) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: but listening to an hour+ sermon would cause me to go suicidal.
Fortunately, not too many churches have hour+ sermons. I think that went out with the pilgrims.
I know when i was a kid and my mom would drag me to church(3-4 times a year) they were always at least an hour
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: There will be* once it's legal for me, so don't hold your breath. But you'll definitely get an invite, Tante.
Whoo Hoo! You know what you've just got to do? Have the two grooms on the top of the cake.
I wouldn't have the bride-and-groom thing on my cake, because my husband uses a wheelchair, and I couldn't find a wheelchair groom. The closest I could find was a groom carrying the bride (over-the-threshhold style), but no bride carrying the groom. We had flowers on the cake.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
I wish Hatrack allowed custom titles, and not just that boring 'Member' and 'New Member' stuff. "The Mad Prophet", that's me!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KoM: for converting away from atheism I am compelled to kill you (Compelled by what? Heck if I know.)
**BANG**
Pix
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are also many people who breathe. And eat.
But there are also many people who bend over in Christian churches, and not all of them worship Christ.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
tom: but what if they say "oh god"?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Wild, isn't it? I did a search on lifnei iveir to get the verse, and that came up. I was blown away.
Just goes to prove, sooner or later, EVERYTHING ends up on wikipedia. (Heck, my dad even has a page there.)
Really? How cool. I'm mentioned in a couple of discussion pages on Wikipedia (Book of Esther and Egyptian Chronology, I think), but thank God, no actual article. Though my rav from when I lived in Israel does have an article on him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I just finished editing it.
*attempts to look innocent*
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Huh. I would have absolutely NO problem going into a Dunkin' Donuts to use the bathroom during Pesach. I have gone into McDonaldses and Burger Kings to use theirs on occasion -- and I imagine plenty of travelers stop in places just to use the bathroom.
See, I just can't go into a store, use the bathroom, and not buy anything. I feel guilty.
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
some of our best artwork and Music was paid for by the church, and was created by athiest artists. I think it's too bad that the church does not support the arts like it once did.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: but listening to an hour+ sermon would cause me to go suicidal.
Fortunately, not too many churches have hour+ sermons. I think that went out with the pilgrims.
What about Uncle Benny?
--Enigmatic
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: It's that they're so prejudiced against churches they love their prejudice more than their grandchild.
I think that there could be a lot more to it than that. We know very little about this situation and your conclusion seems a bit presumptuous. See KarlEd's post on the bottom of the second page.
quote:you don't have to pretend to pray to be polite. If you just sit quietly and are not disruptive, that would be even more polite.
kmboots, I am curious about this. When I am around people that are praying, I feel it would be rude to not bow my head. It would be hard to distinguish my bowed head from the bowed head of somebody who was actually praying. Would you prefer that I not bow my head?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I love it! But, sadly for me, there was no Google 20 years ago when I was planning my wedding.
I'm old.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Compelled by what?
"And he went down to Egypt" -- compelled by Divine decree
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Interestingly, there is a certain level of presumption that members of my church not enter the worship buildings of other churches, although it falls far short of proscription. I've never been comfortable with it myself. There's an amusing quote from some preacher or other about how it would be better to be unchurched than "even to enter such a den" as a church with an organ.
Dagonee> "Catholic churches definitely are. At least some Protestant churches aren't, but I'm not sure which ones."
I know ours aren't. I think it's more commonly a function of the very liberal churches, but also those in which there is little or no clergy/laity distinction. Consecration as a ritual doesn't mean much to us; the presence of Christian worshippers does that. Effectively, if we use a gym, community center, or area around a flagpole for the purposes of worship, said area is basically consecrated for the duration.
Pixiest> You might find it at least vaguely interesting that no one (in the gathering, anyway) would likely be offended if you took communion in one of our churches. The standard expression is, "We neither invite nor debar"; it's one of the few things we still have in common with the Disciples of Christ. The assumption is that we cannot know the heart of anyone who participates; anyone may or may not be honoring Christ by his or her actions. (Of course, anyone who partakes insincerely "eats and drinks damnation to himself", but that includes us too. If an unbeliever isn't worried about it, that's their business.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
First off, I'll answer the original question:
I go to church or temple from time to time, Bar Mitzvahs, weddings, funerals and such. I'm there because there's a person there that I care about, who's celebrating something important in their life, or because it's my opportunity to find closure for the death of someone I love. Religion doesn't play a part in it.
