Something that I have run into in the past six or so weeks that I have been rediscovering my faith and catholic religion are people who don't have an understanding of faith, or an organized religion, or even a 'need for God'. And it's kinda perplexing to me, something I'm not sure how to deal with or address. Let me explain.
I was raised catholic, God was very much a part of my family, I did catechism every week, we faithfully went to church, and despite my disdain, I did pick up a lot of religion and a basic belief in God at the least. It was always a part of our life, and we participated in the church, lots of my friends were also part of the church, etc. Even when I wasn't a practicing catholic, I never lost my belief in God, and much of my value system and morals are based in this upbringing that involved God and the catholic church.
It didn't really dawn on me until later in life that not everyone has this kind of upbringing. Maybe in some areas of more religiousness, it's the norm and very prevelant. But from my experiences in college and life in general where I live, there are a lot of people that don't have that presence of God and religion that forms the basis of their life. And frankly, until I started going to church again and exploring this it wasn't really something I thought that much about.
However now that I am, I get a lot of questions about why I've gone back to the church. And I am discovering that a lot of who I am now, the beliefs I have, the morals and values I have are based in large part this religious upbringing I experienced. Not only that, but I am seeing that people who didn't have that religion in their early lives have different values and morals, a different outlook on life.
Two people in particular that I am interested in are my wife and oldest stepdaughter. My wife was exposed very minimally to religion, mostly by aunts and uncles. Her parents weren't religious, didn't go to church or teach her about God. Obviously I am hoping she goes with me on my journey in faith, and she is willing to explore with me at least a little bit. But I find that she knows little about christianity, and doesn't have the same kind of basis that I feel with my religion. I get the impression she is uncomfortable facing many of the values and morals of the church, almost as if she's afraid of them, or even afraid of confronting them. It's almost as if, to me, she's done things in life without reproach, or moral implication, and now that she's faced with this value system it's hard for her to assimilate. Not that she's a horrible person or done horrible things, but I don't think she's used to feeling bad or repentent for the things she's done in this world that conflict with God's teachings, or that are considered sins. She grew during the 70s and 80s and had a somewhat hippy flower child whatever feels good attitude. And that clashes a lot with being told you're a sinner and need to repent and ask forgiveness in order to get closer to God.
And I'm not sure how to deal with that, because it's second nature to me to understand the religious view. And it's also why I was never a hippy flowerchild that did things that made me feel good, I always had that moral conscience popping up that said "this is bad, don't do it". It's hard for me to grasp what she's going through.
The other person in particular is my oldest step daughter. She's had NO religious exposure, unfortunately, and she doesn't understand what Christianity is. All she knows is her judgemental grandmother and preconceived notions she gets from other people. She doesn't understand why I need to go to church, and is angry at the fact I'm going to begin with. She really doesn't understand the whole concept of faith, believing in something you can't see, accepting things in Christianity, etc. She thinks I'm crazy, and it's hard for me to explain to her. Especially when she doesn't want to take time to understand or even know the message. I really don't know even how to approach someone so cynical and against believing, I'm afraid of pushing her the other way. I'm not trying to convert her, but I'd at least like her to understand the message and what I'm believing, so I can maybe think about explaining the why. But it's like she doesn't even grasp the concept, and it's hard for me to know where to begin.
So I'm at a loss here on how to deal with either. If it wasn't so personal, I'd find it fascinating.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My feeling is that you are welcome to share what you are going through, but don't expect them to come along.
I think...I think that when your sweetheart starts with something takes a signifigant portion of his heart, it can be unnerving. If your wife is nervous, I think the important thing could be to reinforce that you think she is a good person, and that she doesn't have to convert or believe along with you in order to still be part of you. I think you're doing fine, but I was thinking - it may be more important for your wife and step-daughter to both know that they have and will have your respect even if they do not understand or are not interested.
It makes it lonelier for you, I think. Finding one's faith is such a cool, amazing experience that of COURSE you want to share it with those you love. You can, too, and they should be happy for you and supportive of you. It is very likely that they will not be experiencing the same thing, though. I have seen several families who have found faith and joined the church, but it rarely happened for both parents or all the kids simultaneously. When it did happen, there was lots of respect around for everyone's choices involved.
There is a huge difference between hating oneself and resolving to repent of one's sins, but if someone doesn't feel or understand the difference, that can be hard to believe, I think.
So, my two cents. Continue to show respect and love, don't expect anything other than support and respect for yourself, share when there's an opportunity but be sensitive to how they are feeling, and pray for opportunities and for guidance.
I believe that even with all the miracles the Lord has done, the biggest miracles are when someone's heart is changed. We can pray for these kinds of miracles, but we can't plan for them to happen for other people. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think in the case of someone who is acting like your step daughter, there is not much you can do (other than love her.) You can and should still practice your faith, and if she criticizes you for it, you should tell her that she is free to make her own decisions but you are free to do so as well, and you have chosen this. Getting into an argument over it is not going to help her perception of religious people; I think it is best to let your life tell the story of your religion, in the way you treat yourself and others, and love her, and that is that. Don't do anything you would not normally do to try and make her understand, but don't NOT do anything you would normally do to accomodate her discomfort with your religion, either. It's your religion and your home and you should practice it just as you would if she was not there (although of course you could occasionally still invite her to church with you if you wanted to and she was in a non-hostile mood, and make sure she knows there is no pressure and that she can say "no"-- and then leave it at that if she does.) At that age she is pretty much an adult and forcing her to do anything religious when she has not been exposed to it all her life would probably do more harm than good-- while the example of a life well and faithfully lived may do much in the long run to show her what faith can do if she ever decides she needs it in her life.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:It's almost as if, to me, she's done things in life without reproach, or moral implication...
I doubt very much this is the case, or I would have to wonder what you see in her at all! You'll have to engage in some give and take in the assimilation department.
quote:Not that she's a horrible person or done horrible things, but I don't think she's used to feeling bad or repentent for the things she's done in this world that conflict with God's teachings, or that are considered sins.
Try to remember that many people don't see that as a necessarily bad thing. Your wife and step-daughter probably take some pride in having created their own ethical value systems. If they see you as threatening it I could understand a hostile reaction, especially from your step-daughter (she sounds like she's in high school or college, is that correct?).
EDIT, because I forgot to add my best wishes for you and your family.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Another one of the things about religion that frustrates me. Why follow a series of teachings that tells you your loved ones are bad? If you know your loved ones are good people, it makes sense to me to believe what your experiences tell you.
Regardless of my frustration with religion's insistence on separating people, I hope you don't let your concerns or doubts mess up your relationship with your wife or stepdaughter.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Why follow a series of teachings that tells you your loved ones are bad?
I don't think most religions teach this. I know that from my experience, Catholicism (the religion in question) is heavy on "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Christianity doesn't work for everybody, but your stepdaughter should still be open-minded about it.
For me, I always had a hard time understanding people who believed so strongly in God. I always thought that somewhere in the backs of their minds, they must know that God's not real. But as I've grown up, I've forced myself to actually put myself in their shoes and understand what it's like to believe in God, and that helps me understand so many people. This is what your daughter should be doing, if she wants to understand you.
Also keep in mind that your stepdaughter and wife may have (most probably have) morals -- and even faith -- that comes from something totally unrelated to Christianity or to any religion. Everyone believes in and has faith in something, even if they think they're atheists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's almost as if, to me, she's done things in life without reproach, or moral implication, and now that she's faced with this value system it's hard for her to assimilate.
I strongly suspect that this is a load of bull, to be honest with you.
I don't think it's possible for someone to make it to the age of five without doing things in life with reproach or moral implication. The concept that "moral implication" is an attribute only accorded by religion is rather insulting, don't you think?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
stihl1,
I probably have a lot in common with your wife. As I imagine you've gleaned from my posts, I am a bit of a "hippie flower child" myself (albeit an aging one). Sin, for me, is not necessarily about what the Church has decided are dos and don'ts. It is about whats hurts other people and what damages my my relationship to God.
I was not raised in a particularly religious household. We didn't go to church regularly and when we did, it wasn't the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, I had a big chip on my shoulder about the Catholic Church (still do about a lot of things). But from as early as I can remember, I had a relationship with God. I knew God was present in my life.
My moral framework is not one I got from the Church, though I believe it is not in conflict witht the Church. I don't think that the Church is necessary for one to be a moral person, though I do think it is a support and enormous help in staying in relationship with God and in remembering who God wants me to be.
Listen to the advice from kq and kat (all female theists who start their names with a lower case k are very wise - or possibly the same person). Be who you are, let the Church be a support in that. Reassure your wife and step-daughter of your love and need for them. Don't argue or push - people need to find their own way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:or possibly the same person
>_<
Here we go again . . .
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Everyone believes in and has faith in something, even if they think they're atheists.
I find the "even if they think their atheists" part (yes, italics mine) to be somewhat insulting and belittling. It's no better than someone who says all those people who"think" they believe in God are really lying to themselves.
Aside from personal issues I have with often poorly applied labels like "atheist" and "agnostic", I believe in and have faith in things that are not "God" in any meaningful sense. However, my views on God are very clear to me. They are not something I merely "think" I believe, but something I genuine do believe. I'm also very clear on things I emphatically don't believe (the typical Christian God being only one of them). You may not have intended to belittle my beliefs, but your wording sure seems to.
Posted by Barabba (Member # 10322) on :
Stihl1,
From my experience - concentrate on your walk with the Lord, pray for theirs, and show them the love, peace, and grace God has offered you.
The way they will accept salvation is only known to God himself.
Remember when Jesus said that it was even harder for him to be accepted among his town than at other villages?
Love conquers all.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I find the "even if they think their atheists" part (yes, italics mine) to be somewhat insulting and belittling.
I suspect what was meant to be said was "Everyone believes in and has faith in something, even if they think they're faithless." ("Atheist", I'd say, is definitely not a synonym for "faithless.")
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Just love and respect them and be a good example of what faith is. People who are like me and find aspects of religion to be an anathema will be driven mad or driven away by too much preaching and lecturing so it's best to live by example and to show the good things about your faith through your conduct and kindness for them....
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Still, depending on how you define faith, I very much disagree with his statement. If you equate faith with trust defining it as "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing", than sure, I'll let the statement slide. If you define faith as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" then I strongly disagree that I have any faith. Some might argue that, and if need be I can explain why I don't have that kind of faith.
Or if you go a step further and use the following definition: "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will" then I most certainly have no faith whatsoever.
And Tres, if you're right, and he equates the word "atheist" with "faithless", then, again, depending on how you define faith, I'll either disagree or agree.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:People who are like me and find aspects of religion to be an anathema will be driven mad or driven away by too much preaching and lecturing so it's best to live by example and to show the good things about your faith through your conduct and kindness for them....
I agree with this. There are some people I feel I can't even talk to because every time I do, they inject some comment that feels aimed at converting me. On the other hand, there are many religious people I adore and with whom I can have long thoughtful discussions about religion becausue I feel the goal in those conversations is to share perspectives rather than "The Truth".
Reading your posts on Hatrack, you come across to me as a forceful person. I think I also tend to be a forceful person. I think that forceful personalities often fall in to the first category even when they're trying to be in the second. I think the best thing you can do is that when you talk to your family, only do so in gentle terms about how you feel this is right for you. Personally, I would find many of the statements in your opening to post to be alienating and divisive. I think a truth in life is that the only person you can ever truly change is yourself. I don't think you should try to pressure your family to convert or even to accept your re-conversion. If your conversion is handled gently and does not create negative experiences for your family, I believe they will eventually accept your conversion even if they don't convert themselves.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You want your wife and stepdaughter to experience your faith, with the hopes that they will see the light and convert. Are you equally willing to honestly and openly consider that their beliefs are correct, and that you could convert to their way?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Everyone believes in and has faith in something, even if they think they're atheists.
I find the "even if they think their atheists" part (yes, italics mine) to be somewhat insulting and belittling. It's no better than someone who says all those people who"think" they believe in God are really lying to themselves.
Aside from personal issues I have with often poorly applied labels like "atheist" and "agnostic", I believe in and have faith in things that are not "God" in any meaningful sense. However, my views on God are very clear to me. They are not something I merely "think" I believe, but something I genuine do believe. I'm also very clear on things I emphatically don't believe (the typical Christian God being only one of them). You may not have intended to belittle my beliefs, but your wording sure seems to.
We're saying the same thing, essentially. I didn't mean to say that you actually DO believe in God even if you THINK you don't -- I meant that even if you don't believe in God, you still have faith in things that have nothing to do with God. Science, history, literature, nature, love...appreciation of all those things requires a little leap of faith.
Therefore, religious people shouldn't think that those without religion are necessarily wanting of a fatih.
I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
(Just so we know, for me, I believe in God, though not connected with any particular religion. None of them appeal to me and I wasn't raised in any of them.)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Personally, I would probably not bring up the religious details at all, instead waiting for them to inquire about them if they are interested, which they will be more open to doing if they aren't afraid of getting a lecture or sermon every time the subject of religion comes up. At the same time you may be able to find a common ground on some spiritual aspects of life without even having to bring religion into the discussion. At least this way you can try to share a common view on some things even if you take a different path in how you see them.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:We're saying the same thing, essentially.
