FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Apparently Jews are 'not saves' help me fight this! (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Apparently Jews are 'not saves' help me fight this!
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MightyCow:
So you can only discuss religion with people who already agree with what you're going to say?

You say that as though you believe that you can't discuss religion without trying to "win". Do you believe that?

I don't.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.
Does this hold only for religion, or across all ideas?

I've had plenty of discussions with people who have held ideas that I do not that involve me pointing out what I saw as logical inconsistencies in what they were saying.

When someone says they believe X and Y, is it dishonest and manipulative to demonstrate that X and Y are mutually exclusive? I don't see this as necessarily true.

---

edit: Also, there have plenty of conversations that centered around differing interpretations of things that I may not actually believe in. It doesn't seem to me that I become unable to have a valid opinion on what something could mean on an intellectual level if I don't believe in the whole thing.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Would it be a fair fight between me and Superman if I didn't have Kryptonite, and he only had super-strength, invulnerability, super-speed, and the ability to shoot lasers out of his eyes?
That depends. Are you [fill in super-villian here]?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
You say that as though you believe that you can't discuss religion without trying to "win". Do you believe that?

I don't.

It's not black or white.

In ANY conversation you go into it with a particular position. So, if you think you're correct (and you should, or else why are you holding said position?) you're going to try to convince the other person that you're right.

The key is to keep an open enough mind so that you can accept when you're wrong.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.

If my beliefs can't hold up to scrutiny, I either don't want to believe them, or I don't care that you disagree. I think it's silly to believe something if you don't really believe it.

Besides, can something really be described as inerrant or omnipotent if it has a kryptonite? It's difficult to have a discussion under those rules, since religion's kryptonite often seems to be evidence and logic.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In ANY conversation you go into it with a particular position. So, if you think you're correct (and you should, or else why are you holding said position?) you're going to be trying to convince the other person that you're right.
This is certainly not true. This ignores a multitude of possible reasons for conversations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
I don't either. I'm not extending my opinion beyond what I said - non-believers trying to use my scriptures as a weapon against me in conversation get my scorn.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
quote:
In ANY conversation you go into it with a particular position. So, if you think you're correct (and you should, or else why are you holding said position?) you're going to be trying to convince the other person that you're right.
This is certainly not true. This ignores a multitude of possible reasons for conversations.
Any conversation that leads to debate or debate-like discussion. I didn't say 'debate' because that sounds too formal.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
It still ignores a multitude of reasons for a debate.

I'm not saying you have to agree in a debate. I'm saying don't quote scripture to me unless you believe it's from God.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
It's like an army of straw men have invaded this thread.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
In one of my multiple encounters with bigotted Baptist preachers, I ahd one of them inform me that the proper term for lesbians is "bull dagas". I responded that term I thought Christ would prefer is "sister".

I don't see it as inappropriate to counter the naked hatred that many Christians display with a reminder that one of Jesus's central commandments was one of love, even if I no longer believe in Christianity.

---

For that matter, there are scholars who study the Bible and the history of Christianity who are not themselves Christian. Yet they know much much more about certain aspects of the religion than the majority of Christians. Does them not believing in the religion invalidate anything they have to say about it? I don't think so.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I don't either. I'm not extending my opinion beyond what I said - non-believers trying to use my scriptures as a weapon against me in conversation get my scorn.

That's fine.

Along with the scorn, if you included reasons why the arguments non-believers use are invalid or wrong(other than the fact that the arguments were made by non-believers), we would appreciate it.

Otherwise it sees like you're just getting mad because your scripture is contradictory or flawed. (That's what it seems like, which doesn't mean that is what it is.)

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't with to converse with you. On the other, I have an informed, solid opinion about the second point.

I'll compromise and answer the second point, which enables to sidestep comment about your personal beliefs of what is appropriate.

---

That's fine, but only if you're Jan Shipps or like unto her.