I do sometimes get annoyed by the rhetoric, however. Which leads me to my answer about the "Did you know? Have you heard?" thing.
Dana:
quote: Twinky, does the fact that the entire phrase, including the "Do you not know, have you not heard" part is a direct Bible quote make any difference? It's not just something the person making the posters made up to say "hey you dummies, what's wrong with you?"
No, it makes no difference. If they had quoted psalm 14 or 53 am I to assume that because it is in biblical context it's not really insulting? The person who wrote those passages did indeed made them up to say "hey you dummies, what's wrong with you?"
This thread reminds me of the one when I asked why a painting called "Magdalena and her lover" was specifically insulting to Catholics, as opposed to any other Christian. Dagonee explained that there is historical context that applies specifically to Catholicism.
Ok, well, the bible itself is historically insulting to atheists. There's a reason the terms "sanctimonious" and "holier than thou" are synonyms for condescension.
quote:"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God" -- Isaiah 40:28 (NIV)
No, I don't know. And neither do you. Neither does anybody. It doesn't matter that there's biblical context that supports it. (momentarily slipping into strong atheist mode) There was no God then either, so the author of the Bible was being just as smug and condescending as the phrase sounds now. [/strong atheist]
The person that put up the posters may not have written the "have you not heard?" quote, but they chose to use them to spread a message based on a particular agenda. If you would be insulted by Twinky's response, then you should understand how insulted an atheist should be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you would be insulted by Twinky's response, then you should understand how insulted an atheist should be.
Yeah, but I'm not insulted by Twinky's response. I even understand the response. I just don't understand the irritation - it baffles me, even with the explanations.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:No, I don't know. And neither do you. Neither does anybody.... There was no God then either, so the author of the Bible was being just as smug and condescending as the phrase sounds now.
"Smug and condescending" ... hmm ... would that include telling someone what they know or don't know? The way you just did?
I don't have a problem with someone who says they don't believe in God or even that they KNOW there isn't a God ... as long as they don't try to tell me what I know. There isn't much that grates on my nerves more than that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's just too bad, then, because you don't know. You are apparently confusing 'knowledge' with 'really strong conviction'.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:"Smug and condescending" ... hmm ... would that include telling someone what they know or don't know? The way you just did?
Which was the point. And the reason for the [/strong atheist] that you left out of your response.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
No, No, Glenn, you didn't slip into Stong Athiest Mode until after you told us what we don't know. You can't get out of it as easily as that. Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
But... epistemology is half the fun of arguing about religion! Which I guess is why I don't get invited to churches much.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I see that your response was to the part where I (as KoM and Palliard have pointed out) raised the issue of epistemology. But I'm on solid ground there.
I slipped into strong atheist mode to demonstrate what it's like when someone makes a claim that they "know" what they merely believe. That's condescending.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hey Palliard, wanna come to church with us on Sunday?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I slipped into strong atheist mode to demonstrate what it's like when someone makes a claim that they "know" what they merely believe. That's condescending.
No, it's not.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
The problem lies in assuming what someone else knows, and how they know it. What's condescending is assuming that because you don't know something and don't see any evidence for it, it is impossible for anyone else to know it either, therefore they must merely "believe" and are using the wrong word when they say they know it.
But you don't know what experiences they've had that led them to say they know. You know that you don't know. That's all you can claim.
It's like religious people who say "there really are no true athiests; deep down they all believe in something". I find that just as condescending.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I slipped into strong atheist mode to demonstrate what it's like when someone makes a claim that they "know" what they merely believe. That's condescending.
No, it's not.
Or, more accurately, you are not qualified to say what I "merely believe" and what I know.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
So, Dag, I'm assuming that you agree that it's condescending for someone to make a claim that they "know" what they merely believe, but that I'm not qualified to say what you "merely believe" rather than what you know.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But you don't know what experiences they've had that led them to say they know.