Your wording did not say the samething and was a bit offensive. Your clarification of what you meant does sound like the same sentiment, but your words did not reflect that sentiment.
quote:I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
Do you let go of your beliefs any time they become burdensome? I doubt it. Why do you deny atheists the same integrity?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well said, Amanecer.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You want your wife and stepdaughter to experience your faith, with the hopes that they will see the light and convert. Are you equally willing to honestly and openly consider that their beliefs are correct, and that you could convert to their way?
This is not correct. I would like my wife to attend mass with me and be able to come to church. It's not like she doesn't believe in God, she just doesn't have any real experience with faith and/or religion. I do not need her to convert to catholicism, although that would be great. I would just like to see her grow in her faith and become closer to God.
As far as my stepdaughter, I do not want to convert her either. Nor have I ever spoken to her about my religion, or tried to push her one way or the other. I have tried to take the opposite approach, and let her come to me. I think part of the problem with her is she's afraid I'm going to turn into a christian nazi or something, which I don't want to do anyway. But as soon as she found out, she got very angry and argumentative and I've basically just stayed away. She is young, in her early 20s, and she doesn't live at home. I'm not looking to convert her, as I said, but it would be nice if she had an open attitude and at least spent a bit of time trying to understand what I believe. Even if she decided not to believe it.
Part of the issue with my stepdaughters, both of them, is that I do feel somewhat responsible for not giving them any kind of religious education. The older one was in her early teens when I came on the scene, and was pretty hard to deal with period on any issues. At the same time, I wasn't sure what I was doing either at the time so I never broached the issue. With my youngest step daughter, she at least attended bible school with my sister-in-law when she was younger, so she has an idea of religion. I think that she is probably more open to finding out what my religion is about, and I think I've got more time to teach her if she's interested, she's still young. I feel somewhat that I failed the older one, and it saddens me that she's so angry and against religion. My take has been to just not shove it down her throat and hope that eventually I can warm her up to at least learning about my faith.
And as far as considering the opposite, my wife does believe in God, she's just not sure how. My stepdaughter has shown she's anti-christian so far, but I'm pretty sure that it's not because she's examined it and decided she doesn't believe. I think she's just angry and rebellious and just anti-religion. I will not consider that side because I'm not interested in being angry and rebellious and anti-religion. As far as considering that there is no God, I've been there and done that and that was frankly never an option for me.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's possible for someone to make it to the age of five without doing things in life with reproach or moral implication. The concept that "moral implication" is an attribute only accorded by religion is rather insulting, don't you think?
I didn't say she's done EVERYTHING in life without reproach or moral implication. I said there are some things she'd done that she did without reproach or moral implication, and I don't think she necessarily thinks that those things were wrong or needed repentance. Clearly, everyone in society takes on the basic morals and values of society; no killing, stealing, etc. But some things that society of today and/or yesterday doesn't have a problem with, I do because of my religious upbringing. She doesn't necessarily have a problem with those things, and I think she has a problem with addressing those areas and dealing with a religion that doesn't agree with things in her life she never had a problem with.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Another one of the things about religion that frustrates me. Why follow a series of teachings that tells you your loved ones are bad? If you know your loved ones are good people, it makes sense to me to believe what your experiences tell you.
My religion doesn't tell me that my loved ones are bad. My religion has a different set of values than what my wife has lived by. And I believe, a different set of values than society in general. I don't think my wife or daughter are bad people at all. I think my wife is a good person. The differences between my values and faith, and the values of people not raised with faith is fascinating to me. Not only fascinating, but dealing with those differences has become a delicate issue, to say the least.
Finally, I'm not looking to convert or judge or preach to anyone. I just want to be able to keep up with this exploration of faith without people seeing me as someone who wants to convert or judge or preach.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
Ironically, this does more to demean your own sense of being a "believer" than it does to cheapen my own philosophy. What does "belief" mean in a deathbed context anyway?
On the other hand, do you not see how this is related to "I believe that no one is a true believer if they really consider the facts in the light of reason." Do you not see how both are equally offensive?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
Ironically, this does more to demean your own sense of being a "believer" than it does to cheapen my own philosophy. What does "belief" mean in a deathbed context anyway?
On the other hand, do you not see how this is related to "I believe that no one is a true believer if they really consider the facts in the light of reason." Do you not see how both are equally offensive?
This reminded me of the quote,
""There are no atheists in fox holes" isn't an argument against atheism, its an argument against fox holes."
I feel there is definitely some truth to that Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I really didn't want this to turn into an arugment of believers vs non believers. There are plenty of threads to do that in. I just wanted to discuss the differences with people not raised with religion and how to reconcile believers and non believers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
How do you reconcile your differences with, say, Moslems? Or Mormons? Or Mennonites?
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
MMM...Moslems, Mormons and Mennonites, oh my.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You want your wife and stepdaughter to experience your faith, with the hopes that they will see the light and convert. Are you equally willing to honestly and openly consider that their beliefs are correct, and that you could convert to their way?
This is not correct. I would like my wife to attend mass with me and be able to come to church. It's not like she doesn't believe in God, she just doesn't have any real experience with faith and/or religion. I do not need her to convert to catholicism, although that would be great. I would just like to see her grow in her faith and become closer to God.
As far as my stepdaughter, I do not want to convert her either. ...
Part of the issue with my stepdaughters, both of them, is that I do feel somewhat responsible for not giving them any kind of religious education.
Interesting. I said that you want your family to experience your faith, with the hope that they will convert. You said that you were not trying to convert them. A fine point perhaps, but I was suggesting that you wanted to share your beliefs with them, thinking that they might change their minds on your own, while you wanted to make it clear that you were not trying to actively convert them.
Is teaching them about your religion a positive thing, but converting them a negative one? Isn't the ultimate goal of educating them in your faith for them to come over to the "Truth" and believe as you do?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like you view an attempt to convert your family as some kind of negative, almost an aggressive act, something you aren't willing to do.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
You reconcile them by respecting them. Your faith is between you and the thing you believe in. Live your life in an admirable, upright way, and you may attract people to your way of thinking. Or maybe not. But it's the only way to handle differences of this sort. You know in your heart that what you believe is "right" for you at a fundamental level... there is no way to communicate this to others beyond your manner and actions. Words do not suffice, and indeed will get you in trouble.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote: I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life
Okay, I'm sorry I put that in there. I could explain what I meant, but it doesn't have to do with the thread topic.
EDIT: I don't know how to explain this in a way that wouldn't be offensive... Let me just say...if you were about to die, wouldn't you just be hoping, just for a second, that it wouldn't be the absolute end? I don't mean to attack your atheism; I NEVER meant to, actually, and I'm very sorry for the earlier confusion. I'll try to make my wording clearer in the future.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Why follow a series of teachings that tells you your loved ones are bad?
I don't think most religions teach this. I know that from my experience, Catholicism (the religion in question) is heavy on "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Yes, but how many people actually follow that ideal?
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I agree with this. There are some people I feel I can't even talk to because every time I do, they inject some comment that feels aimed at converting me. On the other hand, there are many religious people I adore and with whom I can have long thoughtful discussions about religion becausue I feel the goal in those conversations is to share perspectives rather than "The Truth".[/QB]
Yeah, exactly. I've had some wonderful and profound conversations with deeply religious people and been better for it, because they respected me and were more interested in explaining their views and listening to mine than trying to "save me." Interestingly, those people have almost always been non-Christian. Thus my question above. This isn't meant as a snide nitpick at Christians, as many Christians I've through Hatrack have been quite pleasant. Sadly, your brethren in Christ weren't as nice. =/
[ March 19, 2007, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Hitoshi ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think people live any ideal to the letter. That seems like a poor method of judging the ideal.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote: I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life
Okay, I'm sorry I put that in there. I could explain what I meant, but it doesn't have to do with the thread topic.
EDIT: I don't know how to explain this in a way that wouldn't be offensive... Let me just say...if you were about to die, wouldn't you just be hoping, just for a second, that it wouldn't be the absolute end? I don't mean to attack your atheism; I NEVER meant to, actually, and I'm very sorry for the earlier confusion. I'll try to make my wording clearer in the future.
Then perhaps you've simply overstated your supposition. I do "hope" that death isn't "the end". In at least one way, I actually believe it isn't "the end", but that belief has absolutely nothing to do with God in any traditionally defined sense. God is certainly not a prerequisite for there to be "something" after death.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Let me just say...if you were about to die, wouldn't you just be hoping, just for a second, that it wouldn't be the absolute end?
I'm sorry, but I still find that condescending. The idea that someone who has spent their entire life as an atheist would suddenly, in the moment just before their death, think, "Okay, I take it all back!" is still implying that atheists feel somehow emptier or less secure in their beliefs than theists. And I think that's rubbish.
Saying that an atheist will let go of their entire belief system when death approaches--whether on their deathbed or in a foxhole--is an insult. In the moment before your death, what do you suppose the chances are you're going to suddenly say, "I was all wrong, I'm headed for oblivion and nothing awaits me after this!" Why should an atheist be less secure in their beliefs than you are in yours?
(Lest you think you've offended me personally, I will point out that I am agnostic, not atheist. My worldview would not be shattered to find proof that there is or is not a God, or gods, or spirits, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever else. Do I hope that there's a wonderful afterlife awaiting me? Well, no. Not really. I fully expect that there's nothing but oblivion after this, and I've long since made my peace with that idea. What's the sense in fearing that which you'll never be conscious of experiencing?)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I really didn't want this to turn into an arugment of believers vs non believers. There are plenty of threads to do that in. I just wanted to discuss the differences with people not raised with religion and how to reconcile believers and non believers.
I didn't think it was turning into such an arguement. However, I don't think it's out of place to politely raise objection to insensitive (or at best imprecise) language.
As for reconciling believers and non-believers, the best way to do that is for neither side to push. You mention that you strongly desire that your daughter show interest in understanding your beliefs. Have you given her the same degree of interest in understanding her beliefs? If not, then it's not exactly an attempt at reconcilliation as much as it is self-justification or subtle proselytization. You're focusing on something that you find lacking in them (that they don't understand you or appreciate something you find dear). Nobody likes to feel like they've been found wanting. If you've made the offer of sharing and they've shown a lack of interest, the best you can do is love them and respect their choices and make do with whatever natural exposure to the subject they get through observing you. /my 2 cents
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But some things that society of today and/or yesterday doesn't have a problem with, I do because of my religious upbringing. She doesn't necessarily have a problem with those things, and I think she has a problem with addressing those areas and dealing with a religion that doesn't agree with things in her life she never had a problem with.
I would say, perhaps excessively generously, that she doesn't necessarily have a problem addressing those areas, but rather has a problem with a religion she doesn't believe -- but you do -- telling her that things she doesn't regret doing are bad.
My brother is gay. My mother is Baha'i. He doesn't have a problem with religion, and certainly doesn't feel guilty about being gay, but he is rather hostile about the Baha'i Faith's attitude towards homosexuality -- not because he particularly cares what they think God thinks, but because it's poisoned our mother's opinion of all his relationships.
quote:if you were about to die, wouldn't you just be hoping, just for a second, that it wouldn't be the absolute end?
For most atheists, the alternative is generally said to be Hell. Is that an improvement?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
stihl, This is probably just a quirk of the way that you wrote this, but, to me, you are coming off as possibly judgmental here. It kinda sounds like you are looking down on your wife and step-daughter. You may not have that attitude at all, but I'm just saying that you sort of come off that way to me. If you come off the same way to your wife and step-daughter, it is understandable that you'd be met with less than enthusiasm.
Also, keep in mind that while your religion may fit for you, it may seem like a bad thing to others. I find how you seem to be describing your religion as somewhat negative and it is definitely not something that I'd want to adopt.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: I'm sorry, but I still find that condescending. The idea that someone who has spent their entire life as an atheist would suddenly, in the moment just before their death, think, "Okay, I take it all back!" is still implying that atheists feel somehow emptier or less secure in their beliefs than theists. And I think that's rubbish.
I don't know. I'm kind of leaning in that direction at the moment, although I don't think I would quite describe myself as an Atheist. While I don't think I would suddently change my mind if I was in a deathbed situation, I suspect that I would at least be thinking something along the lines of "I sure hope I was wrong about that afterlife thing."
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: I don't know. I'm kind of leaning in that direction at the moment, although I don't think I would quite describe myself as an Atheist. While I don't think I would suddently change my mind if I was in a deathbed situation, I suspect that I would at least be thinking something along the lines of "I sure hope I was wrong about that afterlife thing."
Maybe so, but the assertion was not that some atheists--or whatever it is you consider yourself to be--would feel that way. The assertion was:
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
(Italics mine.)
And frankly, I think that's condescending. It's no better than saying, "I believe that no Christian really believes all that Jesus stuff deep down inside," or "I believe that no Jew will really deny Christ when it comes right down to it."
Some atheists do have doubts about their beliefs. So do some Christians and some Jews. But that doesn't mean that everyone who describes themselves with one of those labels is just waiting for the right moment to abandon everything they believe in.
Edit: Okay, I should clarify that I don't mean you are waiting for the right moment. I meant that was Tara's assertion, intentionally or otherwise, and that is what I'm arguing against. All I'm saying about your uncertainty about your own beliefs is that it is neither evidence for nor against either position.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't think people live any ideal to the letter. That seems like a poor method of judging the ideal.
