- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
Just so I understand what you’re trying to say, OON, are you saying that the Patheos article is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed because it specifically points to and/or criticizes Elder Callister?
I’m not so black and white as to presume to declare that it either is or isn’t. It’s not evil speaking in MY opinion (but I believe it is very borderline). I understand why others can see it as such. My point is that when it comes to disagreement, I think the only worthwhile approach is to talk about WHAT and not WHO. If the person I’m trying to have a dialog with sees me as attacking a specific Church leader, then I think my position is damaged.On Own Now wrote:I think the only worthwhile approach is to talk about WHAT and not WHO.
I agree with the sentiment and the clear distinction; however probably 80% of active members of the Church likely think that this is too fine a line to draw.
This is where I think it is easy to get into trouble and why I’m swearing off public discussion. Until I can be sure my thoughts will be shared with those who will not condemn, even if they disagree, I’ll just keep it anonymous.
DarkJedi wrote:Just so I understand what you’re trying to say, OON, are you saying that the Patheos article is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed because it specifically points to and/or criticizes Elder Callister?
I wonder when one blends into another. When it is direct personal abuse, that is evil speaking perhaps, but when it is disagreement with a certain opinion, is that evil speaking? I don’t think so. We differ on some things (as you point out on another thread), but if I disagree with you it’s not a form of abuse (or if it’s vice versa).
Where exactly is the line in the sand?
Some religious people have accused atheists of “hate speech” for the same reason – the second you doubt the validity of another’s religious or spiritual beliefs, they attack you as though you have called them horrible names. It’s OK for them to condemn you to hell (whether or not you believe such a place exists) but your declaration that “I disagree, and here are the reasons why” is intolerant hate speech. Quote:Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
science_saint wrote:Some religious people have accused atheists of “hate speech” for the same reason – the second you doubt the validity of another’s religious or spiritual beliefs, they attack you as though you have called them horrible names. It’s OK for them to condemn you to hell (whether or not you believe such a place exists) but your declaration that “I disagree, and here are the reasons why” is intolerant hate speech.
To be fair, though, I’ve heard plenty of atheists who are very disrespectful of the beliefs of others. I am probably more sensitive to it that many, because I am an atheist, and I dislike being associated with people who lampoon faith in “invisible faeries”, as I’ve heard them put it. For my part, I believe there is no God. I don’t feel the need to explain why or try to convince anyone else. If they believe in God, I’m OK with that.My atheism is somewhat cafeteria style. I would love, for example, for us to remove “under God” from the pledge… not because I am personally violated by it, but simply because I think it is counter-productive to tell people not to pledge allegiance to our republic, if they are uncomfortable with the parenthetical phrase. Yet, I don’t have any qualms about our coins saying “In God We Trust”, because it is so passive. I am making no religious declaration when I put a nickle into the gum machine. I don’t want school prayer or the ten commandments in schools, but I am un-offended by religious motifs on the Supreme Court Building. Although I believe there is no God, I accept that I could be wrong just as I was before, but don’t confuse that with agnosticism… I am an atheist, true blue, through and through. There is no God, IMO, yet I still occasionally pray, still find solace in the New Testament, still “believe” that spirituality is a viable path.
The few times I have had the conversation with a believer, whether LDS or something else, I explain that I am an atheist, but I always stress that I’m happy for them that they believe and I’m not here to doubt the validity of their religion, nor do I ever get into an intellectual discussion about why I believe there is no God. Finally, I always ask them about their faith, to ensure that they are getting equal airtime. I’ve actually had some very open and wonderful discussions by taking this approach. Recently, talking to a guy who is a Christian, he expressed surprise and appreciation that I was so respectful of religion. I felt that we were both able to understand each other on fairly unique and positive grounds.
science_saint wrote:On Own Now wrote:I think the only worthwhile approach is to talk about WHAT and not WHO.
I agree with the sentiment and the clear distinction; however probably 80% of active members of the Church likely think that this is too fine a line to draw.
This is where I think it is easy to get into trouble and why I’m swearing off public discussion. Until I can be sure my thoughts will be shared with those who will not condemn, even if they disagree, I’ll just keep it anonymous.
Wise choice, and the choice many of us here have made. For the most part, I would openly and not anonymously share with the people I consider to be my friends here. Never would I do so with the members and others who are in my ward or stake and who know my name. In a way it reminds of of the theme of Cheers – except I want to go here because people know our troubles are all the same, not because everybody knows my name (although they know a name by which I am known here, which is great).
On Own Now wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Just so I understand what you’re trying to say, OON, are you saying that the Patheos article is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed because it specifically points to and/or criticizes Elder Callister?
I’m not so black and white as to presume to declare that it either is or isn’t. It’s not evil speaking in MY opinion (but I believe it is very borderline). I understand why others can see it as such. My point is that when it comes to disagreement, I think the only worthwhile approach is to talk about WHAT and not WHO. If the person I’m trying to have a dialog with sees me as attacking a specific Church leader, then I think my position is damaged.But in the case of Elder Callister’s speech/article it was not only what he said but who said it. There clearly is some doctrine or church teaching in there, but there are also clearly some things that are beyond that and are his opinion. I don’t think calling out speaker for erroneous information is evil speaking – although that, too, depends on how it’s done. I don’t consider the Patheos article to be evil speaking but I am sure many do consider it to be, and likely some consider it to be heresy. I do agree that, as others have pointed out, there can be a fine line and rather than try to delineate it, it is usually easier to just avoid it. So, while I do agree with you that it should be the topic that’s addressed, in this case I believe the speaker also needed addressing (but perhaps the rebuttal was a bit too personal).