Actually, every theist (including my wife) that has ever described those experiences to me, has limited them to a "very strong feeling" or an amazing coincidence.
Secondhand I've heard of people who claim to hear the voice of God or something, but even theists usually attribute that to hallucinations.
I feel pretty comfortable making the distinction between knowledge and belief in those cases. If there is more concrete evidence (even if it's not transferable) I'd be interested to hear it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Glenn, the problem is that you don't know that what they claim to "know" is "mere belief" any more than they could (in your estimation) know what they claim to know. (I know that's a confusing sentence, but it parses well if you make the effort )
Most of us build a concept of reality through our own experience, and call that "knowledge" with the caveat that further experience may reinforce that knowledge or destroy it completely. Over time we grow in confidence about which blocks of our "knowledge" are strong enough to serve as a foundation upon which we feel we can confidently interpret the rest of our experience. It's only logical that by the very nature of human experience disagreements will arise over which experiences -- and the interpretations of them -- are valid to serve as foundation blocks.
You have a very strong belief that their "knowledge" is on shaky ground, but that's as good as you can get. You are not them and have no way of knowing what they have experienced. Simply the fact that they cannot convey to you adequately (in their estimation) what they have experienced does not lessen the experience itself (to them). Can you always adequately express every emotion you feel, or thought that you have?
quote:I feel pretty comfortable making the distinction between knowledge and belief in those cases. If there is more concrete evidence (even if it's not transferable) I'd be interested to hear it.
I also feel pretty comfortable making the distinction for myself. I feel like I know enough about human nature, the human brain, science, and religion to satisfy myself that there is a rational non-theistic explanation behind individual "religious" experience. However, I can't prove it, any more than Dagonee can prove to me the essential kernel of his faith.
The sticky part to me is that ultimately each side, deep down inside, feels the other is somehow mistaken. The crucial factor, though, is in how we deal with this deep down suspicion. There are those of us humans who adamantly refuse to acknowledge the possibility of interpretations of experience other than our own. If it doesn't fit in the context of our lives then it can't be consistent at all. There simply is no other valid context. On the other hand, the more polite ones of us are willing to entertain the possibility, however slight, that it's we who are mistaken, even as we remain otherwise fairly confident it is they.
quote:So, Dag, I'm assuming that you agree that it's condescending for someone to make a claim that they "know" what they merely believe, but that I'm not qualified to say what you "merely believe" rather than what you know.
Is it condescending for a science professor to tell his students what he knows? What if what he "knows" later turns out to be incorrect? That has happened before, and surely will happen again as that's the history and very nature of science. Even knowing this, we still talk (within the context of science) about what we "know", and build on what we "know" even though we understand that yes, it's possible (even if only in the slightest way) that something might in the future lead us to believe otherwise. Still, we don't talk or act that way about most things we scientifically "know", largely because we're firm in our trust (one meaning of "faith") that our premises are correct. I suspect that religious knowledge (to the religious) is similar in its own context. I'm fine with that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Or, more accurately, you are not qualified to say what I "merely believe" and what I know.
Is that something you need to be qualified for? I would say the only thing you need to claim someone "merely believes" what they claim to know is a good reason.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I just don't understand the irritation - it baffles me, even with the explanations.
What (if anything) about my explanation on the last page doesn't make sense to you? I'd like to think I at least made some sense. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:When I am around people that are praying, I feel it would be rude to not bow my head. It would be hard to distinguish my bowed head from the bowed head of somebody who was actually praying. Would you prefer that I not bow my head?
For my own preference, I would prefer someone remain quiet and respectful but not bow their head. I think it shows more respect to other people's prayers to not engage in it insincerely.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I find the initial question very interesting, so I'll answer.
I'd never hurt my family's feelings if I could help it, so I will (and have) go to places of worship for various family functions. My mom and sister sometimes go to church for the purpose of worship (e.g., on Christmas Eve) and on those occasions my dad and brother and I decline to go.