While I'm sure some people do indeed live by this, after hearing of teenagers taken to places like Love In Action against their will and forcefully treated for being gay, I do wonder.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that there is a difference between belief and wanting to believe because you are scared that something isn't true.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:or possibly the same person
>_<
Here we go again . . .
I have pictures of us together, in the company of others who have met both of us before. I can disprove this one. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That just leaves kmb and kat. Have they ever been seen in the same place at the same time?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I do however believe that no one is an nonbeliever in their very last moments of life.
I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that there is a difference between belief and wanting to believe because you are scared that something isn't true.
Well, I did, although somewhat obliquely, above in my 6:28 post. What I was implying is that "belief" is generally measured by faithfulness and action. To grant that same term to someone who is simply scared of the alternative seem to seriously cheapen it.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Tara,
When my mom died 12 years ago, she died a non-believer. My dad remained and remains a non-believer, as do I.
She stared death in the face, and aside from a little drooling, did not flinch. There was no sudden deathbed conversion for her. When we attended her funeral, we felt the rabbi's words were all a bunch of self-serving pablum, and felt nothing special or spiritual about the ceremony (then...or since).
Sorry to spill over your apple cart, but you have to admit it was balanced rather precariously...
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like you view an attempt to convert your family as some kind of negative, almost an aggressive act, something you aren't willing to do.
Because frankly, I'm not looking to convert anyone. As I said, it would be nice if my wife would go to church with me and maybe somehow get a better understanding and/or relationship with God. She doesn't have to convert, I'd just like my exploration in faith to rub off on her and maybe bring her closer to God. As far as my stepdaughter goes, I'd like it if she would at the very least have an understanding of what Christianity believes, sees a positive model of Christianity, and at least see that the negative view she has now isn't the only one. If some of what I'm doing rubs off on her as well, that would be great. Like I said, I feel somewhat responsible for at least introducing the stepkids to christianity. So far I haven't done that, and I feel somewhat that I failed in doing so. That doesn't mean I have to make them both catholics. Just introduce them to what it means, where they go from there is up to them.
Honestly, I do see the term 'convert' as a negative term, having been the target of other evangelical Christians trying to 'convert' me in the past. I see my task as a good catholic to represent the faith well, be there to inform and educate, but not push anyone into what they don't want. I've always viewed religion as a personal thing, not something to try to sell someone on. And I don't necessarily think my choice of religion fits everyone, nor should it.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: As for reconciling believers and non-believers, the best way to do that is for neither side to push. You mention that you strongly desire that your daughter show interest in understanding your beliefs. Have you given her the same degree of interest in understanding her beliefs?
I don't strongly desire her to show interest. I think it would be nice if she wasn't violently angry with me for making a personal choice that has nothing to do with her, and if she had an open mind about it. Yes it would be great if I could show her what I believe. But at this point I can't even talk to her about anything because she's so angry and against it. And she doesn't have any beliefs, other than being anti-christian and angry.
I need to be clear here. I haven't tried to talk to her at all about anything. I never approached her or announced anything to anyone about religion. So far, she found out that I'm going to church and that my wife is going, and is very angry and rude and argumentative about it. My response has been to tell her I'm not arguing about it, and if she wants to talk about it like a normal person I'd be more than willing. That's it. She gives my wife a lot of grief about going to church with me and doing the very little bit that we've done so far. Frankly, I'm not sure when we will even be able to talk again because of her reaction.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: stihl, This is probably just a quirk of the way that you wrote this, but, to me, you are coming off as possibly judgmental here. It kinda sounds like you are looking down on your wife and step-daughter. You may not have that attitude at all, but I'm just saying that you sort of come off that way to me. If you come off the same way to your wife and step-daughter, it is understandable that you'd be met with less than enthusiasm.
Also, keep in mind that while your religion may fit for you, it may seem like a bad thing to others. I find how you seem to be describing your religion as somewhat negative and it is definitely not something that I'd want to adopt.
I couldn't disagree more. I think you look at my religion as negative, which is a suprise to me since I really haven't said a whole lot about my religion. I don't see anything I've written which has a negative connotation to it at all. Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society, and most Christians believe the sin and repentance thing.
If I were judgemental of my wife I wouldn't have ever started a relationship with her. I've always taken a stance that I don't care what she did in the past, and honestly I don't want to know. Just as long as she respects me, her kids and our relationship now. She has always done so, I have never doubted her or our love. As far as my stepdaughter goes, I'm not condescending or judgemental to her at all either. Frankly, I'm quite proud of her and how she's turned out as an adult. I've told her so, and our relationship up to now has been the best it ever was.
I started my return to my church as a personal thing. I didn't think my wife would go along to begin with. And I never intended to include or convert anyone. I always took this as a personal journey, and something I needed to do for myself, not for anyone else. My wife volunteered to come to church with me because she wanted to stand by me in this. I never asked. My stepdaughter decided to put herself into the situation before I ever intended to even mention to her I was even going to church, and she has done so in a negative way that has suprised me.
It is fascinating to me the difference between people who have a religious background and someone who doesn't, and how the people who don't approach faith. That's not condescending or negative. I find that my wife's reluctance to address the idea of repentance interesting, and frankly I don't think she understands the concept. I am repentant for my sins of the past, without necessarily regretting them. I think my wife doesn't quite grasp the difference there. And I think the experiences with religion that she has had are very much different than the beliefs I have, and that maybe that gets in the way a little bit.
And certainly, no one has come to her and said "Hey you're a sinner! Repent the past or burn in hell!" That's not how my religion works, to begin with, and she hasn't done much more than go to church and speak to the priest with me a few times. And I'm not looking for her to confess all her sins or become a new person or change her life. I have tried to explain the concepts of repenting and confession and asking for forgiveness. As I said, she doesn't necessarily see some of the things in her life as regrettable or that she needs to repent for them. I am not asking her to regret anything or repent. I do know I have never done the same things, or similar things because of my values and morals would have told me not to. And it just goes against what I believe. That doesn't mean I've been perfect, and I'm sure someone else could probably see my choices and the things I did as immoral, etc. I can believe that without judging anyone. It doesn't make me better, just different. And I haven't said anything different here.
Anyway, the point is she sees how I believe about these things and that the church stresses confession and repentance and forgiveness, and I think that she doesn't understand that, maybe fears that a bit. I don't need her to completely agree with it, I'm just curious as to how to show her that it's not a bad thing. I think it might just be something that takes time for her to understand or grow on, or not. I think she fears that the church teaching repentance and asking for forgiveness means the church members will be judgemental, or the priests will be judgemental, etc. And looking from the outside I can understand that. But from my experience, that's not how it is.
And in the end, if my wife decided she didn't want to believe in God or Christianity or continue with me, that would probably sadden me. But I'd have to respect her and leave it at that. I would hope that it wouldn't affect us negatively, but it's a real possibility. I think the fact that she has been open to this so far is a good thing, and a sign that she doesn't want it to be a negative in our relationship. And I don't think it will come to that. Like I said, if all that comes out of this she grows a little closer to God then that would be a great thing, imo.
[ March 20, 2007, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: stihl1 ]
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How do you reconcile your differences with, say, Moslems? Or Mormons? Or Mennonites?
I don't live with Muslims, mormons or mennonites. Nor do I believe it to be the same issue, as those are all faiths. They believe in a religion, in something that cannot be proven or seen. That requires faith. I don't think that someone who doesn't have a faith, or doesn't understand the concept of faith, as the same as a faith. If you don't believe, you don't believe. I understand that. But I often find that people who don't believe, don't understand how someone who does have faith believes. With someone of another faith, I am at least on a level playing field because they have faith in an unseen God or religion. For me at least, there is a bigger difference with someone who doesn't believe in any faith, and I find those differences interesting.
And that still doesn't address the other issue of morals and values. Not that someone who isn't religious isn't moral or have high values. But often those who are religious have a different set of morals than society in general. I don't agree with abortion because of my religious beliefs, whereas in the American society it's legal and not necessarily immoral. (PLEASE, no abortion debates here, that's not the point). I wouldn't consider an abortion because it's an affront to God and human life. There are things that I wouldn't do because I find them to be sinful, and go against my values, and I'd be concerned with offending God by making those choices. Someone who doesn't believe in God or doesn't have a religious background aren't necessarily going to be concerned with sin and upsetting God. They could certainly be moral and avoid doing certain things because they are in conflict with their morals, but they aren't going to have that religious connotation to them. You can be a good moral person and an outstanding member of society. But to me, at least, someone who has a further background of a religion or belief in God, there is a bit of a difference as to why they are a good moral person and an outstanding member of society. And what I've discovered as I return to my faith is that I share a common ground with other members of my faith I never knew was there. Or didn't recognize.
And of course, to head things off, that is neither bad nor good nor does it make me better or worse. Just different.
My best friend happens to be a mormon, and I've had great conversations with him about his religion and mine. I've also discussed this question with him. He was raised not in the mormon faith, but another, and has had similar experiences with people not raised with a faith. Like I said above, I seem to have more of a common ground with him than I do with someone who has no background in faith or religion at all. And he agrees.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: You reconcile them by respecting them. Your faith is between you and the thing you believe in. Live your life in an admirable, upright way, and you may attract people to your way of thinking. Or maybe not. But it's the only way to handle differences of this sort. You know in your heart that what you believe is "right" for you at a fundamental level... there is no way to communicate this to others beyond your manner and actions. Words do not suffice, and indeed will get you in trouble.
This, along with the wisdom of the three k's above seem to be the wisest and bestest to me so far.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Because frankly, I'm not looking to convert anyone. ... I've always viewed religion as a personal thing, not something to try to sell someone on. And I don't necessarily think my choice of religion fits everyone, nor should it.
If it's a personal thing, and you realize that your choice may not fit them, why not just accept that they have their own beliefs, which are different than yours, and leave it at that?
You keep mentioning that you feel like you failed in your job to educate them about religion. It sounds to me that you don't mind that they're not Catholic, you just feel guilty for not fulfilling your duty to "show them the way."
Is it really about their faith, or is about your feeling that you need to do more? What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that if, when you get right down to it, it's not so much about their beliefs anyway -since you admit that it's cool if they never convert- maybe you just have a feeling that you should connect with them better. If that's the case, you might be able to better connect with them in a non-religious way.
Heck, maybe instead of you telling them about your faith, you should offer to really learn about what they believe. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:She doesn't have to convert, I'd just like my exploration in faith to rub off on her and maybe bring her closer to God.
What's the distinction?
quote:They could certainly be moral and avoid doing certain things because they are in conflict with their morals, but they aren't going to have that religious connotation to them.
So...? Do you find your wife's morals to be lacking?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society, and most Christians believe the sin and repentance thing.
This is revealing. I agree that most members of most religions believe they are following a "higher moral standard", but how many of those would recognize any of the others as having an equally high moral standard. The point is, for every single religion, the vast, VAST, majority of "the rest of society" is made up of the religious, just that they are the religious of other religions. Therefore, the phrase "Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society" seems to be to be a paradox. It's demonstrably impossible. The sad thing is that where so many of the religious seem to agree is that whatever their code, it's at least higher than those compass-less atheists.
Clearly I know nothing about your daughter or your relationship with her except what you've posted. I'm beginning to suspect that she's not wholly unjustified if she feels your respect for her and her ability to make her own choices is threatened by your increased religiousity. It seems clear to me that you regard those for whom religion isn't as important as it is for you as somehow lacking. On the other hand, if she's really screaming and irrational about it, then it seems likely you and she have problems that have nothing to do with religion as a root cause.
I know that when I left my church, I wondered about my other family members' opinion of me, knowing what their religion teaches them. The family members I still get along with are the ones that respect my choices as an adult. I'm sure some of them are heartbroken that I don't believe anymore. Others are probably sure I've damned myself in some way or another. I can live with that as long as they keep it to themselves. Not that they have to keep their religion to themselves. My aunt next door is very active in her church and frequently talks about it. I recognize this as part of her and accept it. She seems to recognize that I don't share this particular joy with her as part of myself. We get along fine. If she pressured me into going to church with her, she'd find our relationship strained to whatever degree she chose to strain it. Likewise, if I chose to try to talk her out of her church, it would be strained to the degree I chose to strain it. We both value the relationship itself for what it is too much to risk damaging it by trying to change the other person. (At least that's how I see it. I can't really speak for my aunt.)
quote:I need to be clear here. I haven't tried to talk to her at all about anything. I never approached her or announced anything to anyone about religion. So far, she found out that I'm going to church and that my wife is going, and is very angry and rude and argumentative about it. My response has been to tell her I'm not arguing about it, and if she wants to talk about it like a normal person I'd be more than willing. That's it. She gives my wife a lot of grief about going to church with me and doing the very little bit that we've done so far. Frankly, I'm not sure when we will even be able to talk again because of her reaction.
In light of this, it's entirely possible her reaction is due to what she fears about religion as a new force in the lives of those close to her. I have no way of knowing what her experiences thus far have been, but I do know that if Chris (my partner) suddenly "found religion" or started going to church, I'd probably make it known that I prefer the status quo, (depending on what religion, etc), though hopefully I could do so without any histrionics or rudeness. Depending on how religious he became, and what religion, and how it changed him and demanded his time, it could very possibly spell the end of our relationship.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
stihl,
you seem to be consistently using "religion" as a synonym for catholicism. if you truly want to introduce your oldest step-daughter to "religion", you should also introduce her to other faiths like hinduism, buddhism, islam, daoism, etc.
the idea of religion somehow providing a higher moral system is faulty IMO. moral values are extremely subjective, and different religions, societies have different perspectives on them. The same action that is holy in one is blasphemous in another, so one inherently identifies their own system as "higher".
