quote: It could be that being rude to someone about their deepest-held beliefs when they mean nothing but kindness or indifference towards you will cause a thousand ripples and shift the grand balance of power, but more likely, that's the end.
This is true. A million butterflies, each flapping in unison, can perhaps create enough breeze to stay the fall of a hammer. Perhaps even a single butterfly, under the right conditions, can do so.
But most of the time, the hammer -- the accumulated weight of the institutions and the impact the collective consciousness has upon its members -- smooshes the butterfly pretty easily.
We should always try to be the noble butterfly. But when someone fails, we should remember that, after all, it's a rare butterfly who avoids the hammer.
Charity is a grace for a reason: it's rare.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone likes to think they are the butterfly. When you are rude to someone, you're the hammer.
It's like that experiment where they had some play the prisoners and other the guards, and then reversed roles. It's human nature to want to hit back. It doesn't make it okay.
The underdog is not intrinsically moral because he's outnumbered.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: The pope saw this as a chance to breach the divide between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox
Which is a secular objective in what way? Moreover, a large part of the reason the Turks were trying to expand was to push their religion into Europe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would disagree about that to a point, but it makes for a nice reason to tell the masses. That and at the time the Orthodox faith, pretty much byzantium, and the Roman catholic church were closer to political organizations than the faith groups of today.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a quote I read today that I think is appropriate to this discussion. It's from an Epistle written by Ignatius (AD 30-107) to the Ephesian church. This quote comes from the longer extant version of the epistle, Chapter 15:
----- "It is better for a man to be silent and be a Christian, than to talk and not to be one. 'The Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power (I Cor. 4:20). Men 'believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth', the one 'unto righteousness,' the other 'unto salvation (Rom 10:10).'
"It is good to teach, if he who speaks also acts. For he who shall both 'do and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom (Matt 5:19).'
"Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, 'whose praise is in the Gospel through all the churches (II Cor. 8:18)'
"There is nothing which is hid from the Lord, but our very secrets are near to Him. Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as God.
"Let Christ speak in us, even as He did in Paul. Let the Holy Spirit teach us to speak the things of Christ in like manner as He did." -----
I'd say that's some fantastic advice.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BF, you are completely underestimating the amount of faith medieval people had. If they had been atheists, they would make me look like - actually, I can't think of a poster that reasonable. These people believed. Now it's true that they didn't believe in quite the same god as modern Christians or Moslems do : none of your namby-pamby loving-kindness. But they made up for this by sheer conviction.
There were certainly other reasons than the purely religious for the Crusades; but it's like saying that there are other reasons than faith for going to church. Sure, the sense of community is nice. But if you didn't believe, would you be going there? If the kings and knights of England and France wanted lands for younger sons, why, there were fragmented kingdoms right next door, where they had ancient claims. Which is indeed why the Hundred Years' War was fought. Why should they go to all the trouble and expense of travelling to the Holy Land, when they had enemies much closer, with lands that would be much easier to administer once conquered? Land hunger just doesn't make sense as a motivation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't think you have to say it at the beginning of all conversations. It's always a possibility that someone's wrong, but we don't start scientific papers or the 9/11 report with "This may or may not be true."
But that's because it is independently verifiable fact. Faith is not that way. Journalists, when talking about suspects who have been arrested for murder, say "alleged murderer" while the trial is ongoing because it has not been established that the suspect is the murderer. There has not been any court case to verify the existence of God beyond a "reasonable doubt". So there is every reason to put the disclaimer "I may be wrong about this" when beginning a conversation about faith in God.
On the other hand, people don't speak like journalists in everday life. Which might be your real point.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but isn't there a reason they call it "faith" and not, I dunno, "FACT"?
There is a line between hypothesis and theory and fact. Even if you have circumstantial evidence of something, it does not make it fact. It does not exclude the theory from becoming fact in the future, though.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is possible to have Faith in Fact. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I hold that matters of Faith are verifiable, just usually not in means that those opposed to it are usually keen on trying.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you seem to be not getting the "independently" part.
Once something is proclaimed "fact", it is no longer called "faith". And this is really just a big game of semantics, so I'll stop now. Sorry for that brief interlude, everyone.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can think of one other thing that may be a fact to someone and not a fact to someones else. To a pregnant woman who wants to have a child, the life inside her is, in FACT, a "baby," but to certain pro-choicers, it's not, in FACT, a baby until it's reached a certain phase of development or is born.
So a fact to one person, especially if they warn you it's a fact to them, doesn't HAVE mean they think the other person's delusional or inferior. It's still a difference of opinion, and now you know one of the starting premises. I don't think that call for apology, nor for offense from the other side.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there's widespread disagreement on a "fact," then it is probably not a fact. I generally consider facts to be things that can be determined. Since the status of a fetus as baby/not baby is a matter of definitions, and not something that one can investigate, it is not a fact but an opinion.
Likewise, the existence or non-existence of God is not a fact, because it cannot really be determined objectively. Reality might be one way or the other, but we can't collectively be sure, since there could theoretically be a supernatural being who does not affect the natural world in any way. (You might argue that such a being might as well not exist, from our point of view, but that's another topic). It's possible the existence of a supernatural being could become a fact in the future, if said being decides to make it obvious. It is also possible that certain statements about supernatural beings are factually untrue ("God is sitting next to me, and is completely visible.")