----

quote:
Otherwise it sees like you're just getting mad because your scripture is contradictory or flawed. (That's what it seems like, which doesn't mean that is what it is.)
Wow, I just can't imagine why someone might consider your respect for their religion to be flawed..
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm saying don't quote scripture to me unless you believe it's from God.
This seems pretty dishonest and manipulative to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
It's like an army of straw men have invaded this thread.
I prefer if you don't use logical fallacies against me in discussions. They're my kryptonite.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Bah. I made a useful edit to an earlier post, only to have it buried on the previous page. [Frown]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I am not interested in conversing with you, Squick.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
I read it Tom. Good point [Smile]
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Wow, I just can't imagine why someone might consider your respect for their religion to be flawed..

Why do I have to have respect for your religion?

I have respect for you.

I respect your right to believe what you like.

I respect certain things that are key points in your religion.

But there are many things, in your religion or in those belonging to others, that I don't respect. Not because they are religion, but because of those specific issues.

I'm sorry if that annoys you.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't particularly mind having conversations about scripture with people who don't believe in it. I do think it's pretty silly for someone who doesn't believe in a particular event/concept to try to convince someone else that a category of people should be included in said event/concept.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
I don't particularly mind having conversations about scripture with people who don't believe in it. I do think it's pretty silly for someone who doesn't believe in a particular event/concept to try to convince someone else that a category of people should be included in said event/concept.

Exactly!
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In the same way, using the contradictions and moral conundrums and tiny hypocrises exposed in Scripture against the religious may well be the only way for all but the most superheroic people to sensibly engage the religious on points of religion.

QFT.

This is exactly the kind of idea I was trying to articulate when noting that its not like there is much of a choice *not* using scripture (short of divine intervention) when debating religious ideas if the religious are only listening to religious ideas.

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.

I don't necessarily agree.

At least when the situations are reversed and say, Ron Lambert is attempting to participate in a discussion about evolution. I appreciate his attempts (to whatever small extent) to at least try to debate using proper science even if he doesn't necessarily believe in many of the base concepts behind the scientific method.
At least its better than if the two sides stayed on completely different fields, with one side quoting scripture and the other explaining science, with no connection at all.

Or as a different example.
I don't believe in anything approaching Islam. But if I can use the Koran itself to persuade extremist Muslims to be less extreme, well, I'm not seeing much harm.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I think there's a difference between a conversation about scripture and a debate in which someone tries to win a point or the debate by using scripture.

quote:
But if I can use the Koran itself to persuade extremist Muslims to be less extreme, well, I'm not seeing much harm.
Because the end justifies the means? I suppose that's a different debate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Saephon
Member
Member # 9623

 - posted      Profile for Saephon   Email Saephon         Edit/Delete Post 
I must admit I don't understand that kind of position much, outside of "I'll debate religion with you as long as you don't talk about the scripture my religion comes from." I don't see it as using someone's religion against them; how can one try to convince someone of something if they leave that person's beliefs/position completely alone?

It's like asking me to point out why I think you're wrong...but I'm not allowed to talk about what you think. There's absolutely no point in my opinion. (I am speaking only of debates or conversations where persuasion is in use.) Now, if you just feel that it's disrespectful for anyone to quote scripture or try to analyze your beliefs in an attempt to prove you wrong, that is fine by me. I don't like offending people so I would just decline to discuss religion with you or anyone with a similar position.

However I still think it is pretty much closing the doors to debate. Unless that is actually your intention; if you are not interested in one, I fully respect that and I wouldn't push it on you.

Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
I would think that a follower of some scripture, who has based his or her life upon its teachings, would be armored by it, rather than have the scripture be their weak point.