But I do pointedly avoid helping to foster the spread of religion in certain ways. So I won't give to religious charities, for instance, because I don't want to fund the evangelizing or conversion of needy people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:you don't have to pretend to pray to be polite. If you just sit quietly and are not disruptive, that would be even more polite.
kmboots, I am curious about this. When I am around people that are praying, I feel it would be rude to not bow my head. It would be hard to distinguish my bowed head from the bowed head of somebody who was actually praying. Would you prefer that I not bow my head? [/QB]
It doesn't really matter if you bow your head - however you feel comfortable is fine. I think it was the "pretending" that was troublesome to me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:For my own preference, I would prefer someone remain quiet and respectful but not bow their head. I think it shows more respect to other people's prayers to not engage in it insincerely.
I understand what you're saying, and agree that someone shouldn't pretend just for pretending sake, but it takes more than a bowed head to pray. The person may choose to bow their head and meditate, or go over their laundry list, whatever.
Just because they're bowing their head to be polite doesn't necessarily mean they are pretending to pray or doing something disrespectful. They may be bowing their head to be polite and focusing on something completely unrelated to religion. And I think that's fine. Bow your head, or don't bow your head, I think it's a personal choice.
Participating in rituals or sacraments just to fit in, though, that I do disagree with. My former step-father is not a believer and when he came to church one day to watch the kids sing, we were having communion. He did not participate. I respected that, and was glad he didn't do it just to fit in or try to make us feel better. Not that I didn't wish he would convert, I did and still do, but I respected that at the time, he was not a believer, and was glad he did not partake of communion that day.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree, head bowed or not, neither is more polite than the other. Craning your head around and staring at the person behind you to see if they will feel the burning power of your gaze and open their eyes, however, is right out. As is peeking over the shoulder of the person in front of you to see if they were doodling on their bulletin during the sermon.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
What about smacking your child on the head because he's poking his sister with the pencil he's been using to doodle on his bulletin with? Is that okay, Dana? Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think that's a currently disputed point of doctrine.
Last week a mom showed me a cartoon strip her daughter had drawn. It was titled "In Puppy Church" and it was drawings of various scenes from worship, but all the people were puppies standing on their hind legs. The puppy in a robe holding the communion bread was labeled "Pastor Dana." Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The central issue is to not engage in meaningful activities insincerely.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
She should have given it to you, I would so have hung up that masterpiece in my office. Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
KarlEd,
Nicely put.
Now, i could see a college science professor saying, "This is what we know, but I gotta tell you, there are some guys out there way smarter than me trying to prove it wrong..."
I could not, however, picture a pastor/preacher/what-have-you saying something along those lines about God or Christ: "This is how we believe God works...but it could change at any moment!" But, as with the science professor, if there's anyone out there who can prove me wrong...I'd love to hear it.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Or, more accurately, you are not qualified to say what I "merely believe" and what I know.
Is that something you need to be qualified for? I would say the only thing you need to claim someone "merely believes" what they claim to know is a good reason.
I would say the only one qualified to judge the difference between what someone knows and what someone merely believes is that person ... and sometimes they don't look at themselves closely enough to know the difference, either.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I could not, however, picture a pastor/preacher/what-have-you saying something along those lines about God or Christ
Edit: assuming that by "along those lines" you would include something like "our understanding of God is constantly developing, this is how I understand x now, but perhaps someone will come up with a better explanation someday."
[ April 19, 2006, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Hey Palliard, wanna come to church with us on Sunday?
I sincerely doubt that would work out well. I have little patience for the rituals and less for the mythology involved in most church gatherings. Comments like "grade D mind control techniques" when they play with the lighting have gotten me barred from more than one church.
I might come if there was free food. But that doesn't have much to do with epistemology.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
dkw,
...and that means, what? You agree? Or you've heard a pastor/preacher/what-have-you saying "our understanding of God is constantly developing, this is how I understand x now, but perhaps someone will come up with a better explanation someday."?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think that means she is a pastor who says that.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I've certainly heard her say it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, I've never seen them "play with the lights" at any of her churches, so you should be fine, Palliard.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, we do turn them off before lighting all the handheld candles and singing "Silent Night" on Christmas Eve. It's shameless emotional manipulation, but people seem to like it that way.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Is it condescending for a science professor to tell his students what he knows?