I'd recommend reading Peter Berger's "Sacred Canopy"... it's one of the canonical texts of religious studies, and explores the human need for God and religion.
BTW
technically, "atheist" does not mean "one who has no religion", it means "one who believes in no God". this difference is significant: I identify myself as an "atheistic non-dualist Hindu" which means that I am religious in the non-dualist Hindu way and I do not believe in a God-being; my wife does not believe in religion. we're both atheistic, but from a religiosity perspective, two completely different animals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think it is necessary to conduct a world religions class before you can talk about your faith. Asking stihl is like asking him to teach that what he believes is just one of several possible options. You may think that it is, but if he doesn't feel that way, then it wouldn't be right to teach it.
It also makes me nervous to have an adherent of one religion expound on another. I've talked to too many people who learned all about the Mormons at their church and refuse to believe that what they were taught wasn't true, despite what the Mormon church itself said to the contrary.
quote:moral values are extremely subjective
This itself is a belief. Stihl is under no obligation to teach something he doesn't believe.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society, and most Christians believe the sin and repentance thing.
Do you have evidence for this claim? My reading suggests that the behavior of many religious in many aspects is worse than that of the rest of society.
---
Also, I think you may have missed my point. I'm not saying that your religion is objectively a negative thing. I'm saying that, for me, it wuold be a negative thing. It is possible to understand your faith without liking it or wanting it for oneself.
As for the judgmental thing, as I said, that's just how you are coming off to me. Your response actually strengthened that impression.
But, as I said, this may be just the way you are coming off to me. However, again, if you are coming off this way to me, it is possible that you are coming off this way to the people you're talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Even if true, that doesn't contradict in the slightest what he said.
A church is not a museum of perfect people but a hospital for those who are not. It is like pointing at the cancer ward and saying that's proof that modern medicine causes people to die of cancer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Are you suggesting that religious people start off as worse (i.e. have cancer) than the rest of society?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
stihl,
I don't think that religious people are necessarily any more moral than others. Judge your wife's morals by what she does, not by what she believes. Better still, don't judge her at all. Respect her choices. Reassure her and your step daughter that your faith doesn"t change how you feel about them. It sound like your step daughter especially needs reassurance.
Faith is a very personal thing - as you discovered in your encounters with people who thought you needed to be "saved". That is just as repellant coming from a Catholic point of view.
I am glad that you are finding your way. Remember that you found it because you were looking - people trying to encourage you toward a certain path would only have had the opposite effect. Catholicism is not right for everybody.
Mostly, trust the Holy Spirit to work for the best in your family, just as it has for you. You are not "in charge". Leave it to God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that religious people start off as worse (i.e. have cancer) than the rest of society?
No.
quote:A church is not a museum of perfect people but a hospital for those who are not. It is like pointing at the cancer ward and saying that's proof that modern medicine causes people to die of cancer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...but in that metaphor, the people being compared to (the rest of society in the original formulation) don't have cancer. I'm not sure how what you are saying makes sense if we're not saying that the religious people cancer (or are morally worse) so it is not fair to compare them to people who don't have cancer (the non-religious people who behave better than the religious ones). Could you explain?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know how I can say it more clearly. I am sorry you are not able to understand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Am I alone in my confusion as to the point/validity of the metaphor here?
edit: As I see it, it is pretty clear.
The one group (religous people/cancer patients) start out with some deficiency that they need to be treated for (by joining a religion/going to the hospital). Other people don't have this deficiency and so aren't religious or aren't in the hospital. So, when I compared the moral behavior of religious to non-religious people, it was like comparing the health of people in a cancer ward in a hospital to that of healthy people and saying that hospitals make you sick.
If this isn't other people's impression, could someone point out where my interpretation is flawed?
[ March 20, 2007, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. She lost me, too. I can't imagine that she's saying that the people in church are more likely to need to be cured of their social problems than the rest of the population.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If it's a personal thing, and you realize that your choice may not fit them, why not just accept that they have their own beliefs, which are different than yours, and leave it at that?
You keep mentioning that you feel like you failed in your job to educate them about religion. It sounds to me that you don't mind that they're not Catholic, you just feel guilty for not fulfilling your duty to "show them the way."
This bothers me, because I never wrote "show them the way". You keep interjecting your own biases into what I wrote. What I wrote was I feel somewhat responsible because I never taught either of my stepdaughters about christianity at all. Not that I feel that it's my "duty to show them the way." That presupposes I believe that christianity has to be what they believe. I don't think it's my job to make sure they believe in Christianity, just that they know about it and understand a positive viewpoint. After that it's up to them.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Is it really about their faith, or is about your feeling that you need to do more? What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that if, when you get right down to it, it's not so much about their beliefs anyway -since you admit that it's cool if they never convert- maybe you just have a feeling that you should connect with them better. If that's the case, you might be able to better connect with them in a non-religious way.
Heck, maybe instead of you telling them about your faith, you should offer to really learn about what they believe.
I'm going totry to be nice about this, because I've explained this twice. My stepdaughter doesn't believe anything. She's made that clear. As I said, all she's shown me is a negative antichristian attitude that's based in anger and rebelliousness since she knows nothing about the religion and admits as much. And frankly she's not interested in doing anything but bashing christianity, which she knows nothing about, which is an argument I don't need to be in. My wife has a cursory knowledge of Christianity, doesn't know what she believes because she hasn't ever explored it. She does know that she wasn't interested in her sister's religion and so far she feels more comfortable going to church with me than she did with other churches in the past.
It's not a matter of my wife having different beliefs from me. That would be fine. She really has no specific beliefs or preferences. She has voluntarily come to church with me to explore her faith. As I've written, I never asked her to do anything, she came along on her own.
My stepdaughter has no religious beliefs other than being anti christian and angry that we're going to church. Would I like her to at least understand christianity and what I believe? Yes. Do I regret that I never made an effort to explain christianity to her? Yes. It is sad to me that she has such a negative anti christian opinion that she's formed without knowledge of the religion. That is my regret and I consider it to be my failure, not hers. I don't need her to believe the same as me, I am not pushing anything on her, I never set out to convert or instruct or make her believe anything. I was doing my own thing, she interjected herself into the situation.
I've written this, I'm not sure what part you missed the first couple of times.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What's the distinction?
To convert to my religion would involve more than just having more of a better relationship with and/or understanding of God. I recognize catholicism isn't for everyone, and that not everyone is going to believe the same way.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They could certainly be moral and avoid doing certain things because they are in conflict with their morals, but they aren't going to have that religious connotation to them.
So...? Do you find your wife's morals to be lacking?
First, that's not what I was saying. Second, I wasn't implying that a moral non-religious person was lacking in morality, just that it would be different from a moral religious person. And finally, lacking sometimes yes. More often, just different from mine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:My reading suggests that the behavior of many religious in many aspects is worse than that of the rest of society.
quote:Even if true, that doesn't contradict in the slightest what he said.
A church is not a museum of perfect people but a hospital for those who are not. It is like pointing at the cancer ward and saying that's proof that modern medicine causes people to die of cancer.
The point was that even if true, the behavior of religious people does not translate directly into the worth of the religion. The analogy was to demonstrate that.
I am not responsible for any other readings into what I said, and I will not defend misinterpretations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am not responsible for any other readings into what I said...
*whisper* Then you probably shouldn't use analogies. They're unsafe for precisely that reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wasn't implying that a moral non-religious person was lacking in morality, just that it would be different from a moral religious person. And finally, lacking sometimes yes. More often, just different from mine.
I think this is the core of the issue. When you run into situations where your daughter or your wife disagree with you on a point of ethics, talk to them about it. Ethical discussions are more productive than religious discussions, anyway.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, people are free to read things into it, and of course people will. However, I won't defend what they get wrong.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I can't imagine that she's saying that the people in church are more likely to need to be cured of their social problems than the rest of the population.
I think she is saying that if you need to be cured of sins, a church is the place to go to get cured. Thus it would make sense if the people who most need to be cured are often drawn to churches.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ethical discussions are more productive than religious discussions, anyway.
Ethical discussions are religious discussions, at least for anyone who bases their ethics on their religion.
And, at least from Hatrack experience, I'm not sure one is more productive than the other.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's very close, but still extending a little farther than I meant, Tres.
A church is not filled with people who are living their religion perfectly. So, failings in the people do not translate into failings of the religion.
People are of course welcome to criticize the teachings of the religion, but pointing to the behavior of those who attend, especially when they are NOT living up to the teachings of the religion, is not a good way to go about it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do feel that there comes a point when that excuse for the failings of the religious is used up. To extend your metaphor, atheistic ethics is likewise a hospital filled with cancerous people; if it has a better survival rate, then it is objectively better, and the religion fails.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I find your argument unconvincing.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society, and most Christians believe the sin and repentance thing.
This is revealing. I agree that most members of most religions believe they are following a "higher moral standard", but how many of those would recognize any of the others as having an equally high moral standard. The point is, for every single religion, the vast, VAST, majority of "the rest of society" is made up of the religious, just that they are the religious of other religions. Therefore, the phrase "Most religions have higher moral standards and values than the rest of society" seems to be to be a paradox. It's demonstrably impossible. The sad thing is that where so many of the religious seem to agree is that whatever their code, it's at least higher than those compass-less atheists.
I understand your point, but I disagree. It can be shown in our society that actions such as premarital sex, abortion, extramarital affairs, violence, sexual promiscuity, doing drugs, abortion, etc etc all have become less taboo and more acceptable as a part of society. Yet most religions have values that are contrary to this. And many religious people will take stances against this. Yet these things that are contrary to religious beliefs become more prevalent. Which means either people aren't following their religion's values, people aren't as religious as they claim, or that people just flat out aren't religious. Therefore, I believe your claim that the vast majority of society is made up of the religious is incorrect. The disparity in values between society at large and the values of most religions shows this. If your statement were true, I think that there wouldn't be quite the disparity.
I guess my point is, and maybe even my opinion is, that I grew up in a very catholic, religious household and much of my morals and values are based on what I was taught and learned growing up in that environment. It's obvious to me that these are different values than the rest of society, and I think that anyone who grew up in a more religious household is going to have different values and morals than a non religious house. Because mainly, there is another modality at use in forming those values and morals. That being consideration for straying from the teachings of their religion and God. That being said, I don't think that someone who was/is nonreligious has lesser morals, or that they are lacking, or can't be a great, model, moral, high citizen of society. Just different. That doesn't make them lesser than me necessarily. But there are things I wouldn't do or have never done or wouldn't consider because they contrast with my religious beliefs and values. Whereas I do know, have known people who had no problem doing those things because of their lack of religiousness. I also know people (no one in particular) that have a different, more carefree attitude about things that I don't have because of religious considerations. And to be honest, I don't understand those attitudes sometimes. That doesn't make them wrong, I'm not judging, it's just different.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: ... it's entirely possible her reaction is due to what she fears about religion as a new force in the lives of those close to her. I have no way of knowing what her experiences thus far have been, but I do know that if Chris (my partner) suddenly "found religion" or started going to church, I'd probably make it known that I prefer the status quo, (depending on what religion, etc), though hopefully I could do so without any histrionics or rudeness. Depending on how religious he became, and what religion, and how it changed him and demanded his time, it could very possibly spell the end of our relationship.
I do think this is the case, that's she's afraid that we're going to turn into Christian nazis and maybe not approve or agree or even love her anymore because of that. I can understand that, I've had those experiences. But I am determined to not turn my exploration of my religion and faith into an open season on converting, judging, disapproving, hurting those I love and respect. And I'd tell her that if she would give me 2 seconds to try to share, but that hasn't happened, which is what saddens me. Like I said, this whole thing started out as a very personal thing that I never intended to spread to others or have effect others. But to be clear, because she has interjected herself into the situation and is so opposed to it doesn't mean I'm going to stop anything or change my mind. I'm more than happy to explain myself and/or reassure her if necessary, but this isn't something that I can be persuaded, cajolled, or forced to stop because of her misconceptions. I certainly have a right to enlighten myself and pursue a better relationship with God and my religion. I would certainly never act the same way if she chose to do the same with another religion or belief system or whatever.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Don't have time to read the whole thread, but why not try a faith that isn't quite so full of guilt as Catholicism?
It seems like your wife and stepchildren don't feel guilty and don't want to feel guilty. Why not use the carrot instead of the stick?
There are lots of kinds of christianity. Maybe you should meet them half way?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why, Kat? It's actually the same argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pix, I don't think that we necessarily have more guilt. I do think that we have "mechanisms" for dealing with guilt which may be why it seems that we put an emphasis on it.
edit to add:
stihl, in my experience, people who consider themselves religious (in general) are just about as sinful as people who don't.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No. She lost me, too. I can't imagine that she's saying that the people in church are more likely to need to be cured of their social problems than the rest of the population.