DJ, There’s a lot of overlap with another thread. For discussion specifically about the Parker Rebuttal to the Callister article, please see comments in that thread:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5192&p=71765#p71765 In general terms, though, I think it is always wise to distinguish between debate and dialog. In debate, participants oppose each other. In dialog, they are trying to understand each other. If I’m in a discussion with somebody about same sex marriage, and i want it to be a dialog, I might say, “I’m just trying to figure out how the Church can be a bigger tent.” If, on the other hand, I want to debate, I might start with “I don’t agree with the way Elder Oaks interprets the scriptures.”
On Own Now wrote:DJ,
There’s a lot of overlap with another thread. For discussion specifically about the Parker Rebuttal to the Callister article, please see comments in that thread:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5192&p=71765#p71765 In general terms, though, I think it is always wise to distinguish between debate and dialog. In debate, participants oppose each other. In dialog, they are trying to understand each other. If I’m in a discussion with somebody about same sex marriage, and i want it to be a dialog, I might say, “I’m just trying to figure out how the Church can be a bigger tent.” If, on the other hand, I want to debate, I might start with “I don’t agree with the way Elder Oaks interprets the scriptures.”
Actually it’s probably time for us to agree to disagree and get back to our new friend’s concerns.
The religion vs science debate has become pretty repulsive of late with
ugly bigots like Dawkins using strawmen and ridiculous generalizations
to make their point. Religion doesn’t hold the monopoly on bigotry
unfortunately.
Folk need to realizee that in liberal democracies you have the right to
practise whichever religion you please even if it seems stupid to
others. I draw the line at human sacrifice and Kali worship however…
I find many aspects of Roman Catholicism ridiculous – and like some
others. I’ve never been an RC and am well aware of their bloodthirsty past and abuse issues
but religious freedom has been hard won. I would defend them to the hilt for freedom to be RC. Religious freedom includes the
right not to be religious of course.
Welcome from another scientist. We can’t find truth by accepting the first theory we have been given and only accept evidence that supports that theory while rejecting all evidence that refutes it. Truth is found by testing theories, by trying to break them, and by trying out alternative theories that are supported by the same evidence.
For me, my testimony was built on the evidence that is the confirmation of the spirit. But that fell apart as I grew to know and appreciate the other 99.9% of the world that is non-Mormon (is God that ineffective that so few of his children know the real truth, or doesn’t he care?) and realize that their beliefs (in Islam for example) are based on very similar spiritual feelings and experiences. Listen to a Muslim describe their pilgrimage to Mecca and tell me that their spiritual experiences aren’t real or valid. These are life-changing events for them that can bring them to tears. Why would God confirm very different faiths through the Holy Ghost?
Bad behavior of church leaders certainly doesn’t help. Also the Book of Mormon and JS put out some testable hypotheses that haven’t stood up.
Participation in the church has many redeeming qualities for some regardless of whether they accept every doctrine, or believe it to be divine.
Best wishes on your new journey of discovery.
science_saint wrote:
Science is just a word we’ve come up to describe systematic, (occasionally) quantitative, and experimental testing of the nature of reality. I think religion is supposed to be the same thing, even if the tools are currently different. If truth is all the same, regardless of source, then our exploration of what is true and real will eventually yield the same result. 2 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether Thomas S Monson, Jesus, Buddha, even Hitler says it. Just as righteousness is no guarantee of truthfulness, so immorality is no guarantee of falsehood. The key to truth is testing. This is why I like Alma 32 so much: even if you start out with a bad seed, testing will reveal it to be so.
I agree
richalger wrote:science_saint wrote:
Science is just a word we’ve come up to describe systematic, (occasionally) quantitative, and experimental testing of the nature of reality. I think religion is supposed to be the same thing, even if the tools are currently different. If truth is all the same, regardless of source, then our exploration of what is true and real will eventually yield the same result. 2 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether Thomas S Monson, Jesus, Buddha, even Hitler says it. Just as righteousness is no guarantee of truthfulness, so immorality is no guarantee of falsehood. The key to truth is testing. This is why I like Alma 32 so much: even if you start out with a bad seed, testing will reveal it to be so.
I agree
Double agree. The proof is in the testing. Not in a mandated preconception of right and wrong, true it false.
Truth is I afraid of being discovered, it welcomes it. However tradition and preconceived notion are very afraid of proving and exploration test. They want to remain regardless of the truth or outcome of test.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Glad to have you aboard.
Quote:we are terrified of the culture that we have had to resist, which is sometimes quite damaging to ambitious women and the men that support them
FWIW, my own experience has been that as a female executive (20+ years at it), I find that I am respected and listened to. I’m not generally given time-consuming callings because I have always traveled a lot for work. What I did find, though, was that when we lived in lower educated wards, I simply couldn’t relate to any of the women. So anti-intellectualism has been harder (for me) than whether women had ambitions outside the home or not. It was more about whether they picked up a book and actually had interesting thoughts.”
I understand this. I am a feminist and a scientist and I work in further and higher education of life sciences ( health and social care in the main)…and I find if I made comment in Sunday School, it went over heads and I was looked at like I was nuts…or teaching said nothing and went on to someone else…or…my raised hand was ignored ( more often than not). Yet we had our fair share of school teachers male and female and other academics but they only seems expert in the one field no articulation. I found this puzzling.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.