Yes, but condescension isn't really the issue.
A science teacher should never express information as an absolute. Science by it's nature demands that information be expressed in terms of a level of confidence that supports that information.
A science teacher doesn't necessarily have to avoid all use of the word "know," as it's commonly used, but when explaining a piece of information there should always be an implied "We know X, because we have observed Y." References to experiments and observations imply a relative confidence in the information, which in turn implies that the confidence in the information is always up for review.
As far as religious rhetoric is concerned, it's perfectly reasonable to say "We know that the bible says X." Because that's verifiable. I have no issue with a preacher saying "We know that God wants us to love our neighbor," because if you're in church it's assumed that you're talking to an audience that accepts certain axioms.
But the poster with the Isaiah quote sits amidst a long history of evangelism, and from where I sit, the "good news" that's being spread is often just the sheep's clothing that's meant to disguise the evangelist's true intent, which is usually some kind of self promotion. In this case, "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is insincerely incredulous, and implies that anyone who doesn't accept this "obvious truth" is just plain wrong. In a church the passage might just be a biblically accepted axiom, but on a kiosk, it's just rude.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
My experiences with churches are, admittedly, limited. But they have been almost universally unfavorable.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
S'okay, I doubt you're in the same state. I just didn't want you to feel left out, since you said you didn't get invited to church anymore.
In otherwords, it was a joke.
(Not that you wouldn't be welcome if you did come, of course.)
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I appreciate all of the answers to my question. I think I will continue bowing my head when others pray. I don't say amen or do anything with my hands that suggests I'm praying. But not bowing my head would stick out greatly and would draw attention to me and away from their worship. I bow because I believe it is respectful to those around me. If many people believed that it was indeed disrespectful, I would reconsider my position.
quote:The central issue is to not engage in meaningful activities insincerely.
I absolutely agree with this. To me, it would feel like a mockery of others beliefs to do so. Thus I refrained from such activities.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:But the poster with the Isaiah quote sits amidst a long history of evangelism, and from where I sit, the "good news" that's being spread is often just the sheep's clothing that's meant to disguise the evangelist's true intent, which is usually some kind of self promotion. In this case, "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is insincerely incredulous, and implies that anyone who doesn't accept this "obvious truth" is just plain wrong. In a church the passage might just be a biblically accepted axiom, but on a kiosk, it's just rude.
So is your problem just with the quote? Or the whole idea of evangelism itself? Your comments lead me to believe the latter. If so, that's fine. Some religious people I know have a problem with evangelism, too. But is it possible that your general antipathy toward evangelism perhaps colors your perception of the intent of the poster in question? I'm just not sure it's warranted to assign ulterior motives to anyone in this case. At worst, I think it's an innocent case of someone poorly choosing a quote and not really thinking about how it might be perceived by active non-believers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...an innocent case of someone poorly choosing a quote and not really thinking about how it might be perceived by active non-believers.
Which is very strange given their chosen audience -- that is, engineering students rather than the students at any or all of the three religious colleges that were a ten-minute walk away. Remember, too, that these posters were put up on the engineering campus over a period of four years. I'm not at all sure that believers were their primary audience. I'm not sure enough to definitely ascribe ulterior motives to the people who made the poster, but I'm not going to rule it out.
In any case, that's precisely the sort of thing that they should have considered. It's very easy to be unintentionally condescending toward people who don't share your views, particularly if you believe them to be True with a capital T, and it's something you should think about before you start putting up posters. Otherwise you wind up annoying people like me enough that we do something we normally wouldn't -- that is to say, respond in kind.
To be fair, though, I don't really like evangelism. I'm generally capable of examining something and drawing my own conclusions, and if I want help, I'll ask for it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Just because it's an engineering college doesn't mean there aren't religious people there the posters could have been intended for. I was an engineering student for most of my undergrad and attended church and Sunday School the whole time. And two of my engineering professors were in my Sunday School class.
(Which is not to say that I think the quote was a good idea on such a poster. I said earlier that I think it was a poor choice.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm generally capable of examining something and drawing my own conclusions, and if I want help, I'll ask for it.