No, what she's saying is just because you believe in God or are religious doesn't mean you are perfect, or perfect examples of a religion's beliefs. Some people think that just because you are religious you are perfect and are trying to make everyone else perfect. That's not true, at least for my religion. The reason for being religious or faithful is because you're not perfect, you are a sinner, and to get closer to God and his perfection you need a religion. For catholics, we don't consider ourselves to be perfect or perfectly moral or better than anyone. We participate in our faith to become better, to work at being closer to God, to become more perfect according to his vision. Because we're not, we're sinful people, and getting closer to God means getting further away from being sinful. The catholic faith is designed to help you do that. And that's what so many people don't understand when they consider the sacraments, the rituals, the rights, the beliefs. They see the surface of what we do, not the meaning or goals.
Anywho, for many religious people, and many nonreligious people view religion from the outside, being religious means being perfect. That's not true. If you were perfect, you wouldn't need to be in church. If you were perfectly healthy and didn't have cancer, you wouldn't be in a cancer ward. She's not saying the rest of society has cancer, but (if you're a christian) we are all sinners.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I find your argument unconvincing.
Like Tom, I'd quite like to hear why. This just looks like "la-la-la, can't hear!"
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: stihl,
you seem to be consistently using "religion" as a synonym for catholicism. if you truly want to introduce your oldest step-daughter to "religion", you should also introduce her to other faiths like hinduism, buddhism, islam, daoism, etc.
But I haven't said I feel responsible for not introducing my stepdaughter to religion, I said I feel responsible for not introducing her to Christianity. Frankly, it's not my job to teach comparative religion, nor would I want to.
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: the idea of religion somehow providing a higher moral system is faulty IMO. moral values are extremely subjective, and different religions, societies have different perspectives on them. The same action that is holy in one is blasphemous in another, so one inherently identifies their own system as "higher".
I disagree. Rarely is there a societal norm for morality that is higher than a religion, unless we're talking about a satanic or 'negative' religion. It's usually the other way around. And I'm not discussing other societies and their religions. I'm talking about my society vs my religion.
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: BTW
technically, "atheist" does not mean "one who has no religion", it means "one who believes in no God". this difference is significant: I identify myself as an "atheistic non-dualist Hindu" which means that I am religious in the non-dualist Hindu way and I do not believe in a God-being; my wife does not believe in religion. we're both atheistic, but from a religiosity perspective, two completely different animals.
I didn't say it did. I commented on someone who doesn't believe in anything being different in someone who does believe in something. And that not believing isn't the same thing as believing. The absence of faith isn't in itself a faith. And I never mentioned aethism.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No, what she's saying is just because you believe in God or are religious doesn't mean you are perfect, or perfect examples of a religion's beliefs.
No one was talking about perfection. We were talking about relative to "the rest of society". More specifically, I said that in many ways, religious people behave worse than the rest of society (edit: on average).
I don't understand how that would introduce issues of perfection.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think this is the core of the issue. When you run into situations where your daughter or your wife disagree with you on a point of ethics, talk to them about it. Ethical discussions are more productive than religious discussions, anyway.
I would never start an ethical or moral discussion based on "God says" or "my religions says". I would explain what my moral opinion or belief was, and if pertinent relate it to why I believe that, if necessary because of my faith.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I disagree. Rarely is there a societal norm for morality that is higher than a religion, unless we're talking about a satanic or 'negative' religion. It's usually the other way around.
Perhaps you would care to provide an example of one way in which your religion has a higher standard than the rest of society.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No, what she's saying is just because you believe in God or are religious doesn't mean you are perfect, or perfect examples of a religion's beliefs.
No one was talking about perfection. We were talking about relative to "the rest of society". More specifically, I said that in many ways, religious people behave worse than the rest of society.
I don't understand how that would introduce issues of perfection.
Sometimes religious people do behave worse than the rest of society. That shouldn't reflect poorly on religion or God. Because religious people aren't perfect, or better because they are religious. Although you seem to be trying to put them there.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: My stepdaughter has no religious beliefs other than being anti christian and angry that we're going to church. Would I like her to at least understand christianity and what I believe? Yes. Do I regret that I never made an effort to explain christianity to her? Yes. It is sad to me that she has such a negative anti christian opinion that she's formed without knowledge of the religion.
If I'm recalling correctly, you said your stepdaughter was an adult, living on her own, correct? Isn't it entirely possible that she's formed that opinion through her own experiences? Just because you haven't provided knowledge of the religion doesn't mean she hasn't gained that knowledge from other sources. It's quite possible to grow up with a negative view of religion, if your primary interaction with proponents of that religion are people telling you how bad you are and how you're going to hell. (I'm speaking from experience, here; I grew up in the Bible Belt and was routinely told at school by peers that I was going to hell.)
In my opinion, your best bet is to continue doing your own thing (as you said), and provide a counter-example to her own negative experiences. Others have suggested this upthread, and I think they are wise.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I disagree. Rarely is there a societal norm for morality that is higher than a religion, unless we're talking about a satanic or 'negative' religion. It's usually the other way around.
Perhaps you would care to provide an example of one way in which your religion has a higher standard than the rest of society.
My religion doesn't believe in abortion, it is murder. In the US abortion is legal, and remains legal because the rest of society keeps it that way. And many people don't consider it to be murder. I wouldn't consider having an abortion ever. For many people in society, it's not a problem. The standard I set and that my religion teaches is higher than society. That standard is lower than that of my religion, imo.
And I'm sure you'll disagree. You're free to disagree. That doesn't make you right, or me wrong. But it does prove my point.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, that's where I disagree. When people belonging to any organization consistently behave worse than a well-structured control that suggests to me that either 1) those people started out worse or 2) some aspect of that organization makes them worse - or some combination of the two.
When you are toutng your religion as the moral standard people should shoot for, I think it is extremely relevant to consider the behavior of people inside that religion and see if it matches your recommendations. If religion is the superior standard, but religious people are behaving worse than people outside that religion, then that religion very likely has some serious problems with how it is imparting that standard. Thus, while the standard may be superior, the religion, as an organization seems not to be.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Don't have time to read the whole thread, but why not try a faith that isn't quite so full of guilt as Catholicism?
It seems like your wife and stepchildren don't feel guilty and don't want to feel guilty. Why not use the carrot instead of the stick?
There are lots of kinds of christianity. Maybe you should meet them half way?
Because I'm not asking them to meet me anywhere. My beliefs as a catholic are very important to me, but I don't need them to, and I'm not requiring them to, I'm not even asking them to, believe the same way as me. As I said, if my wife decided she wasn't into catholicism that's fine, I don't expect her to convert, never asked her to convert or even come to church with me. As far as the stepkid goes, she isn't even willing to communicate with me, let alone have the opinion that catholicism is 'full of guilt'.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:My religion doesn't believe in abortion, it is murder. In the US abortion is legal, and remains legal because the rest of society keeps it that way. And many people don't consider it to be murder. I wouldn't consider having an abortion ever. For many people in society, it's not a problem. The standard I set and that my religion teaches is higher than society. That standard is lower than that of my religion, imo.
And I'm sure you'll disagree. You're free to disagree. That doesn't make you right, or me wrong. But it does prove my point.
I think that mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream. Other people disagree. Thus I have proven that I have better taste than other people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And I'm sure you'll disagree. You're free to disagree. That doesn't make you right, or me wrong. But it does prove my point.
No it doesn't. It proves that your religion has a higher standard of morality by the standard of morality espoused by your religion. See the circularity? I could just as well claim that catholics are immoral because the Pope forbids contraceptives; in fact, I do claim that. Since the only way to settle such an issue is with machine guns, how about coming up with an example where the morality is agreed on?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Damn you, Squicky! Don't express my points more pithily than I do! Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: See, that's where I disagree. When people belonging to any organization consistently behave worse than a well-structured control that suggests to me that either 1) those people started out worse or 2) some aspect of that organization makes them worse - or some combination of the two.
For me to agree with this, I would have to agree that people belonging to religions consistently behave poorly. While I do agree there are a lot of hypocrits and people who cover themselves with the blanket of religion while not truly behaving according to that religion, there is a lot of good done in this world by religious people and a lot of positive things that come out of religion. And I see plenty of rotten people who know nothing about God. Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: When you are toutng your religion as the moral standard people should shoot for, I think it is extremely relevant to consider the behavior of people inside that religion and see if it matches your recommendations. If religion is the superior standard, but religious people are behaving worse than people outside that religion, then that religion very likely has some serious problems with how it is imparting that standard. Thus, while the standard may be superior, the religion, as an organization seems not to be.
I never said my religion is the moral standard people should shoot for. I never said religious moral people were better. I said religions tend to have higher standards than the rest of society. No one follows all of the standards of morality, whether it be religion or society. Because we are human. But I stand by the fact that religions often set a higher standard for their members to reach than the rest of society. A religion sets the bar, based on what God says. No one is going to reach that standard, ever. Because we aren't perfect. That doesn't mean that standard, or that organization isn't valid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If people outside your religion are coming closer to the standard set by your religion than those inside it, then plainly something is wrong with the religion, even if we should agree on the standard.
I accept your point that it has yet to be shown in this thread that atheists are in fact more moral than theists; I don't have time to chase down those statistics again, but perhaps someone else could do it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A religion sets the bar, based on what God says. No one is going to reach that standard, ever. Because we aren't perfect.
Have you considered that this attitude may actually prevent some people from achieving their moral potential, rather than aspiring to it?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QUOTE]I think that mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream. Other people disagree. Thus I have proven that I have better taste than other people.
I never said I have "better" morals than other people. I never said my religion has "better" morals than society. I said the standard is higher. That is not a judgement statement.
If one school sets the standards for admission as having a gpa of 4.0, and another sets theirs at 3.0, the first school has higher standards. Doesn't mean they are better. Someone might consider that having a 3.0 and being involved in other activities and/or interestes are more important than being a straight A student, and want to go to that school. Others might think that going to a school that requires straight A's is better. That doesn't affect the fact that the standards to get into the 4.0 school aren't higher.
You can chose to disagree as to whether or not the morals of my church are better. But the fact is, if I chose to live by the standards of society, it's not good enough for my church community. Because the church community has higher standards.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
No. But it does suggest the possibility. We can test that possibility using scientific investigation. Then we can talk about the results of that investigation and use it to assess group members' performance on various measures. Which is what I've done here.
Religious people consistently demonstrate certain types of poor behavior at a higher rate than non-religious people.
---
quote:But I stand by the fact that religions often set a higher standard for their members to reach than the rest of society.
They often set a lower standard of behavior as well. Depends on what you are using as your measure.
And, regardless of the value of the measure, the actual performance is, in many cases worse, which does call into question the validity of the organization as a guide to better behavior.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A religion sets the bar, based on what God says. No one is going to reach that standard, ever. Because we aren't perfect.
Have you considered that this attitude may actually prevent some people from achieving their moral potential, rather than aspiring to it?
This is why I said the catholic church isn't for everyone. If I didn't agree with this view, I wouldn't be in the church. And I don't believe that if you don't believe it either, you shouldn't be in my church.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
stihl, Am I correct that you are using "higher" not as a value judgment, but as a quantitative measure of the restrictions placed on you by the standard?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say I do not see how 'higher' is not a value judgement. Could you please explain what you mean by it?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: stihl, Am I correct that you are using "higher" not as a value judgment, but as a quantitative measure of the restrictions placed on you by the standard?
Yes. I've never said higher as a value judgement. I said different, many times. But higher in terms of what I just posted. The standards in society don't match those of my religion, there are more restrictions and a different set of behaviors expected of those in my faith. Which aren't expected in society.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If people outside your religion are coming closer to the standard set by your religion than those inside it, then plainly something is wrong with the religion, even if we should agree on the standard.
I do not agree with any of this. This is your bias.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I accept your point that it has yet to be shown in this thread that atheists are in fact more moral than theists; I don't have time to chase down those statistics again, but perhaps someone else could do it.
I never mentioned aethists, and statistics aren't the measure of who is moral and who is not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah. 'Higher', then, means 'more difficult to live up to'. I must say I do not see that as a worthwhile goal, so who cares? Ethics is not a competition to see who can bind themselves with the most tortuous set of restrictions. (If it were, incidentally, you should instantly convert to hinduism - "Look at me! I'm so moral I sleep on a bed of nails!") Ethics is the system of thought by which we produce good lives, for ourselves and others. Restrictions for their own sake are antithetical to that.
quote:I do not agree with any of this. This is your bias.
I do not see how you can disagree. There is some standard, X, which we get from somewhere. It could be general ethical philosophy, religious scripture, sheer random Internet trawling. A set A of people lives up to this standard more completely than another set B, who happen to share an organisation dedicated to making the B's live up to that standard. In what way is the organisation not failing at its self-appointed task?
quote:statistics aren't the measure of who is moral and who is not.
What measure do you suggest? Your own personal opinion, that well-known fount of impartiality?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I never mentioned aethists,
Indeed? You have perhaps your own definition of godless?
quote:Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why is it necessary to measure morality? Especially when there is not an agreement on what "moral" means.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's a good point; all I can say is, he started it. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think, if we're talking about organizations that purport to encourage moral behavior, it is important to consider the behavior of the membership when assessing these claims.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree. I think that is a misleading and ineffective measurement.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. 'Higher', then, means 'more difficult to live up to'. I must say I do not see that as a worthwhile goal, so who cares?