"A unclouded sky during the daytime is blue" is a fact, because it can be objectively determined.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there's widespread disagreement on a "fact," then it is probably not a fact.
Not necessarily. It just means that you can't agree that it is. 520 years ago, it was fact that the world was round, even though there was no concensus.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"A unclouded sky during the daytime is blue" is a fact, because it can be objectively determined.
Some people are colour-blind, and some cultures do not distinguish between blue and green. "Radiates preferentially at high-visible wavelengths" might be better. [/nitpick]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also think that it incumbent upon theists, as the overwhelming majority, to be particularly considerate in their dealings with nonbelievers. Yes, that means I cut KoM more slack than I cut Jay.
I disagree strongly with the idea that people should be held to different standards based on their group status. This is not the way things like tolerance and living together peacefully are achieved, I believe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
520 years ago there was plenty of consensus that the world was round, just as there was 2000 years ago.
Columbus was arguing (incorrectly), that it was much, much smaller than the extremely accurate greek (and even more accurate later) measurements of its size, not that it was round instead of flat.
The ones opposing Columbus were much more right than he was (they, as he, just didn't realize there was a huge honkin' continent inbetween Europe and Asia).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not condescending to say, "I believe my belief is true." It is, however, nonsense to say, "I don't believe my belief is true." If you don't think it's true, it's not your belief.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, its just relevant to the notion that 520 years ago there wasn't consensus.
What's relevant to the definition of fact, though, is that the methods used to determine the world's spherical nature (and approximate size) were simple and easily duplicated (which they were, repeatedly).
Of course, there's also considerable difference between a scientific fact and an absolute fact.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing in this world is "absolute". It depends on how we define or describe what we experience. That definition usually comes about from a combination of direct experience and our relationship to another.
At a simple level, think of teaching a toddler about "hot". The toddler touches something that is hot, and there is a sensation which is unpleasant. The toddler may decide not to try that again - or not. But the toddler doesn't have a way of describing that experience that defines the sensation as "hot". That takes a relationship with another person who uses the word "hot" and most likely lots of other words to help drive home the idea that the item is "hot", hot things hurt, and touching hot things is a no-no.
But who's to say HOW the toddler would define or describe that experience without the relationship of another person to assign meaning?
I think this carries over into adult life on many levels.
quote:I also think that it incumbent upon theists, as the overwhelming majority, to be particularly considerate in their dealings with nonbelievers. Yes, that means I cut KoM more slack than I cut Jay.
I disagree strongly with the idea that people should be held to different standards based on their group status. This is not the way things like tolerance and living together peacefully are achieved, I believe.
It's interesting that both you and kat feel that way given that people of your faith have been a persecuted minority for much of your faith's history. The kind of unconsciously dismissive attitude toward nonbelievers that I'm talking about could easily lead to something more overt. In the U.S., a number of people are arguing that it already is leading to more overt things (the row over "under God" and the Ten Commandments outside that courthouse are obvious contentious examples from recent memory).
The relevant moral principle, for me, is "with great power comes great responsibility." But we already knew that you're much more libertarian than I am, so it isn't exactly surprising that we disagree about this, too. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know in this age of moral relativism it is popular to say there are no absolutes. No Truth. This is not new. Pilate asked Christ "What is truth?" John 18:38. But I don't by into this.
Truth is truth. It is what has actually happened; it is reality. Just because you don't agree with something or think it didn't happen, doesn't mean it didn't. The truth doesn't change with your point of view. The statement “there is a God” is either true or it’s not, but it can’t be true for one person and not for another.
There are absolutes beyond basic facts. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means you can’t prove it. For example it is the absolute truth that I love my dog, but I can’t prove it in a lab.
Sorry it’s kind of late and I am kind of rambling.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let me tell you about my experiences with someone wanting to share their religion with me and how I reacted to what they said. I had and still have a very good friend who is Christian. We often talked about philosophical issues and I knew she was very strong in her faith so I asked her about it. She explained the basics of her religion to me and answered any questions I asked. She never once said she believed I was going to hell until I asked her if she thought I was. She said if I do not believe in Christ and ask forgiveness before I die then she believes I would go to hell. She was very open and nice about any question I had. She was never forceful or overly preachy in what she said to me. She was never pushy, just very nice and explained any questions with calm and kindness. It has been a few years since I started talking with her and I have not yet become a Christian. I think its just a matter of time because I feel very strongly about Christianity being true but I still have some last lingering doubts I would like to get rid of.
If you want to talk to relatives and friends about religion who are not Christian I would suggest that you let your faith be known but not in a pushy way. Once people know they will ask you about your religion, and when they ask you they will challenge what you say(if they are anything like me) At times I think I was downright offensive and hostile with her although I did not intend to be, but she showed me through example the type of person she was and the patience she had. I cannot stress enough how much her not being pushy was.