Anyone can examine things and draw conclusions. The question is, can you do draw all the correct conclusions?
The answer is no, I think, just as it is for everyone. That's why evangelism is a useful thing - just as it is good that teachers, journalists, doctors, mentors, special interest groups, advertisers, experts, parents, spouses, and friends are constantly giving advice to people, sometimes solicited and sometimes unsolicited. People do need help - all people.
Of course, you may not ask for advice and you may not want help, but I certainly think it is a mistake to not want that help. That's the approach that leads to so many people who read and listen to only what they agree with, and insist that they are entitled to come up with whatever opinions they want to have on all issues, no matter what experts or evidence says to the contrary. It's what flat earthers say - they can come up with their own conclusions, and they don't need experts and science telling them what is true about the earth or isn't. In truth, though, no matter how much they don't want help, I think it would be better if they were given it. Even more so if the issue were more critical to everyday lives than the flatness of the earth - such as what is right or wrong, or what religion to believe in.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't suggest that there were no practicing Christians studying engineering at Waterloo -- just that as far as I could tell, there weren't very many. That's partly a result of demographics; the engineering school had a lot of zeroth-generation or first-generation Asian, Indian, and Pakistani students. And with three affiliated religious colleges within ten minutes of the engineering school, why not put the posters up there, or in both places, if the goal was to reach current believers?
Added:
Tres, I'm not sure why you're lumping religious beliefs in with all of those other things, since it's quite separate from them. Do you see people going door-to-door with a set of Kant's most famous writings in my backpack and attempting to convince everyone that he had it right?
Hume? Locke? Hobbes? Russell?
No?
Then, why god?
Added 2: I think I overreacted. It's not as though your reasoning doesn't have some validity. Let me mull it over.
[ April 20, 2006, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ten minutes is a long distance. My guess is that they were trying to reach the engineering students that, like most engineers, spent all their time in the engineering building.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:I could not, however, picture a pastor/preacher/what-have-you saying something along those lines about God or Christ
Edit: assuming that by "along those lines" you would include something like "our understanding of God is constantly developing, this is how I understand x now, but perhaps someone will come up with a better explanation someday."
I have often heard that from the pulpit as well. And I have said it myself when "teaching".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Katie:
Ten minutes on foot? I think we have different definitions of "long distance."
Regardless, do you think they were trying to reach current believers, or do that they were trying to "reach out" to lapsed or non-believers?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they were using coded language. Either they knew it and were attempting to reach only believers, or they didn't know it and still would only reach believers.
Ten minutes is a very long way if there's no reason to go there. I have no idea what is a ten-minute walk from my office - I have no reason to head that direction.
If advertising is to be effective, it has to reach people where they are. They were advertising an event, so it makes sense to put the posters where the people are.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...or they didn't know it and still would only reach believers.
...while condescending to others. Again, this is something they should have considered.
There was plenty of engineering student traffic to and through the religious colleges, for a number of reasons (off-campus housing, some residences, elective courses), but certainly not everybody -- or even most students, I imagine.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have no problem with you response, twinky. I thought it was kind of funny, actually.
I think active non-believers are perceived to be an extreme minority by many religious people. I think the general populace is viewed more as lapsed believers, or non-considerers of religion, and that is probably the intended audience for the poster. I doubt very seriously the person who designed it thought they were evangelizing active non-believers.
I have no problem with evangelism itself, though I do have some problems with some methods. Posters, even those with vaguely condescending tones*, seem to be among the more innocuous and least offending methods of getting one's message out.
*and I do think the tone was only vaguely condescending. I think that despite the historical context of the quote, taken alone it can also be read as a rejoicing in good news. Like if I came up to you, looking all depressed, and said "Cheer up, dude, don't you know it's Christmas!" (assuming of course it was). I think it is overly presumptuous to assume that the person who selected that quote was aware of the historical context, so to me it's at least 50/50 that it was intended in the "rejoicing" tone.