And that's why you don't understand.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh? What possible standard could you apply otherwise? And what standard are you using to choose your church, which presumably you feel is better for you than all the other possible churches?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, Could you explain why? To me, the claim "We are superior in encouraging people to behave better." is reasonably tested by looking to see if the people actually behave better than people not in the group. Of course, if the people in the group started out worse than the people outside of it, it would not necessarily be a fair comparison, but that's something that could, to a certain extent, also be examined.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your initial assumption of the claim is incorrect.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I never mentioned aethists,
Indeed? You have perhaps your own definition of godless?
quote:Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
God-less, as I wrote it, does not mean aetheist. There are plenty of people who know nothing about God or religion who have not made a conscience effort to not believe. What I wrote, which you conveniently snipped out, was :
quote: And I see plenty of rotten people who know nothing about God. Does that mean all God-less people are rotten?
Taken in conext, what I meant was people who have no knowledge or relationship with God. If he was going to paint those people who are religious as immoral because of the actions of a few who claim to be religious, is it right for me to paint those who aren't religious as rotten people because of a few who don't know of God and are rotten?
Aethiests are people who don't believe and chose not to believe. They are not necessarily God-less.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I realise that coming from me this may look like just plain insults, but I do not mean it so. It looks to me as though we've reached the point where the theists simply refuse to think about the discussion anymore, retreating instead into "You don't understand" and cryptic little one-liners that do not mean anything. (This, incidentally, is precisely why I think religion is dehumanising: Any time you refuse to think about a problem, you are retreating into your animal past, away from Homo sapiens.) Now, I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but you lot are not doing well at it. Show your working, as my math teacher would say.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, are you saying that religions don't claim to encourage moral behavior in their followers? Or that they don't claim to be better at doing so than not being in the religion?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If he was going to paint those people who are religious as immoral because of the actions of a few who claim to be religious
Who was doing that?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: kat, Could you explain why? To me, the claim "We are superior in encouraging people to behave better." is reasonably tested by looking to see if the people actually behave better than people not in the group. Of course, if the people in the group started out worse than the people outside of it, it would not necessarily be a fair comparison, but that's something that could, to a certain extent, also be examined.
No one says they are superior. Just that you are expected to live up to a standard that the church sets. And that standard is different, more restrictive, higher, whatever, than that of society. No one can possibly ever live up to God's perfection, but that's why they go to church. And certainly many people don't live up to that. It does not invalidate the message, or goal, or work of that church.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So, are you saying that religions don't claim to encourage moral behavior in their followers? Or that they don't claim to be better at doing so than not being in the religion?
I am saying and have said neither. I will not defend your misinterpretations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Aethiests are people who don't believe and chose not to believe. They are not necessarily God-less.
Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity? At any rate, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Period. Please do try not to make up your own terminology, it makes conversing with you very confusing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Right. But what I'm saying is that people who aren't in your religion on average behave better in many ways than people who are in it. And this, to me, is significant when it comes down to considering whether I should view the religion favorably or not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, My fault for expecting adult discussion from you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Eh? What possible standard could you apply otherwise?
I would think that if you are trying to determine what leader to follow, it is wiser to judge this based on the behavior of the leader rather than the behavior of the other people following that leader.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are responsible for your own views and are welcome to think what you want. You are mistaken about a great many things, though. If you want judge, continue on. If you want to understand, you're asking the wrong questions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
"Could you explain why?" is the wrong question? What is the right one?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:My fault for expecting adult discussion from you.
That is uncalled for and out of place in this discussion, which has thus far been civil.
ETA: Or, in a slightly less formal vernacular: Ha! You cracked and were nasty first! You lose! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I would think that if you are trying to determine what leader to follow, it is wiser to judge this based on the behavior of the leader rather than the behavior of the other people following that leader.
Really? I'd think that it would be wise to look at what the likely effect on you (or let's say your loved one who is joining the organization) would have, which is much more strongly predicted by the behavior of the followers.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:And that standard is different, more restrictive, higher, whatever, than that of society.
There is a large difference between "more restrictive" and "higher". It changes the school analogy to being one that requires a blue high school diploma and one that requires an aqua-marine diploma. Using measurable GPAs makes your analogy about which one is better moreso than illustrating the differences between the two like you are saying was your intent.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...that wasn't nasty. You are behaving childishly and I've decided that engaging you is a waste of time. It is possible to point out your poor behavior without being nasty, which is what I tried to do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You are behaving like a child and engaging you is a waste of time. It is possible to point out yoru poor behavior without being nasty.
Keep it coming, sweetie. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I realise that coming from me this may look like just plain insults, but I do not mean it so. It looks to me as though we've reached the point where the theists simply refuse to think about the discussion anymore, retreating instead into "You don't understand" and cryptic little one-liners that do not mean anything. (This, incidentally, is precisely why I think religion is dehumanising: Any time you refuse to think about a problem, you are retreating into your animal past, away from Homo sapiens.) Now, I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but you lot are not doing well at it. Show your working, as my math teacher would say.
This is why you do not understand. If you don't believe that living to the standard I describe as 'higher' is worthwhile, how do I continue to discuss this with you? There is no common ground for understanding. It's not a matter of proving anything to you. As long as you do not see that having more restrictions on behaviors as being a higher standard of morality, you will not understand. But when it comes down to it, that's all morals are. Restrictions on behavior. Otherwise we run around doing whatever suits us best, whatever selfish desires or reasons or whatever feels better without regard to others or ourselves. My contention is there are more restrictions on my behaviors and beliefs as a catholic than the average person in society who is not catholic. And I try to live up to these as best as possible. That doesn't mean if other catholics don't, it makes the moral standards of the church wrong.
If you disagree that it's not worth subjecting yourself to these other standards because they are part of your belief in God, because you don't see a belief in God as valid, there is no way to discuss this with you. Because you will always disagree, no matter what I say.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:ETA: Or, in a slightly less formal vernacular: Ha! You cracked and were nasty first! You lose!
Quite honestly, I think you were being quite nasty with your sullenly un-communicative, passive-aggressive, defensive little one-liners.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You misunderstand my motives and my posts.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Aethiests are people who don't believe and chose not to believe. They are not necessarily God-less.
Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity? At any rate, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Period. Please do try not to make up your own terminology, it makes conversing with you very confusing.
I'm not making any terminology up. You're reading into what I'm saying based on your biases.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity?
No, you have other words you like to deliberately misspell.
And I doubt stihl's misspelling was deliberate. People have trouble spelling atheist -- it has too many vowels squished together, and it violates several usual patterns. (I recommend a spell-checker.)
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:And that standard is different, more restrictive, higher, whatever, than that of society.
There is a large difference between "more restrictive" and "higher". It changes the school analogy to being one that requires a blue high school diploma and one that requires an aqua-marine diploma. Using measurable GPAs makes your analogy about which one is better moreso than illustrating the differences between the two like you are saying was your intent.
No it doesn't. I used the term higher because the standards of my religion are higher than those of society. The nit pickers have picked at it and tried to read into my usage, forcing me to change everything I say so I don't have to argue every little damned point, much like I'm doing here now. If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher. Some people might see it as more restrictive, some people want to read into everything you say. Frankly I'm tired of these inconsequential arguments by people who read their own biases into what I'm saying when I've gone to great lengths to not put those very biases into my discussions. It's counterproductive, and the reason why discussions of any type about religion usually get sidetracked, by the same few people, I might add.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
From an outside perspective, it went like this:
S: I think we shouldn't argle the blargle. K: But argling the blargle is like nosruffing the nastrud. S: But if it were like nosruffing the nastrud, that would imply that people who argle the blargle smippen the schemken, since people who nosruff the nastrud smippen the schemken. Are you saying that blargle-arglers smippen schemken? K: Don't put words in my mouth. S: But.... <repeat> S: You're being silly and unproductive! K: I win!
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, do I mis-spell 'catholic' at every opportunity?
No, you have other words you like to deliberately misspell.
And I doubt stihl's misspelling was deliberate. People have trouble spelling atheist -- it has too many vowels squished together, and it violates several usual patterns. (I recommend a spell-checker.)
Oh, I didn't realize I was really misspelling atheist. Sorry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher.
No. The standards of your church are more restrictive. They are not higher.
(By the same token, atheists by definition are godless, but may in fact be believers. You've got your definition reversed.)
Let me give you an example:
COLLEGE A1 admits only students with a 4.33 GPA who've scored better than a 1560 on the SAT.
COLLEGE B1 admits only students with a 2.13 GPA who've scored better than a 1150 on the SAT, who have read at least one book in their lifetime, and can hop on one foot with their eyes closed.
Whose standards are "higher?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, at least you didn't spell it athiest. I am never going to live that one down. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:ETA: Or, in a slightly less formal vernacular: Ha! You cracked and were nasty first! You lose!
Quite honestly, I think you were being quite nasty with your sullenly un-communicative, passive-aggressive, defensive little one-liners.
She was giving you two the rope to hang yourselves with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When used to describe KoM, it might be appropriate. He's certainly athier than most of us, if not the athiest. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
The problem with trying to compare religious morality with non-religious morality is that often times religious morals take into consideration information that may not be available or accepted by unbelievers.
Take the example of abortion. Would people's opinion of abotion change at all if there was in fact an actual soul being extinguished each time an abortion occurred? Of course, even non-religious people can still believe in a supernatural or metaphysical soul, which would probably affect their ideas of morality and ethics. In either case, those morals depend on information that cannot be scientifically or universally accepted.
---
The value of certain morals and the effectiveness of their implementation are separate issues and the merit of these should be judged independently.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I had thought of atheism as something that was the default belief for many people. "Well, I don't believe in Christianity, I don't believe in Islam, and I don't believe in Judaism, so I guess I'm atheist." For the atheists I know, they are atheists because religion is a nonissue to them. No one ever tried to make them believe in God, so they don't. Therefore, they wouldn't feel the need to jump up and defend atheism; they just don't care. Maybe they DO care, and I'm just not aware of it; but I have never had this conversation with an atheist before and was not expecting them to be defensive. Forgive me; I had never met anyone (or was aware of anyone) who saw atheism as a strong, important belief. Now I know.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
College B. Do you know how hard it is to hop on one foot with your eyes closed?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As long as you do not see that having more restrictions on behaviors as being a higher standard of morality, you will not understand. (...) But when it comes down to it, that's all morals are. Restrictions on behavior.
I agree that it is a higher standard in the sense of having more restrictions. I do not agree that this sense of higher is a better, more moral standard. We might agree that morals can take the form of restrictions on behaviour, a list of 'thou shalts' and 'thou shalt nots'. But I think that saying this is all they are is to lose track of the purpose of the restrictions, which is to live good lives, and make it possible for others to do the same. The restrictions are not there for their own sake.
For example, I would assume that you do not keep kosher, and you also do not observe the Moslem restrictions on alcohol. Both of these religions, then, have a 'higher' standard than yours. I myself observe a form of morality in which I'm required to make a snarky post in every religious thread on Hatrack; not an easy task, let me tell you, especially since I also have to make a jabbering noise every time I do so. Do these restrictions mean my morality is 'higher' than yours? Clearly they do, by the standard you've given. I leave it up to you to consider whether it's a good standard.
In short, I think you have succumbed to precisely that flaw in Catholicism that caused the Reformation in the first place: A systemic commitment to form at the expense of function.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, I don't believe in Christianity, I don't believe in Islam, and I don't believe in Judaism, so I guess I'm atheist.
Somewhere, Vishnu is crying.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I used the term higher because the standards of my religion are higher than those of society. The nit pickers have picked at it and tried to read into my usage, forcing me to change everything I say so I don't have to argue every little damned point, much like I'm doing here now. If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher.
See, I don't think this is an inconsequential discussion. Asserting that your religion has higher standards than the soceital norm sounds to me, and many others appearantly, like you're saying that your faith is superior. You've already told us that isn't what you mean and I'm trying to explain why what you're saying is being interpreted in the way it is. Higher in the way that you are using it represents a qualitative, not quantitative, measurement. You can't say that your religion has higher standards because there are more of them because that's quantitative and that's not how the word is used when describing standards.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If my church has a list of standards that is 10 points long, and society has 3, then the standards of my church are higher.
No. The standards of your church are more restrictive. They are not higher.
(By the same token, atheists by definition are godless, but may in fact be believers. You've got your definition reversed.)
No, because I wrote God-less. Not a godless. You can be God-less, meaning having the lack of knowledge of God, the one you capitolize and refer to in Christianity, and not be a non-believer in that God. That doesn't mean you're an atheist, who choses to not believe in that God, or any god. There are many God-less people who find God and become believers, who were never atheists. And the point I was making, you can't lump all of the behaviors of God-less people together and paint them with a broad stroke, just like you can't do the same for religious people.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] Let me give you an example:
COLLEGE A1 admits only students with a 4.33 GPA who've scored better than a 1560 on the SAT.
COLLEGE B1 admits only students with a 2.13 GPA who've scored better than a 1150 on the SAT, who have read at least one book in their lifetime, and can hop on one foot with their eyes closed.
Whose standards are "higher?"
It depends on what you value. Do you value the gpa, or the other stuff? If I value the GPA and sat scores, college a1 is higher.
I place value on the restrictive nature of some of the church's expectations. The don't expect you to be a baby murder and take part in abortion. That to me is a higher moral standard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:College B. Do you know how hard it is to hop on one foot with your eyes closed?
