Taking offence (maybe we arent doing that)

I agree that we should try not to offend either members or non-members. I’m generally a very nice person who avoids conflict anyway, but generally not being offensive is is just a matter of good moral and ethical behavior for me. But everybody else isn’t me, and sometimes I have offended without meaning to do so or even knowing I did it. That said, I am generally “offended” by what seems to be what many members believe about offense. I think it is not uncommon for members to believe that most inactives were offended. I think some were, but I think much more often that’s an easy cop out for both sides and as DFU said on the subject “It is not that simple.” I likewise dislike the sort of arrogant attitude of some who take the stance of “the truth hurts” just because they disagree with the person taking offense. My mission president used to tell us not to apologize for knocking on doors because the message is so important. I know we’ve had these apology discussions before, but apologies can go along way and excuse me, but knocking on my door to tell me I’m wrong about my religion is not exactly unoffensive all by itself. What happens when JWs knock on most TBM’s doors? Do you not see the absurd irony?

More directly to the OP, I have grown a lot in taking into account the beliefs of more orthodox members of the church and not being offended by their expression of belief (although I still often implement by sanctuary safety plan). If I’m trying so hard not to be offended, I think it’s only fair to ask for the same respect the other way around – and some more orthodox members are capable of doing so. It is my hope that the current culture changes will facilitate more openness for those who don’t necessarily agree with the “majority” opinion/belief.

It sounds to me that you are defining the word “offend” or “offended” quite narrowly.

Maybe you guys already tried to explain your view and i just dont understand, but do you guys think being hurt by something is the same as taking offence?

cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful.

“viewers said they had been offended by bad language”

synonyms:

hurt someone’s feelings · give offense to · affront · upset · displease · [more]

be displeasing to.

“he didn’t smoke and the smell of ash offended him”

synonyms:

displease · be displeasing to · be distasteful to · be disagreeable to · [more]

Yes, according to this definition “to hurt someone’s feelings” is a synonym for “offend”. How do you define “offend”? Does the offended person feel angry in your understanding of offended?

I have had to unfriend or unfollow some people on social media because their constant political posts irritate me and disrupt my equilibrium. I remain friends with them IRL where politics doesn’t come up particularly often. I think it would be accurate to say that I was offended by my friend’s political Facebook posts and I took a step to set up a boundary to reduce my vulnerability to this particular offence.

I would go as far as to suggest that to say “what you said bothered me” and “what you said offended me” both mean the same thing.

So the thing is I have mentioned before that I believe God loves each of us even when we are mad at Him. So does He have boundaries with us?

Yes, I think that God has boundaries with us. I consider mortality (being on earth) the mental/emotional equivalent to an exploring baby being in a playpen or in a safe place surrounded by pillows – it is designed for the baby, safe for the baby (and the non-babies), and can help the baby grow developmentally. I am not saying that this is because humans are childish, or that putting exploring babies in playpens is bad. I honestly believe that being human is designed to help us grow developmentally – and that we need this growing space for us just as babies need safe spaces with boundaries.

Now whether God withdraws emotionally or not (or is perceived to do so) I feel is anyone’s guess. Sometimes I think that we do the equivalent of stomping off like teenagers mad at God and God shrugs and moves on without being mad at us (even though we assume God is). We impose boundaries on God (or on our perception of God) a lot. We have quite a few scriptures detailing experiences where someone felt that God deserted them (that I view sorta like talk therapy now) – and I am in no position to judge whether God actually deserted them or not, so it is possible. I used to assume that my perception of God’s actions was actually what God was doing – I don’t make that assumption anymore, which makes some aspects of my life more vague and less directed.

Also in play is our personal expectation of whether God needs to be tied to our hip (the equivalent) or not. The church teaches about the importance of walking with God – being autonomous of God is considered both a sin and a personal failure (and pride). I don’t assume this anymore. As a parent, I LOVE it when my children do things without me – finish their chores, discover something, manage an executive functioning task on their own. I don’t want my children to be tied at my hip or overly attached to me. Theologically, it seems to be a tug-of-war between allowing humans to become independent of God (the whole becoming Gods ourselves) and following God faithfully. At the end of the day, I suspect that the explorer types see (and need to see) more freedom and independence while the more settler types of people see (and need to see) the security of Godly administration and the sense that someone outside of themselves is in control and is a safety net.

So a part of me ( at least right now) wants to believe that God cares enough to make sure he takes care of himself. I mean really people tell Him all their problems and even get mad at Him. Doesn’t he need a boundary or a break?

I think that this ties into the perception of how God handles time. If God is outside of all time, then God could “stop the clock” as it were and take unlimited breaks as necessary without anyone being the wiser. If God is the heart of time, then God can find the time to take care of God.

This also assumes that “God” as we define it is just 1 person (which is contrary to our doctrine). Even though we address our prayers to “Heavenly Father” – we are in no position to assume that only Heavenly Father hears and acts on prayers – other members of the godhead that we know about could spell different godhead members without our knowing it. That is also assuming that there is not an angelic beaucracy – which I am not comfortable assuming does or does not exist.

Here is the other thing – God may not actually need breaks. Assuming that divinity (either spiritually or having a physical body) is better than being mortal (which is universally assumed) – then God would have perfect executive functioning and/or the physical ability to move on a level beyond executive functioning which we don’t really understand. Our stuff might not actually even require much of God’s capabilities (even though it taxes us beyond ours regularly). Our stuff might be God’s odd jobs – the stuff that winds up not requiring much thought.

So I’m saying I need that empathetic God in my life but i’m feeling sad that he has to put up with so much abuse towards him. If its good for us as humans to have boundaries to bad behavior and we are supposed to be like God then i would think god would need boundaries but still unconditionally love each of us. Maybe he has a balance too. I don’t know? Does he have feeling? Does he feel hurt when people hurt him?

I believe that (and I am gambling on) an empathetic God understanding when not to take things that we say and do personally. I suspect that God sometimes laughs in love at us – the same way that adults try not to chuckle when a 6 year old swears that they hate that adult The great thing about divine empathy is that there is a divine amount of compassion intertwined with it.

I like to think that when I get stuck in my corner of the playpen (the equilvalent), that God either picks me up and places we in a different part of it, or asks me what I am going to do to get out of it to remind me of what I already know.

Doctrinally, we depend on the Atonement to make everything right (to make the hurt) go away. Since all accounts talk about how the Atonement brings us back into the presence of God, it makes sense that the Atonement removes/makes right the hurt that God might feel when we screw something up. It would be really bad if we qualified to live with God again through the Atonement technically, but God isn’t talking to us because of our mistakes.