posted
I would love it if people in general (not here, but across society) would stop getting prissily offended by things that are not meant to offend. I think it should be okay for two churches to consider themselves exclusively correct, without that belief on one side being considered "disrespect" by the other.
I mean, the reason I'm a Mormon and Dag is a Catholic is because each of us believes our religion is true. That ALSO means that each of us thinks that the other's religion is wrong, and does not truly represent Christ in any kind of official capacity. Yet oddly enough, despite that difference, Dag and I get along great, and do not feel disrespected by one another (at least, to my knowledge).
It is perfectly possible to believe you are right and others are wrong (not disrespectful) without professing that you are teh awesomest and others are st00pid (disrespectful).
If we could all permit each other that much leeway — the right to believe we are correct without that being considered inherently offensive — then that will go a long way towards establishing a degree of harmony and cooperation between our faiths.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is clearly never going to be a productive discussion.
You think maybe your habit of throwing out insults when they are not warranted and not engaging people's statements or respecting what they have to say might have something to do with that?
I do even if she doesn't.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you say that dkw, for example, isn't really a minister of God and all the ceremonies she officiates are without authority, you are disrespecting her and her faith.
Not really. I'm disagreeing with her and her faith, certainly. Depending on the tone of my disagreement, I may be disrespecting her faith.
dkw has stated she disagrees with Mormonism; Dagonee has as well. In recent history, both of their religious organizations (I may be wrong about DKW's specific organization) have made statements to the effect that Mormon baptisms are not considered Christian baptisms, and that converts who were baptised into the Mormon church must be rebaptized.
This is not an indication of disrespecting Mormonism.
It is disagreeing with Mormonism.
Additionally, there's the problem that misunderstanding/misinformation != disrepsect. For example, Squicky stated early in this thread that Mormons call non-Mormons "Gentiles." He was quickly corrected-- we do not. His statement MAY have been disrespectful, if he knew through experience that we don't do this; however, barring evidence, I choose to think he was just misinformed, or misunderstood something, and was not being disrespectful.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I would love it if people in general (not here, but across society) would stop getting prissily offended by things that are not meant to offend. I think it should be okay for two churches to consider themselves exclusively correct, without that belief on one side being considered "disrespect" by the other.
I mean, the reason I'm a Mormon and Dag is a Catholic is because each of us believes our religion is true. That ALSO means that each of us thinks that the other's religion is wrong, and does not truly represent Christ in any kind of official capacity. Yet oddly enough, despite that difference, Dag and I get along great, and do not feel disrespected by one another (at least, to my knowledge).
It is perfectly possible to believe you are right and others are wrong (not disrespectful) without believing that you are teh awesomest and others are st00pid (disrespectful).
If we could all permit each other that much leeway — the right to believe we are correct without that being considered inherently offensive — then that will go a long way towards establishing a degree of harmony and cooperation between our faiths.
What you are describing is what I like to call "agreeing to disagree" and it is a very tolerant attitude. When you say to someone, "You are not a Christian," however, you are stripping them of a certain social dignity that is associated with being Christian in this culture (for better or worse). That goes to the definition of intolerance that I found, at any rate:
quote:
quote:Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant Pronunciation: -r&nt Function: adjective 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
posted
I think it's entirely possible to be a part of a religion and yet respect another religion. And I don't think it's a requirement of believing in a religion to consider it to be "true" and others to be wrong. IMO, it's a matter of what fits you the best. And I don't believe anyone else can tell me or anyone else that what fits them should fit everyone.
As a catholic I do not consider evangelical faiths or other christian faiths to be 'wrong'. I just think that being a catholic is more right for me. IMO, that is being tolerant. To consider another faith to be 'wrong' is not tolerant.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Definition 1: Someone who considers themselves to be a follower of Christ's teachings.
Definition 2: Someone who actually succeeds in following Christ's teachings.
I think it is clear that Mormons fit definition 1. I would also say it is up to debate whether Mormons fit definition 2, since people don't agree upon what Christ's teachings actually are.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you say to someone, "You are not a Christian," however, you are stripping them of a certain social dignity that is associated with being Christian in this culture (for better or worse).