You know, after I posted that, I immediately thought, "Rivka's going to post something to make me regret not having specified academic standards."
quote:If I value the GPA and sat scores, college a1 is higher.
Right. So you're conceding what other people have been trying to get you to admit -- that you're claiming that your religious-based morality is superior. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You misunderstand my motives and my posts.
Fine! So explain the buggers, or go away and leave us the hell alone! If you're not going to actually say anything, why are you even bothering to post?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I agree that it is a higher standard in the sense of having more restrictions. I do not agree that this sense of higher is a better, more moral standard.
I NEVER SAID THEY WERE BETTER!!
This is why talking to you about this is impossible, you don't pay attention to what I'm saying. You're just determine to argue against your biases.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:College B. Do you know how hard it is to hop on one foot with your eyes closed?
You know, after I posted that, I immediately thought, "Rivka's going to post something to make me regret not having specified academic standards."
I would apologize for being predictable, except you're right.
You should have. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:If you're not going to actually say anything, why are you even bothering to post?
If we actually held people to that standard around here, Hatrack would die a very quick death.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I NEVER SAID THEY WERE BETTER!!
quote:It depends on what you value. Do you value the gpa, or the other stuff? If I value the GPA and sat scores, college a1 is higher.
I place value on the restrictive nature of some of the church's expectations.
If your assessment of "higher" depends on what you value, then it appears you value your religion's morality. What definition of "better" are you using that would not fall into this category?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I agree that it is a higher standard in the sense of having more restrictions. I do not agree that this sense of higher is a better, more moral standard.
I NEVER SAID THEY WERE BETTER!!
This is why talking to you about this is impossible, you don't pay attention to what I'm saying. You're just determine to argue against your biases.
Well, if they're not better, then who could possibly care? Why even bother to make the point? You might as well say that your religion has older cathedrals than protestantism, which would be true, and so what?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: The nit pickers have picked at it and tried to read into my usage, forcing me to change everything I say so I don't have to argue every little damned point, much like I'm doing here now.
stihl1, it's relevant because of your OP, where you expressed concern that you didn't understand where your wife and daughter were coming from or how to approach them.
It's quite likely that they have (or will have) some of the same problems with your approach as do the people you find irritating here. That is, regardless of your intent, what you are saying is likely to be interpreted by the non-believers in your personal life as (and responded to as) it is being responded to by the non-believers here.
---
Edited to add: This is what the things you say about what you believe look like to many people who don't share those same initial assumptions with you. And without getting that -- without understanding why something that seems "nit-picking" to you is a crucial point to someone else -- you aren't likely to understand why your wife and daughter may react negatively, too.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
To say they are better, means that my religious beliefs are superior to everyone else, and my moral standards are superior than everyone else. Which is what you have been trying to read into what I'm writing the whole time, and waiting to trip me up on, etc. I never said they were better. I don't dare to suppose that the way I live and the things I believe are superior to anyone elses. It's just the best fit for me. And the point of all this, the reason why I even posted it, was in discussing how my morals, values, standards are different from those of non religious people and how I find it interesting to explore those differences. Because frankly I've don't understand the other view point and would like to try to. In understanding that, it might help me understand my own views better.
But of course, everyone assumed I was saying I was holier than thou because I was speaking of religious standards and morals. But I'm not. I'm not even 100% on board with the things my church requires of its members. It doens't stop me trying though. And it doesn't invalidate the fact that the morals and standards I have, I consider to be different, because the standards for morals and behaviors the church expects of me are higher than what society expects. I could probably find a million catholics that are practicing higher moral standards than me. Does that make them better? If what I do best fits me, and what they do best fits them, what does it matter.
And to be clear, I never said that I am better than society, either. If you follow societal norms and it gets you through life and you don't hurt anyone and you're fine with that, how can I argue with that? And if you are christian or muslim or hindu or buddhist and those values get you through and fit you best and make you happy and allow you to get where you're going, how can I argue with that? BUT, if you're living by society's standards and your religion has set higher expectations of your behaviors, if you're striving to be closer to God and His plan, can you really in good conscience consider yourself a 'good' part of that religion? I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'good' catholic if I allowed myself to follow social values and ignore the higher standards set by the church. But that would be my issue, not to be applied to others.
And frankly, my point was never that my church's standards and morals are better. The original point has been lost in all this stupid sematics bs.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: The nit pickers have picked at it and tried to read into my usage, forcing me to change everything I say so I don't have to argue every little damned point, much like I'm doing here now.
stihl1, it's relevant because of your OP, where you expressed concern that you didn't understand where your wife and daughter were coming from or how to approach them.
It's quite likely that they have (or will have)some of the same problems with your approach as do the people you find irritating here. That is, regardless of your intent, what you are saying is likely to be interpreted by the non-believers in your personal life as (and responded to as) it is being responded to by the non-believers here.
Then I will have to hope that my wife and stepdaughter aren't quite as semantical and allow me to explain myself without reading biases into it like those here. Incidentally, now I know I will have to carefully cover my ass with every word I say because people are likely to hear what they want and not pay attention to what I'm actually saying.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I never said they were better.
You said they were "higher." That isn't the same thing as "different" -- it is also an evaluative adjective of ranking.
quote:And the point of all this, the reason why I even posted it, was in discussing how my morals, values, standards are different from those of non religious people and how I find it interesting to explore those differences. ... And frankly, my point was never that my church's standards and morals are better. The original point has been lost in all this stupid sematics bs.
[from above, modified] Edited to add: This is what the things you say about what you believe look like to many people who don't share those same initial assumptions with you. And without getting that -- without understanding why something that seems "nit-picking" [or "stupid semantics bs"] to you is a crucial point to someone else -- you aren't likely to understand why your wife and daughter may react negatively, too.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This is not stupid semantics bs. You are ignoring what many, many people have said. "Higher" is not a value neutral term. So long as you keep using it and simultaneously claiming that you're not asserting superiority, we're going to keep pointing out that yes, you are.
If I said my beliefs were better and then when asked about it said "no, no, I'm not saying they're superior- just different," wouldn't you see a conflict?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
stihl, The comon usage of higher standards very strongly implies better. You may be better expressing what you are trying to by saying "more restrictive standards".
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Higher doesn't mean better or superior. Better does mean better or superior.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you don't want to be read as making value judgements, I suggest you do not use words that usually convey value judgements. You seem to think that we can read your mind; but in ordinary English usage, when we say that standard X is higher than standard Y, we are indeed implying a judgement that it is also better. If you wish merely to compare the restrictiveness, you'd be better off saying precisely that: "X is more restrictive than Y". To use English misleadingly, and then to jump all over people for failing to read your mind and being mis-led, is not really very nice.
Putting all that behind us, can we go back to the original point you were making? I admit to having totally forgotten what it was. Perhaps you could re-post it with correct English.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
If I made a bar graph of the quantitative number of societal morals and labeled that bar as "society". Then made a bar graph of christian morals and labeled that bar as "christians". Where would the christian label be in comparison to society? HIGHER.
That is not a value judgement. That is a quantitative analysis.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Higher is indeed a synonym of better. link Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Then I will have to hope that my wife and stepdaughter aren't quite as semantical and allow me to explain myself without reading biases into it like those here.
You can do that, or you can also try to understand why something which seems inoffensive to you seems to be quite offensive to many others (and, as a corollary, why that brings out as strong a counter-reaction in you as it has here).
Or not. You'll know what is best for you to do. It might be useful to remember this, though, if you find yourself in a situation with your wife or step-daughter in which they seem to be focused on "semantics" and "nit-picking," or "don't allow you to explain yourself without reading biases into it." I expect myself that you'll run into this very same problem with them, but you might not. In that case, you might consider updating htis thread and telling us what happened. Either way, actually. I'd be interested to know.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
In your example, the bar graph would be higher vertically- the morals would not necessarily be higher in any sense. Morals are not measured vertically, they are meaured qualitatively, as in better.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Totally irrelevant, stihl. We're talking about how people actually use the word in ordinary language, not your personal made-up meaning of the word, which we'd need to read your mind to understand.
In any case, to avoid getting bogged down in what you accurately label semantics, could you maybe just do us all a favour and use English the way the rest of us are? Then we could get back to discussing whatever the devil your original point was.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
And this has turned rediculous. Congratulations, you've totally destroyed what I was trying to discuss. Thank GOD I managed to discuss at least a little bit with people who weren't interested in nitpicking and proving me wrong and waiting to pounce on me for claiming to be superior.
I will pray for your souls so that you don't burn in the hottest lakes of hell.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: If I made a bar graph of the quantitative number of societal morals and labeled that bar as "society". Then made a bar graph of christian morals and labeled that bar as "christians". Where would the christian label be in comparison to society? HIGHER.
What are the variables on the axes of your graph?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I will pray for your souls so that you don't burn in the hottest lakes of hell.
Hmmm.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is going to be a real problem for your family. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dude, you're getting angry where there is no cause for anger. Just re-post your original point - in a new thread, if you like - with the usage we prefer.
Touching your bar graphs, I'm not actually convinced the 'christian' bar would be taller than the 'society' one. I'll see your "Do not have abortions" and match you one "Do not have unwanted children, even at the price of considerable pain and anguish". Any other rules christians follow that society doesn't?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, I'm pretty sure that was a joke.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's just the best fit for me. And the point of all this, the reason why I even posted it, was in discussing how my morals, values, standards are different from those of non religious people and how I find it interesting to explore those differences. Because frankly I've don't understand the other view point and would like to try to. In understanding that, it might help me understand my own views better.
That's not what you said. You didn't say that you wanted to understand why your daughter hates Christianity, or why your wife doesn't care one way or the other. You said you wanted them to get closer to God, according to your definition of "closer."
quote:If I made a bar graph of the quantitative number of societal morals and labeled that bar as "society". Then made a bar graph of christian morals and labeled that bar as "christians". Where would the christian label be in comparison to society? HIGHER.
I think you've missed the point. And I'm honestly not sure you're right, anyway.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, I'm pretty sure that was a joke.
That's comforting.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:nitpicking and proving me wrong and waiting to pounce on me for claiming to be superior.
I took your statement that you weren't trying to claim superiority at face value. That's why I took the time and effort to explain why what you're saying does sound that way. If you want to get angry, that is your choice. I understand that when a whole bunch of people post similar things, it can feel like you're on the defensive and that we're ganging up on you. I'm sorry if that's how you feel. That wasn't my intent. I do feel slightly disrespected by the way you assume that I and others were "waiting to pounce" on you. It seems like you could at least try to consider what we're saying rather than assume nefarious motives.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
No, because people aren't necessarily willing to consider my viewpoint. I understand what you're saying, but after explaining myself numerous times yet still having people insist on arguing it, it's not worth my time. Had it been the other way around, I'm sure people would demand I give consideration to their views and accept them as valid, not give up the argument until they've beaten me into the ground and agree. I cannot agree because I do not agree. As I explained, it's not something people will understand because there is no common ground. Yet I still get stupid semantics about it. At this point, frankly I don't care. Enjoy being right. As I said, at least I got some value from the discussion before it was corrupted to argue something I never claimed in the first place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yet I still get stupid semantics about it.
It's not semantics. If you try to tell your daughter that you hold to a higher standard of behavior, she will be offended. If you don't understand why, read this thread.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
stihl1, I think people are both willing and trying to consider your viewpoint but they're getting hung up on your different usage of common words. You have even agreed that your definition is different than other's. At the moment this discussion isn't about right and wrong, it's about effective communication based on a common set of definitions, which right now is not happening.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Your last post confuses me about what you're thinking is being debated. My understanding of the debate is that it's about the usage of the word "higher." Yes, this is certainly semantical, but it also brings a meaning (to many people at least) that is antithetical to what you're trying to say.
I'm not sure why this has become such a big deal or why this is something for which you want to fight so hard. Since this word causes so many people to think the opposite of what you want, I don't see the harm in using a different word.
Am I missing something and this is actually about a different issue?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(Or rather, it IS semantics, but not all semantic issues are irrelevant. *grin*)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Yet I still get stupid semantics about it.
It's not semantics.
I must disagree, in that the field of semantics deals with the meaning of words. Comrade stihl has made up his own meaning for 'higher', which doesn't match what the rest of Hatrack means by it; that is explicitly a semantical issue. However, I agree that it's not semantics in the more usual sense of "this discussion is meaningless". Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think another factor was brought into play by the use of abortion as a demarcator between the religious and the non-religious. The effective "I'm not a 'baby-killer'" doesn't translate well into "I'm just different;" the language used there also connotes "I'm better than that."
It seemed to underscore a rank-evaluative distinction that was already implied.
---
Edited to add: I mean this to be clarifying why the interpretations might have seemed to pick up speed at that point, not as an attack on (or support of) abortion itself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
stihl, Just so you're clear, most of Hatrack thinks that KOM is an ass and isn't approving of his behavior here, even if what they are saying matches up to a lot of what he is saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I actually approve of KoM's behavior in this thread. He even made quite a clever dig at his own reputation in another post. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While I agree that most people here do not have a full appreciation of my many good qualities, I must say I do not see what I said here that would cause you to make such a remark. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
♫ I’m pressing on the upward way, New heights I’m gaining every day; Still praying as I’m onward bound, “Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.”