I never liked religion very much, I thought it was stupid but if someone needed it I did not fault them. I was always very positive and supportive of my religous friends but religion was not something for someone like me. I did not need religion because I could depend on myself. As I learn more about Christianity I still believe I can rely on myself, but things are different somehow as I see the truth of the Bible. I feel like someone else is there to help me.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is extra ironic is that I feel the same way you do about the 'under God' and the Ten Commandments at the courthouse, Twink
What I would say different from you is that it is incumbent upon people to be considerate and respectful in their dealings with other people who believe differently-but the risk for abuse and tragedy is greater when one side outnumbers the other side and the issues are especially passionate.
That quote is very relevant to me, as well . And not just because it's the philosophy of my favorite super-hero, either . No, I feel that way, too, but I don't think it is fair or particularly productive to hold people to that standard based on how other people who fill in their census form the same way behave.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well part of the reason that they weren't looking at each other for land was the fact that the church had been attempting to stop infighting in Europe for a good long time. Remember that the reason we see the ancient knight as this rightous chivalric figure is the Church. The original rules of Chivalry were even drafted and distributed by the Catholic church.
Not to mention that Pope Urban II had banned fighting between the days of Sunday and Wensday, and that fighting involving ladies, Merchants, Monks, or Priests was banned on any day. England was under one power and France, besides the Normans, was broken up inbetween far too many families.
Also as a side note Peter the Hermit.. well he was a pretty crazy religious fanatic, and so were most of his followers. Not that he actually accomplished any martial good, he just did a great deal of thieving and didn't take kindly to the Jews. Peter thought whats to stop us from killing the enemies of christ at home, quite a few Bishops attempted to shelter and protect the Jews of their cities, some succesful some not.
Mostly from what I have gathered on the time the Crusades was a mix of social and economic problems of sorts in Europe and the desire of the Catholic church for christians to stop fighting each other. A letter from the Byzantine emperor gave the Pope a chance to kill all his birds with one stone. Better the Arabic Muslims to be their enemies than at home.
Anyhow this topic really isn't about the Crusades anyhow. Most religions have had their zealous moments.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I understand where you're coming from. It is frustrating to be in a minority when the majority sometimes seems to not notice people like you even exist. Which is why I don't think it unreasonable for you to request that the majority make an extra effort to treat you with respect.
Kat, you're absolutely right about the minority needing to be respectful of the majority. I don't think Twinky was suggesting some sort of double standard. (Right, Twinky?) It's just that it's easy for the majority to forget that their viewpoint is not the only one, while the minority are constantly reminded of their status. It's easy for right-handers, for example, to design things without even realizing that some of us use our left hands to write or operate machinery. That doesn't mean that lefties get to be rude to right-handers, or forget to take their needs into account. However, right-handers generally tend to be less aware of the issue and are in a privileged position. Therefore I do think that it is incumbent on them to be a little more careful to respect the needs of left-handers. Their needs will be met simply because they're in the majority. Ours won't, unless we complain, or the right-handed majority starts paying more attention.
And there isn't even any social pressure against left-handers. I'd say that groups who are in the minority for religious reasons have it worse in some ways. But then, atheists generally don't have difficulties using those stupid half-desks, or operating can openers. Unless they're a left-handed atheist.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just thought that Twink basically saying that he treats non-believers differently than believers (and Tom saying way back that he outright thought believers were more "dishonest" than believers) was just as wrong as any believer saying that non-believers were evil/untrustworthy/inferior/other pejoratives.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom saying way back that he outright thought believers were more "dishonest" than believers
I'd accuse you of taking this out of context, but for the fact that you also garbled it beyond recognition. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
If it is, then there is at least one absolute, and it is therefore false.
How can it be true or false when it is taken out of context to experience and relationship?
Context is not necessary to detect contradiction. That's a basic part of logic.
For example: "A and not A." This is false no matter what the context is. Embed it in War and Peace, or the EU Constitution, or your letter to an aunt, and it's still false.
It's also false no matter what A is. Examples:
Lassie was female and Lassie was not a female. Fish sometimes talk and fish never talk.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will - go with me on this one. Have a little fun here. Formal logic was over a decade ago for me, and I just don't want to play A and not A, or A and B, or A~B therefore whatever in the heck it may be!
I am a working mom. My current reality is bounded by childrearing and the necessities thereof (i.e., work at office, work at home, take child here, take child there, etc.) - therefore, I speak in context and relationship. Not in symbols. I refuse.
And I stand by my assertion (absolutely - NOT) . . . I don't think you can reduce life down into symbols and have it be meaningful - it takes context and relationship. And since relationships vary so widely, and context means different things to each individual, there is really no defining something down into an absolute black or white or whatever it may be that you happen to want to define absolutely . . .
Besides, you may think you have defined something down into the nth degree one day, and a new experience might cause you to re-evaluate and redefine.
I'm babbling. And it's time to readjust the covers on the snoozing child, pick up some more dirty socks and towels, and ignore the dirty dishes.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Which might be your real point.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. No, I feel that way, too, but I don't think it is fair or particularly productive to hold people to that standard based on how other people who fill in their census form the same way behave.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Formal logic was over a decade ago for me, and I just don't want to play A and not A, or A and B, or A~B therefore whatever in the heck it may be!