If the basis of my own beliefs were my kryptonite, I'd seriously consider looking for a belief system which wasn't my greatest weakness.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I would think that a follower of some scripture, who has based his or her life upon its teachings, would be armored by it, rather than have the scripture be their weak point.
And this is how it is for my wife and my friends with whom I regularly discuss issues of doctrine in the context of what their scriptures say. I'm a little taken aback by the position here that using someone else's scriptures in a debate about the doctrines upon which they are drawn is inherently offensive.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't particularly mind having conversations about scripture with people who don't believe in it. I do think it's pretty silly for someone who doesn't believe in a particular event/concept to try to convince someone else that a category of people should be included in said event/concept.
Abolitionist groups used scripture in an attempt to convince Christian anti-abolitionists that the religion was against slavery, even though some of the abolitionists were not themselves Christians. I'm having problems seeing that as silly.

If Lincoln were, as some suppose, an atheist, I don't think it takes away from the power of his use of religious imagery or turns it into something to laugh at or scorn.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
Non-Christian abolitionists believed that slavery was wrong. That is not arguing to include a group in a concept that you don't believe in.

Edit: a more accurate comparison would be if the non-christian abolitionists didn't believe that freedom from slavery existed but argued that Christians should believe that black people have it.

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
*scratches head*

It would seem to me that using your scripture to argue against your religion is the MOST respectful to have a debate with you. After all, presumably the reason you belong to the religion you do belong to is because you think it is correct, or close enough to correct as to make no nevermind.

If I want to convince someone that their position is wrong, rather then try to convince them of my particular position, the only way to do so is to engage that person within their own epistomology. For a given religion, a large part of the epistomology of members of that religion will be scripture and interpretation of scripture.

So it seems to me that arguing against someone's religion using their own scripture is a necessary part of having that debate.

Now, the premise behind here is that one side is trying to convince the other side that she is wrong. Its worth noting that "proving something wrong," as a valuable endevor is very much a part of the scientific epistomology. We experiment to show that hypotheses are incorrect. So the arguer is using a value judgement from his own epistomology in order to choose how to engage someone. But by using the religious person's scripture and thus her epistomology, the arguer is showing RESPECT. A willingness to engage on the religious person's ground.

Using a different example: If I have a friend who is a vegetarian for environmental reasons, the best way to dissuade that person from being a vegetarian is to show them that the environmental impact of having meat in one's diet is no different (or less) then not having meat in one's diet. It is not helpful for me to explain that it is possible to eat meat that is not treated cruelly. It doesn't address the question.

To me, not using someone's scripture to argue against that person's religion or religious beliefs is the same as trying to convince the above vegetarian to eat meat without addressing environmental impact.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Non-Christian abolitionists believed that slavery was wrong. That is not arguing to include a group in a concept that you don't believe in.
But they did argue that Christian slave-owners should treat black people as their Christian brothers and sisters (a category that the non-Christians did not believe in) and some of the reasons why they argued slavery was wrong came from Christianity, which they did not believe in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Because the end justifies the means? I suppose that's a different debate.

Is it?
The OP is an atheist/agnostic trying to find the best way of using scripture to make a point. Inherently, agnostics and atheists don't believe in scripture, otherwise they wouldn't be agnostics or atheists.

So for him, what we're really debating is whether he keep himself aloof from a debate about religious ideas, avoiding it entirely, since he has no way to engage *without* using scripture.
Or whether he should be, well, condescending (for lack of a better term), accept the terms of the debate despite not believing in them, and engage.

But let's be brutally honest, for an atheist, using scripture at in this fashion IS most likely somewhat distasteful. However, some of us think that it is "worth it".

The question of whether the end justifies the means in this case is very relevant.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I have no problem discussing scriptures or beliefs with people who don't agree with me.

I generally dislike debating or arguing religion at all, but that's a different discussion.

I think that when you knowingly use somebody's scriptures to prove a point to them about something else, you're not just saying "X book says Y". I don't think you can really escape the fact that you're also saying "Your God says Y", "Y is the Truth", "You should believe that God says Y", or some variation on that theme. When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
agnostics and atheists don't believe in scripture
That's true in some ways and can be false in others.