♪ Lord, lift me up and let me stand, By faith, on Heaven’s table land, A higher plane than I have found; Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.
Sorry. It’s been going through my head since the conversation took that turn. It's a catchy tune -- too bad that doesn't come across in the post.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
CT, Well, that was probably my fault, since I'm the one that brought it up again. My point was that morals are often times based on what we consider "truth." Since truth isn't universal, it's hard to clearly evaluate the value of some morals. But when people recognize that their truths are not the same for everyone else, it's easier to accept that morals are different rather than better. I admit that I still don't quite understand where "higher" comes into play here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gyah, Tom, could you please stop posting my every point half a minute before me?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think stihl1 wants to be the best person he can be, and I think this is a real and abiding goal of his life. I think he feels drawn to goodness and rightness in his life. I think this is not a bad thing.
I also think it's natural (especially if one is serious about morality) to be drawn to those groups and ideals which seem like the best one can find. That is often why we find them compelling. I don't think that is consistent with calling them "just different," insofar as we do think they are better. So I think what you did was probably put your finger on a pulsepoint where some underlying truths came out -- not that those truths were bad, or that stihl1 was lying, or that believing one is trying to do better is necessarily a bad thing.
Just that the language and the internal meanings might not have matched up, and that might have been what was fueling the wife and step-daughter's discomfort: perhaps the words he chose said one thing to him, but the meaning they took from the interaction as a whole was something that really was more judgmental than he intended.
Or not. I don't know, of course -- I'm only guessing. But that point is when it looked to me like the discussion became more impassioned and more quick-response. [And I imagine that other moments of language choice might have been pulsepoints for other people he has had conversations with, and that might have been just as confusing and unexpected to him. But perhaps less so for people who also didn't share his same initial assumptions, such as the non-believers here.]
---
Edited again to add:
I hope it works out well in real life, regardless of how it works out here.
And dkw, one of our local coffeeshops is called "Higher Grounds." I believe the owners have a socially-activist Christian perspective.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I hope everything is going well between you and your family.
I would just like to repeat the sentiment that you should practice what you preach, except by amending that old saying to "preach by means of practicing what you believe."
It is a touchy issue, and you might have to accept that you'll never be able to share your religious experience with your family. It is a little like trying to share an acid trip with someone who's never had a mind-altering drug, after all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KoM, I actually thought you were doing pretty well for you in this thread and was considering making a post to that point when you started being insulting and badgering stihl about the semantics thing, a la
quote:not your personal made-up meaning of the word
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Meh. Responding to that would probably divert the thread again into a discussion of who is more polite, which would be extremely boring. So I'm just going to ignore it.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
What's a moral?
How can a subset of society have quantitatively more of something than the society?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Because I'm not asking them to meet me anywhere. My beliefs as a catholic are very important to me, but I don't need them to, and I'm not requiring them to, I'm not even asking them to, believe the same way as me.
I guess I don't understand your point stihl1. Your goals aren't clear to me. You say you'd like to teach your wife and stepdaughter about your faith, and you would like it if they followed it, but then you say you don't care if they believe the same way as you do.
Maybe I'm off base, but you don't seem to have a clear goal as far as this project. Maybe I'm just the one who doesn't understand your goal.
Specifically, are there things you feel like you should do, and things that they should do? For example, do you want to 1) have a religious discussion with them, 2) read the bible together, 3) have them come to your church with you, 4) have them show you that they do indeed have a valid reason to believe as they do, even if that belief is that Christianity isn't right for them?
I'm just trying to get down to brass tacks. What do you need to accomplish, in order to feel that you've met your goal in this? Do you need to share your beliefs, and have them listen? Do you need them to accept that your beliefs have value for you, even if not for them?
Do you feel that once they REALLY understand your faith, they'll realize that they've only been non-Christian because they didn't understand?
You can lead a horse to a trough, but you can't make them drink, especially if they don't like what's inside the trough you've led them to.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I could live in regular society, follow the values and morals of that society. No killing, stealing, harming others, etc. I could be an ideal citizen of society, and be considered a very moral person according to social norms. Yet just because I was labeled as moral in society, doesn't mean I was a good member of the catholic church and be considered as following the morals and standards of the church. Because they expect more of you. And if you're not meeting those standards, you're not going to be seen as a moral person according to those standards.
Those standards are based on what God wants for us. It's not just enough to be a 'good' societal person. If you aren't living up to God's standards, the church's standards, you aren't doing what you're supposed to be doing. And the consequences aren't simply social ostracizing, or legal measures, but the consequences are going to be of a higher order. And it's a higher authority that you're going to have to answer to.
In fact, the catholic church expects you to not just follow social norms and values, and considers the church community to be outside of normal society, outside of what's expected of the rest of the world, and it is stressed that you shouldn't be living just for the material world. It is emphasized that in order to be a good catholic, you have to follow the church and that the morals and values that the church has that are above and beyond simple society's are to be followed, even that they are more important. And to not let normal society pull your morals and values down to that level. In other words, just because everyone else does it doesn't mean it's good enough for catholics. You are expected to adhere to catholic morals and values, not just those of society.
And I expect that other religions hold their members to follow their morals and values, and that the standard is more vigorous, more restrictive, just plain more than society's. What's good enough for everyone else isn't good enough for you. IMO, that means that the standards are higher. Higher because they are more rigorous, more restrictive, just plain more, and held by a higher power. As in God higher.
When I tell my stepdaughter that she isn't going to get to do what all her friends do, that her grades have to be better than her friend's are, it's because I hold her to a higher standard. Is that a better standard? I think that's a matter of opinion about value. Maybe her friend's parents think it's fine for their kids to get C's and they participate in sports and take vocation education. Is that a better standard? Not to me, because I value the academics more. I consider my standard to be higher.
In the same way I consider the morals and values of the church to be higher than those of society in general. Not better, just higher. Man and society may hold me to one standard, but it is clear to me that the standard God holds me to is more important. I value that more. Someone who doesn't believe in God or values his standard more, isn't going to agree. To me, the more restrictive morals, the answering to God's law rather than man's law, the quest to become closer to God by trying to follow His expectations, is more valuable. And therefore higher. Not better. And frankly if you don't think it's more valuable or a higher standard, that's your opinion.
I do not know how I can explain that better. I do not know that I need to explain that better. I defined my reasoning for the use of the word 'higher'. Yes, 'better' is a synonym for 'higher', but not the only one. I've indicated my usage of the word, why, how, etc. I will continue to use that definition. Because it suits my opinion and criteria. If it doesn't suit your's, that's your problem. I don't care if you disagree, just don't try to battle me and tell me I mean one thing when I clearly have explained what I mean, numerous times.
And honestly, imo people are going to be offended when they are looking to be offended. That's on them, not on me. Especially when I explain there is no offense meant.
And finally, none of this has anything to do with what I originally posted. 1 line of 1 paragraph that was dropped in explanation of something entirely different has been extracted and nit picked. Yes, nit picked. My first few posts clearly explains I do not think my morals and values are better, just different. Different because I was held to a higher standard in my church as I grew up. Different because even when I wasn't part of the church, I didn't agree with certain actions, attitudes, and beliefs. And when I went back to the church, I discovered that the difference was because of my upbringing in the church. Not that it was better than anyone else's, just different, and more fitting for me.
Finally,
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's not what you said. You didn't say that you wanted to understand why your daughter hates Christianity, or why your wife doesn't care one way or the other. You said you wanted them to get closer to God, according to your definition of "closer."
No I did not. I said I went into this on my own. My wife volunteered to come along. My stepdaughter spazzed out on me without provocation or reason. I wanted to understand how to relate to my wife as someone without a religious upbringing and a set of morals not related to a religion. And that I wanted my stepdaughter to not freak out on me because of what I am doing. I would like for her to understand what I am doing and what I believe at the very least before she freaks out on me. I would like my wife to grow in her faith, however that may be, and hopefully by learning about my faith. It doesn't have to be by my definition or others. As I have written, and explained, if she bugs out now and never goes back that would be fine with me. I went into this as a personal journey, not including anyone else. But now that others have decided to join on, I would like to be able to relate to them, and perhaps understand myself by understanding them.
And I asked my wife what her response to this statement is: "Christian churches hold their members to higher standards than that of society. I think I have different morals and values because I was raised in my church." Her response? "Yeah, no kidding. So what." No offense, no driving her away, no shock. What a smart woman I married.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Is that a better standard? Not to me, because I value the academics more. I consider my standard to be higher.
In the same way I consider the morals and values of the church to be higher than those of society in general. Not better, just higher.
It isn't consistent usage, even when you are trying to be consistent. That's okay, but it is why people are finding you hard to understand.
Paraphrased: Is that better? No, it is not better, because my standard is higher. Like the morals and values of the church, which I also consider to be higher (but not better).
Non sequitur.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Yes, 'better' is a synonym for 'higher', but not the only one. I've indicated my usage of the word, why, how, etc. I will continue to use that definition. Because it suits my opinion and criteria. If it doesn't suit your's, that's your problem.
Be aware that you will find it difficult to have open, honest conversations with people who don't share your values if you have this attitude.
quote:My first few posts clearly explains I do not think my morals and values are better, just different.
And I think we've clearly established otherwise. In the same post in which you said this, you admitted that you held yourself to what you considered a higher standard, and that you thought your higher standard was synonymous with a better standard.
Perhaps you need to realize how you really feel about your own beliefs before you start working on your family's?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: To me, the more restrictive morals, the answering to God's law rather than man's law, the quest to become closer to God by trying to follow His expectations, is more valuable. And therefore higher. Not better.
I'm with everyone else here. How is more valuable not the same as better?
Maybe your wife and stepdaughter also don't understand what you're trying to get them to do, since a lot of us don't.
You certainly don't owe me an explanation, and if you want to say that better doesn't equal more valuable, or that higher isn't a value judgement, that's no skin off my back.
As far as your original post goes, I would suggest you make a list, if not for them, at least for yourself, of very specific, non-vague items that you feel need to be accomplished.
Do you want your family to follow your moral values? Do you want them to become Catholic (as much as you say it's their own path, wouldn't you ultimately feel best if they decided to follow God, instead of burning for all eternity in a fiery lake of hell)?
I imagine it's difficult to relate to your family when deep down you feel like they're following a lower set of values and that ultimately God will spit them from his mouth, to spend all time suffering at the hands of Satan, the Prince of Lies, forever tormented for their moral failings and lack of faith in God's supreme love.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I could live in regular society, follow the values and morals of that society. No killing, stealing, harming others, etc. I could be an ideal citizen of society, and be considered a very moral person according to social norms. Yet just because I was labeled as moral in society, doesn't mean I was a good member of the catholic church and be considered as following the morals and standards of the church. Because they expect more of you.
Some of us expect more of ourselves and those around us than what you attribute to "social norms." Some of us even expect more of ourselves and others than does the Catholic Church.
(I'm pretty sure Jainists expect more of themselves than Catholics do. Some non-religious persons do, as well.)
Which isn't to say that you are wrong or that Catholicism isn't good -- just that the picture painted may be unnecessarily limited.
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: And I asked my wife what her response to this statement is: "Christian churches hold their members to higher standards than that of society. I think I have different morals and values because I was raised in my church." Her response? "Yeah, no kidding. So what." No offense, no driving her away, no shock. What a smart woman I married.
I'm glad this initial volley went well.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I think I'm getting this "better vs higher" thing.
I have a criteria for judging an item. With respect to that criteria, an item can be higher or lower on the scale.
Blargness, for example. This thing over here, thing "A", scores about a 27 on the blargness scale. But thing "B" over here only scores a 2 on the blargness scale. Thing "A" scores higher.
Blargness is very important to me. I may consider an item scoring higher in blargness to be better than a low-blargness item. I realize, however, that you don't give a flying squid lung about blargness. Higher on the blargness scale does NOT mean "better" to you. I can live with that. So I'll say thing "A" scores higher, but is not necessarily better.
You stupid blarg-less dolt. One day you'll see...
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
stihl, while you are not "saying it", it seems pretty obvious from your posts that you believe catholic conception of morality is indeed "better" than "societal conceptions"...
if you support the more restrictive life of catholicism, perhaps you should read "Imitation Christi" and try to follow that life...
Are you really surprised that your step-daughter finds your beliefs or how you represent them so offensive? I know plenty about christianity [i have degree in religious studies], and I find your tone and your insinuations extremely offensive and irrational.
You provide circular arguments for pretty much every issue raised, and haven't really offered any clear, unequivocal answers.
Katharina, I find your posts totally worthless from a content perspective as you only seem to post passive aggressive cryptic posts that only you seem to understand. if you don't want to participate in the discussion, what is the point of leaving remarks that will only distract from the meat of the matter?
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
stihl,
i hate to go here, but this brings me to the question... if you think catholicism is so right about everything, i cannot not inquire about the circumstances of you acquiring a step-daughter.
personally, i dont think divorce is sinful, neither is abortion. But the catholic church believes both are sinful. do you get to pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones to ignore?
what about pre-marital sex? can you offer rational arguments on why this is immoral as you stated?
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: (I'm pretty sure Jainists expect more of themselves than Catholics do. Some non-religious persons do, as well.)
CT, the term is "Jains". The faith is "Jainism". just fyi.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)