Also, many first generation Asians are Christian. In Korea (at least in the areas I visited) Christianity was very visible and active, and pretty popular among the classes of people most likely to immigrate. Also, there are many Korean language Christian churches in the mid-Atlantic states. I doubt they are largely attended by 2nd or 3rd generation Americans. This is all just to say that while I understand your point, it might not be quite as strong in reality as you think it is. (Of course, I could be wrong.)
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Also, many first generation Asians are Christian. In Korea (at least in the areas I visited) Christianity was very visible and active, and pretty popular among the classes of people most likely to immigrate. Also, there are many Korean language Christian churches in the mid-Atlantic states.
I was just thinking, when I was in medschool the percentage of Asians seemed quite high. Amazingly, most of the Asian students I knew were either actively evangelizing others OR were being hounded by their evangelizing Asian friends. It was a fascinating phenomenon.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: "Cheer up, dude, don't you know it's Christmas!"
Just as an aside, I think I would also find that somewhat annoying. I mean, I'll be glum when I damn well please!
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Theca:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Also, many first generation Asians are Christian. In Korea (at least in the areas I visited) Christianity was very visible and active, and pretty popular among the classes of people most likely to immigrate. Also, there are many Korean language Christian churches in the mid-Atlantic states.
I was just thinking, when I was in medschool the percentage of Asians seemed quite high. Amazingly, most of the Asian students I knew were either actively evangelizing others OR were being hounded by their evangelizing Asian friends. It was a fascinating phenomenon.
That's interesting. I didn't see any of that at Waterloo -- maybe the Christian Asians all go to America! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the wording was a poor choice.
I do think the flyers belonged where they did, and I doubt you were the intended audience. The incident seems like one of the things that happen when you put different kinds of people altogether. All in all, it's fairly innocuous.
---
As a side note, I knew many, many Christian Asian engineers in Ann Arbor. They were the primary audience for the missionaries.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think active non-believers are perceived to be an extreme minority by many religious people. I think the general populace is viewed more as lapsed believers, or non-considerers of religion, and that is probably the intended audience for the poster. I doubt very seriously the person who designed it thought they were evangelizing active non-believers.
Well said.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Holy crap! Jesus is the Lord? Where was I? Why wasn't I informed?
*sniff*
The Waterloo Christian Chemists totally let me down.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Apparently so did your reading teachers.
The quote was from Isaiah -- no mention of Jesus. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well at least not by name, anyway.
(i.e. some people believe that the "Lord" of the old testament was indeed Jesus Christ.)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Blast!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: Where was I?
As I recall, you were living with me at the time.
Added:
quote:I think the general populace is viewed more as lapsed believers, or non-considerers of religion, and that is probably the intended audience for the poster.
Karl, how likely do you think this intended audience would be to recognize the quote?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hmm...
Maybe if I'd actually gone to class that term I'd have seen more posters Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:As I recall, you were living with me at the time.
And you didn't pass on the message? Well the damnation of his eternal soul is on your hands now, bub!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Karl, how likely do you think this intended audience would be to recognize the quote?
As "something from the Bible" I'd say pretty likely. As specifically from Isaiah? Probably unlikely. As the chastisement to lapsed believers that it is? Probably not at all, since I also only gave even odds that the person who created the poster recognized it as such.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, I'm not sure why you're lumping religious beliefs in with all of those other things, since it's quite separate from them. Do you see people going door-to-door with a set of Kant's most famous writings in my backpack and attempting to convince everyone that he had it right?
No, not Kant, but I've had people try to convince me of various other things in some pretty passionate ways. For instance, from high school through today, people have been fond of telling me not to drink and drive - even offering me free stuff, buying radio ads, putting up fliers, and even bringing in special guest speakers back when I was in school. Yes, I can observe and draw my own conclusions about drinking and driving without their "help" - but that doesn't mean their help is a bad thing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've been mulling over your original post, but haven't been able to turn my vague thoughts into something concrete. I know that I didn't like it back when I believed in god, either, so it isn't just my bias as an atheist (i.e. a distaste for the spreading of what I perceive to be falsehoods). I've disliked evangelism in the general case to some degree for as long as I've known what it was, both in the abstract (discussions on evangelism with a friend who was a Christian fundamentalist) and the concrete (missionaries at the door).