While they may not believe in the divine provenance of the scripture or of many of the things in it, it is still possible for someone to "believe" in some of the other things, such as the non-divine teachings and message.

I used to be a very devout Catholic and I still believe in a lot of the message of the Bible. In my own fashion, I even grant it divine origin.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in."

True, but what you are also doing is saying "You are doing Y. I would like you to do X, instead. In order to convince you, I will use your belief, A, which suggests that you should do X, and not Y, rather then my belief, B, which you do not accept as valid."

I honestly think this is the most respectful way to address the situation.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
But they did argue that Christian slave-owners should treat black people as their Christian brothers and sisters (a category that the non-Christians did not believe in)

Of course they believed in the category "people who are treated by Christians as Christian brothers or sisters."

quote:

and some of the reasons why they argued slavery was wrong came from Christianity, which they did not believe in.

Which I have no problem with, as stated earlier.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Using a different example: If I have a friend who is a vegetarian for environmental reasons, the best way to dissuade that person from being a vegetarian is to show them that the environmental impact of having meat in one's diet is no different (or less) then not having meat in one's diet. It is not helpful for me to explain that it is possible to eat meat that is not treated cruelly. It doesn't address the question.

To me, not using someone's scripture to argue against that person's religion or religious beliefs is the same as trying to convince the above vegetarian to eat meat without addressing environmental impact.

To me, those are completely different. Perhaps I can explain why.

It would be closer to being the same if your friend believed that the environmental impact was better for vegetarians because of some study that you think is bogus.

In that situation, I'd try to show them that the report they're using for their information is incorrect. It would be dishonest and manipulative for me to argue my point with what I believed to be a false and inaccurate report.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think that when you knowingly use somebody's scriptures to prove a point about something else, you're not just saying "X book says Y". I don't think you can really escape the fact that you're also saying "Your God says Y", "Y is the Truth", "You should believe that God says Y", or some variation on that theme. When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in.
All I'm saying is "It appears to me that your scriptures say Y". The "Y is the Truth" and "God says Y" parts are entirely up to you and since you've already told me that believe that whatever is in the scriptures is true and from God, so I don't see what the big deal is there.

Now, if you want to claim some personal revelation that alters the meaning of the text from what it may seem to say to me, I won't argue with you on that point unless your revelation seems to be in direct contradiction with the plain meaning of the text, in which case I might ask for an explanation for that contradiction.

At no point in this process is there any malicious manipulation or dishonestly in play.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in.
But that's generally not true, at least not when I do it. You are missing a very important condition, which is, "If you believe X".

If you believe that the Bible is true and gives you a guide on how to live and believe and the Bible says Y, you should believe Y. I'm not arguing for anything in there that I don't believe. I see that there is necessarily a problem with granting a perspective that I don't agree with and producing extrapolations from that perspective.

edit: Granting a persepctive that you don't share is one of the cornerstones of human interaction.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in."

True, but what you are also doing is saying "You are doing Y. I would like you to do X, instead. In order to convince you, I will use your belief, A, which suggests that you should do X, and not Y, rather then my belief, B, which you do not accept as valid."

I honestly think this is the most respectful way to address the situation.

Would it be fair to say that what you really mean is that it's the most respectful way to address the situation and still successfully persuade people to your line of thinking?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Of course they believed in the category "people who are treated by Christians as Christian brothers or sisters."
I don't see how that is relevant. They weren't primarily arguing that they should be treated as brothers and sisters. They were arguing that they were the slave owners brothers and sisters, which would have the effect of changing the treatment.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Would it be fair to say that what you really mean is that it's the most respectful way to address the situation and still successfully persuade people to your line of thinking?
Sure. But there's nothing inherently evil or dishonest in that.