Mmm... no, I disagree.
You are merely expressing an opinion that they do not fit your definition of what a Christian is. You don't strip them of anything.
Hopefully, the two people will be able to act like adults and talk things over in an amicable way.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, That's because you didn't read my post correctly (and I deleted it because I didn't think it would be particularly conducive to the discussion and thought that I could get it before anyone saw it). I wasn't labelling everyone in the group from one person's behavior. I was able to guess what his denomination was from his bigotted statements, because it is very common for me to run into people from that group that are bigots. I was not at all surprised by the bigotry displayed. Also, as I've said, the research shows me that prejudice is significantly higher in that group. When I'm able to predict soemone's membership in a group based on a characteristic, because, in my experience that is a common characteristic of people in that group, it is very different from what you posted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: pH, That's because you didn't read my post correctly (and I deleted it because I didn't think it would be particularly conducive to the discussion). I wasn't labelling everyone in the group from one person's behavior. I was able to guess what his denomination was from his bigotted statements, because it is very common for me to run into people from that group that are bigots. I was not at all surprised by the bigotry displayed. Also, as I've said, the research shows me that prejudice is significantly higher in that group. When I'm able to predict soemone's membership in a group based on a characteristic, because, in my experience that is a common characteristic of people in that group, it is very different from what you posted.
It means that you're bigoted towards Southern Baptists, since when you meet one, you decide they're probably racist.
That's like saying whenever I meet an Asian person, I decide they can probably help me with my math homework.
posted
No, you've got it backwards. I deduced from what I knew that because the guy was a minister and he was displaying a certain form of bigotry, it was likely that he was a Southern Baptist.
That is a very different thing from saying that I assume all Southern Baptists are bigots.
If I meet a red head whose last name is O'Malley, I can reasonably deduce that he likely has Irish ancestry, which is very different from thinking that all people of Irish descent have red hair.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Squicky deleted a post after it had been replied to?
No. I deleted before the reply had been posted, and I wouldn't have had I thought that it was up long enough for people to read.
edit: The post that I deleted said something like (slightly expanded now):
I like to talk to people on the train. At one point, I was having a conversation with a guy who told me he was a minister. I had no problem with this and we continued talking. At one point, as a non-sequitor, he came out with how gays are evil and want to convert everyone else and that you should call lesbians "bull dagas", because that's the right name for them. I asked him if he was a Southern Baptist and was not at all surprised when he said yes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "It's a disagreement about what I believe. The only reason you can possibly disagree about that is by telling me that I don't believe what I say I believe. It's exactly what Ron was doing."
No it is not. I understand you believe differet things about what reasons He did things, who He was that did them, and what those things ultimately lead to. Still, the Role is Jesus as Christ and Savior of the World.
Part of the role of Christ in Classical/Catholic/Orthodox Christian belief is to unite the natures of God and humanity. The classic statement of that role is in St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The dual nature of Christ is essential to that role. "Christ" and "Savior of the World" are titles for the role, not descriptions of it.
Edit: Good heavens this thread is moving fast. I agree with what Puppy and ScottR said about disagreement not necessarily equaling disrespect.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Squicky deleted a post after it had been replied to?
As did stihl, on the last page. *shrug*
-pH
I deleted a post directed to you while you were replying to it because it wasn't nice and not warranted. As you deleted your response to it.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of the role of Christ in Classical/Catholic/Orthodox Christian belief is to unite the natures of God and humanity. The classic statement of that role is in St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The dual nature of Christ is essential to that role. "Christ" and "Savior of the World" are titles for the role, not descriptions of it.
Thank you, dkw. Every post I wrote on this got way too long without saying what you managed to say in three sentences.