As a kid, though, I remember that the missionaries would often upset my mother. That probably biased me against them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Believe it or not, I find "in your face" evangelism pretty irritating (at best) myself.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"Believe it or not"? I'd actually be surprised if you were in favor of it, Kate.
I don't like "in your face" anything. In some people's eyes I was not a very good missionary because I would "let people off the hook" pretty easily. I always wanted to find people who were looking for something in their lives, and I thought I had that to provide. If people weren't interested, I didn't press it. Several of my fellow missionaries were more like the vacuum cleaner salesman who jams his foot in the door. Regardless, the more evangelism was like sales, the less I liked it. The more it was like an invitation to something wonderful, the better it made me feel.
So I don't begrudge evangelists for their evangelism. I do begrudge many of them for their methods, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Karl, I am relieved and glad that the fact that I am more than willing to talk about faith (at some length!) and that I spend a lot of time mentoring "how to be Catholic" classes does not come across as approving of "in-your-face" evangelism.
My guess is that the missionary work you did had a better effect than the "salesman" approach. People rarely react well to pushiness and will often be put off enough that they will decide they don't need a new vaccuum cleaner - even if they had been in the market for one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People react to all different kinds of evangelism.
I don't know. I'm not a fan of the pushy kind, but I've seen it reach some people when the evangelist was sincere. It would be nice to think that it doesn't or that the people reached have a shallow conversion, but it's not the case. It does work - if it didn't, people would stop.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could just be that I (along with most of the people I know) am just naturally contrary. When pushed to do anything, I tend to dig my heels in.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People react to all different kinds of evangelism.
I don't know. I'm not a fan of the pushy kind, but I've seen it reach some people when the evangelist was sincere. It would be nice to think that it doesn't or that the people reached have a shallow conversion, but it's not the case.
Not always the case, perhaps. Wards with 800 members of record and 80 average attendance tell me it's very often the case in several areas of Brazil.
quote:It does work - if it didn't, people would stop.
It all depends on what you mean by "work". (See above.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KarlEd:
quote:So is your problem just with the quote? Or the whole idea of evangelism itself? Your comments lead me to believe the latter. If so, that's fine.
I don't have a problem with the WHOLE idea of evangelism, but there are parts of it that really put me off.
What bothers me is the inequity of political correctness. Society as a whole understands that there are certain things that you shouldn't say about someone's religion, but since religious thought is the norm, very few people bother to consider whther their statements about atheists might be insulting. After all, we're just wrong.
What really bothers me is when (usually fundamentalist Christians) claim that "Christians are the last minority that you can insult and get away with it," or some such. We've been through this argument here on Hatrack with respect to the phrase "there are no atheists in Foxholes" that is so prevalent in the military, but more recently Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric have used it in news broadcasts.
I won't repeat the error by claiming that atheists are the last minority that you can insult and get away with it, but I think there's something sigificant in the fact that so many people don't even realize that such a statement is insulting.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Glenn: I have a friend. a very GOOD friend. Who uses that phrase all the time.
And he KNOWS he's talking to atheist bisexual.
On the other hand, there IS some truth to it. One CAN get away with being rude to christians and it's not right. Any more than it's right for them to get away with being rude to atheists and them-there queers.
It would be nice, if one day, we could all be polite to eachother.
Pix
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Funny thing: Isn't that what Christianity is supposed to be all about? "Do unto others" and all that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"It does work - if it didn't, people would stop."
What about Heroin? It works, I guess people shouldn't try to stop*
*This has nothing to do with my views on religion which I will not discuss, however the immense stupidity of that logic struck me, and I had to act to save my sanity. I thus exit the thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was not an immense stupidity. Because you don't understand what is going on is no reason to be so rude. That's very ungentlemanly - don't do it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I'm not questioning, not looking for religion, although in the course of coming to the conclusions I have about religion, I have learned a great deal about other's beliefs and read the bible cover-to-cover more than once. I have many problems with the concept of organised religion, especially when it is imposed on me, as it was while I was at school.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
one for you,![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Lifnei iver is in wikipedia? For two years? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)