Here's a ridiculously simple example:

Mormon: I can't drink tea. (points to Word of Wisdom)
Non-Mormon: You can drink iced tea, though. It only says "hot drink" there.
Mormon: The prophets have revealed that this includes any drink made form tea leaves. (points to appropriate statement from prophet)

There's a very simple argument over doctrine which involves no deception or manipulation between a believer and a non believer. In this case the non-believer was mistaken because he did not have sufficient information. This arguments can go the other way as well, of course, if there are scriptures or statements from church leaders that the non-believer is aware of that the believer is not.

When you want to persuade someone to change their opinion on a subject, you have to be able to address the logical basis of their position. If their logical basis consists, in part, on "the scriptures say X" then it's unreasonable to make the scriptures off limits.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly. When it's done aggressively, I usually doubt the motives of the person doing it.

The slavery argument doesn't fit that qualification to me. An argument about who is saved does.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly.
If this argument is purely about Blayne's situation, then I tend to agree, though I do think that some internal conclusions of religious groups, especially regarding the idea of damnation, can dehumanize those outside their group, which can have negative external effects.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly. When it's done aggressively, I usually doubt the motives of the person doing it.

The slavery argument doesn't fit that qualification to me. An argument about who is saved does.

I very much agree, especially when that person has little to no clue about the religion involved, as seems to be the case here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It's manipulative. It isn't a discussion of equals - it's one person using someone's religion as a weapon against them. It's attempting to hold their discipleship hostage. I've seen it done a hundred times, and it's never pretty.

I think very poorly of manipulative hostage-takers.

On the contrary. While I may or may not be subject to the ideas of right and wrong and true and false that others have, I am always subject to those that I have.

If I believe it is wrong to use electricity on Shabbat, then it is wrong for me to do so. Even someone who does not deem it wrong to do so would be absolutely 100% correct in judging me wrong for doing so, because I consider it wrong for me to do so.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
...
In that situation, I'd try to show them that the report they're using for their information is incorrect. It would be dishonest and manipulative for me to argue my point with what I believed to be a false and inaccurate report.

It would be dishonest if you didn't say upfront that it was false and inaccurate. Blayne makes no secret of the fact that he's an agnostic/atheist, which pretty much means that he thinks its false and accurate by default.

Going back to the X and Ys.He's not saying
"Your God says Y" or "Y is the Truth."
He's saying "God doesn't exist by my reasoning. *But* if you must believe in this God person anyways, then consider this reasoning in your own terms"

Its not dishonest.
It *may* be manipulative, though I'm not necessarily seeing that as a problem.

Going back to the Ron Lambert evolution analogy. If he asked us for a objective source for our scientific claims, we're going to try our best to find one even if by his rules, he doesn't really have to back up his religious claims with an objective source. We have a higher responsibility to live up to, its part of science to back up your claims.
Yet we know full well that he may very well not read that source or even concede why third-party sources are useful.

So, yeah, he's manipulating us, but its not necessarily a problem.

MrSquicky:
Our definitions of agnostic may be different. For sure, our definition of atheist is different. For starters, I don't see how one could grant "divine origin" and stay atheist.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly. When it's done aggressively, I usually doubt the motives of the person doing it.

That's pretty much how I feel.

Maybe there are those out there that don't feel that way, but such persuasions are unlikely to find much traction with me.

Squicky -- to answer your earlier question, yes, I do think the fact that a Biblical scholar is an unbeliever does invalidate their opinions on some things. While they'd certainly be qualified to talk about what the Bible says about faith and salvation, I don't think they'd have much credibility talking about what faith and salvation really are, or how to acquire them.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Its not dishonest.
It *may* be manipulative, though I'm not necessarily seeing that as a problem.

I think that you (and Squicky) are correct -- it's not necessarily dishonest.

I still don't care for it, probably because it still strikes me as inherently manipulative, and I do think that's a problem. In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I am really not getting this. Perhaps it would be helpful if katharina gave an example of the kind of use of scripture that she considers manipulative?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
Why is manipulative bad? Isn't any attempt to sway opinion manipulative?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2