To interject something additional, because I know Mormons believe that Christ has dual nature, the specific kind of dual nature is relevant.
quote:I mean, the reason I'm a Mormon and Dag is a Catholic is because each of us believes our religion is true. That ALSO means that each of us thinks that the other's religion is wrong, and does not truly represent Christ in any kind of official capacity. Yet oddly enough, despite that difference, Dag and I get along great, and do not feel disrespected by one another (at least, to my knowledge).
Your knowledge is correct.
I agree with both yours and Scott's posts on this page.
quote:No. I deleted before the reply had been posted, and I wouldn't have had I thought that it was up long enough for people to read.
For all my disagreements with Squicky, I have never seen him delete a post that has been replied to nor back-edit to change context during a discussion. If such a thing happened, I believe it to be entirely accidental.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Pete's sake, Scott, didn't you just have a thing where you said that kat sniping at me (and made a false accusation of me sniping at her) was detrimental to Hatrack? And now you are sniping at me? And calling something else ironic?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please oh please don't let this be a another thread about Squicky. Please can we get back to religion?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you say to someone, "You are not a Christian," however, you are stripping them of a certain social dignity that is associated with being Christian in this culture (for better or worse).
Mmm... no, I disagree.
You are merely expressing an opinion that they do not fit your definition of what a Christian is. You don't strip them of anything.
Hopefully, the two people will be able to act like adults and talk things over in an amicable way.
Well, I guess that depends, once again, on how you say it and the attitude behind what you say. I have often perceived this as an attempt to insult and disclude rather than disagree. In that case, I would say that intolerance is present.
But generally, I agree with what you said on this page. It is possible to disagree without being disrespectful.
The only wrinkle I would add is that, once again in my experience and perception, people have trouble being respectful when disagreeing on religious matters. This is true of *all* religious people. I am absolutely not finger pointing here. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The major problem I had with your initial post, Christine, was the phrase "you are stripping them..."
Dagonee, for example, cannot strip me of being a Christian, not even if he writes a best-selling novel to that effect. Self-identification is precisely that-- how I define myself. No one controls that but me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year
I didn't see where this was really addressed in the thread, but perhaps someone could explain what evangelical values are opposite from Mormon values.
Mormon values include faith, hope, charity, love, family, hard work, and honesty to name a few. What are the opposites of these? What Mormon values (and even beliefs if someone wants to go there) are 'on the complete opposite end of the spectrum' from evangelicals? I guess one might be that Mormons don't believe that non-Christians will burn in hell, and I could see how that may be seen as insidious. Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The major problem I had with your initial post, Christine, was the phrase "you are stripping them..."
Dagonee, for example, cannot strip me of being a Christian, not even if he writes a best-selling novel to that effect. Self-identification is precisely that-- how I define myself. No one controls that but me.
I think one could correctly compare it to someone telling you you're not a proper American or a patriot if you disagree with the government. I for one believe it's every American's right or duty to disagree if they believe so. Yet so many people will jump on you for not supporting the President or the war, etc and tell you that you are not American or patriotic. If one believes themselves to be an American, and is proud of that, then it can be offensive to be told you're not.
From a catholic standpoint, I believe I'm christian, I believe that any faith believing in Jesus is christian. Yet to be told that I'm not a christian by another christian faith IS offensive to me, whether or not I allow that to affect me. And frankly, it's not going to affect my beliefs either way. Yet to be told what I believe isn't christian, when the very basis of what I believe being a christian is involves tolerance and understanding, does offend me. And to compound that with, from my experience with evangelicals at least, ridiculous intolerance and outright ignorant prejudice is very offensive to me.
Yet I realize not everyone is that way and I try not to get too offended. And frankly, I don't believe anyone truly knows what a 'true' faith is. SO I try to be forgiving and tolerant and flexible with other faiths. And as I said, if it's a question of docterine I don't really care, since I have a general distaste for docterine and getting held up in the details.
So the bottom line is, how other religions regard my religion doesn't really affect my beliefs. But it is a bit offensive that other religions that claim to be christian practice intolerances toward other christian faiths, which IMO isn't very christian to begin with. And really in the scheme of things, it isn't that important. But it is worth discussing.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year
I didn't see where this was really addressed in the thread, but perhaps someone could explain what evangelical values are opposite from Mormon values.
Mormon values include faith, hope, charity, love, family, hard work, and honesty to name a few. What are the opposites of these? What Mormon values (and even beliefs if someone wants to go there) are 'on the complete opposite end of the spectrum' from evangelicals? I guess one might be that Mormons don't believe that non-Christians will burn in hell, and I could see how that may be seen as insidious.
Not to put words or motivations into evangelicals since I am not one, but from what I understand many evangelicals have a huge problem with the book of Mormon. I've been told (by them) that the bible is the bible, and that the book of Mormon alters scripture. Many evangelicals do not like this. There are also many docterine differences and disagreements about the nature of Jesus and God as well. But I'm not an expert on either religion, by far. I just relate what I have been told.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only explanation for that statement in which it is legitimate is for a somewhat odd definition of "Christian values", which would be "values (or more properly beliefs) about the nature of Christianity".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The only explanation for that statement in which it is legitimate is for a somewhat odd definition of "Christian values", which would be "values (or more properly beliefs) about the nature of Christianity".
posted
Which is why I view it as an illegitimate and ignorant statement that smacks on bigotry. I don't think I've ever heard someone say values when they meant beliefs- the two are distinctly different concepts that I would expect a college educated pastor to be able to differentiate between.
Granted, there are many doctrinal differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. But values? I cringe whenever I hear that statement made in regards to atheists as well. It's kind of disturbing that people will publicly make comments like that.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I, personally, have a hard time with a set of Christian values that values exclusivity based on doctrine over the Christian values of inclusivity and care for your neighbor.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmmm...I'm caught in a paradox.
I, personally, have a hard time with a set of Christian values that values exclusivity based on doctrine over the Christian values of inclusivity and care for your neighbor.
You see my problem.
You can disagree yet tolerate.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least in Mormonism, the doctrine of exclusive access to the priesthood (the power to perform saving ordinances) does not exclude other people from having the truth; or from being "saved."
And Mormons who don't care for their neighbors are definitely not "saved," despite being members of the true church.
Exclusivity it not valued over charity and brotherly love, in other words.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I thought of while reading stihl1's 1:10 post -- is it possible they're using "values" in the organizational "mission-vision-values" sense? We've all been treating the statement as if values = moral values, but it wouldn't have to, necessarily. In the mission-vision-values sense they could easily have a value such as "we value the Bible as uniquely the authoritative Word of God and only book of scripture" or something that would make the LDS "open canon" directly opposed to that value.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"OSC I Challenge Thee" grew pretty quickly. Not sure exactly how quickly, but still. It's easily the fastest growing thread we've had on the OSC side of the river.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't around for that one, but the "New Ender Novel Decided On" grew extremely fast late that night that OSC started it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the students are LDS and hate the message he was peddling.
To be fair, you should have said that most of the students are republicans and hate the message he was peddling. I know many LDS people who appreciate Michael Moore's message. In fact "hate" is far more incongruent with the LDS faith than anything in Michael Moore's message.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I think one could correctly compare it to someone telling you you're not a proper American or a patriot if you disagree with the government. I for one believe it's every American's right or duty to disagree if they believe so. Yet so many people will jump on you for not supporting the President or the war, etc and tell you that you are not American or patriotic. If one believes themselves to be an American, and is proud of that, then it can be offensive to be told you're not.
From a catholic standpoint, I believe I'm christian, I believe that any faith believing in Jesus is christian. Yet to be told that I'm not a christian by another christian faith IS offensive to me, whether or not I allow that to affect me. And frankly, it's not going to affect my beliefs either way. Yet to be told what I believe isn't christian, when the very basis of what I believe being a christian is involves tolerance and understanding, does offend me. And to compound that with, from my experience with evangelicals at least, ridiculous intolerance and outright ignorant prejudice is very offensive to me.
Amen Stihl!! As I said in the earlier thread. Jesus is the only one who has the wisdom or the right to judge who is and is not Christian.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
