47 replies to this topic

[Beany]

It's the praying that I eventually come to see things their way that's annoying, because it implies that I'm somehow, in someway, not good enough just the way I am, that I must change in a specific way in order to meet their standards. Pray for my health, wealth, happiness, dreams fulfilled, a life full of love and I'm good with that. Otherwise, keep your nose out of my private religious/spiritual beliefs. I don't need nor want an intercessor, I can talk to Spirit any time I want, and that's a private conversation.

[Parsip]

Beany, on 04 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

It's the praying that I eventually come to see things their way that's annoying, because it implies that I'm somehow, in someway, not good enough just the way I am, that I must change in a specific way in order to meet their standards. Pray for my health, wealth, happiness, dreams fulfilled, a life full of love and I'm good with that. Otherwise, keep your nose out of my private religious/spiritual beliefs. I don't need nor want an intercessor, I can talk to Spirit any time I want, and that's a private conversation.

I don't find that offensive, either. If someone believes their view of the truth is the correct one, it's natural for them to want everyone to agree. If anything, not wanting you to agree with them is what's potentially offensive, because it implies they want to keep you in ignorance. Just my opinion.

[Leonardo]

Parsip, on 04 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

I don't find that offensive, either. If someone believes their view of the truth is the correct one, it's natural for them to want everyone to agree. If anything, not wanting you to agree with them is what's potentially offensive, because it implies they want to keep you in ignorance. Just my opinion.

Are atheists right, then, in telling religious people not to worship because it's "silly"?

Would a secular government be right to ban religious worship?

These are the opposite side of the coin you are suggesting is "right" for theists - that they are right to feel those who don't believe as they do are "ignorant".

[Sherapy]

Paranoid Android, on 03 April 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Ok, thanks guys for the response/s.  For the most part people several people are posting similar ideas, and for the most part I agree with them.  Some people do use "I'll pray for you" in an insulting manner (though I have only ever experienced this on the internet, never in real life).  And as BM states, some only get angry because they have nothing better to respond with.  I wasn't really thinking of these types of people when I posted the thread, but those who genuinely pray for someone, or someone who has impeccable grammatical acumen but intentionally leaves reference to the Christian God without capitals.  I mean, I'm among the group who thinks that if no offence is intended then none should be taken, but some people don't agree, they think that praying for someone is inherently insulting, or they think that intentionally decapitalising a reference to the Christian God is insulting.  

Should we draw a line in the sand?  In order to ensure no one is insulted, keep our thoughts to ourselves?  Don't offer to pray for someone on the off-chance that they might get offended.  Always capitalise "God" whether we think it warranted or not, just in case not doing so causes insult?  

In a broader sense, this can apply to any religious issue.  Saying "Bless you", or even "God bless you" after someone sneezes (not that I say either thing).  Or if a Muslim says "May the peace of Allah be upon you" as a parting statement.  There's no malice intended (not usually, at least) but some people of differing faith/non-faith see insult there and take offence.

Anyway, thanks again for the responses

~ PA

I recently had a situation in real life that illustrates my position better.. One of my tutee's  and her family is very religious and  she has an aunt who is a female preacher, who happened to sit in on  a tutoring session one Thursday. When I was done she asked me if she could pray for me and I said sure,(the sole reason I did was for  love of  this family, they are amazing people and I have such  great respect for them.). I  have to tell you I was deeply moved by the prayer.  She thanked Jesus for bestowing me with a knack for reaching young kids, and asked that Jesus create more of these moments for me, so that  I can be a blessing to other kids, as I have been for theirs. Stuff like that.   I was humbled that this  person  took the time to lift me up and encourage me through prayer.


Robbie, I have to tell you, this ladies passion and faith was inspiring.  


Had I of been offended (or said no in my head), I would of been the loser.  The  irony is she wasn't trying to sell me on anything, She was trying  to inspire me.


I would not typically be offended in a real life situation if someone asked if they could offer me a prayer.      

On capitalization, I see no issue here.

Edited by Sherapy, 04 April 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Leonardo, on 04 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Are atheists right, then, in telling religious people not to worship because it's "silly"?

Would a secular government be right to ban religious worship?

These are the opposite side of the coin you are suggesting is "right" for theists - that they are right to feel those who don't believe as they do are "ignorant".

Surely a truly secular government would say "whatever you want to believe feel free to believe it, just don't try and make others believe it or be beholden to the rules of your belief system".

[Parsip]

Leonardo, on 04 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Are atheists right, then, in telling religious people not to worship because it's "silly"?

Would a secular government be right to ban religious worship?

These are the opposite side of the coin you are suggesting is "right" for theists - that they are right to feel those who don't believe as they do are "ignorant".

There's nothing wrong with trying to convince people to agree with you. Insulting them or violating their rights isn't very right, however.

[Leonardo]

Parsip, on 05 April 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

There's nothing wrong with trying to convince people to agree with you. Insulting them or violating their rights isn't very right, however.

I agree that we all seek to persuade others of our own truth, but for what reason?

You said previously...

Quote

I don't find that offensive, either. If someone believes their view of the truth is the correct one, it's natural for them to want everyone to agree. If anything, not wanting you to agree with them is what's potentially offensive, because it implies they want to keep you in ignorance.

...But I might not seek to engage you in a debate because there is no evidence for my belief being any more valid than I believe yours is. That is not "seeking to keep someone in ignorance", that is having an appreciation of the difference between what is, and what may be.

How much actual evidence - hard, material evidence - is there for any religious belief being "the truth"? None.

So, in my book, a religious person not seeking to invoke their religion on my behalf, is showing their appreciation of that fact. Showing their appreciation they are as "ignorant", in this respect, as I am, as well as showing their respect for what I may believe (if they are not already aware of that). But how many religious people do actually appreciate this?

[Still Waters]

Paranoid Android, on 03 April 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

In a broader sense, this can apply to any religious issue.  Saying "Bless you", or even "God bless you" after someone sneezes (not that I say either thing).  Or if a Muslim says "May the peace of Allah be upon you" as a parting statement.  There's no malice intended (not usually, at least) but some people of differing faith/non-faith see insult there and take offence.

I have a habit sometimes if seeing something or responding to something I like, I'll say "Aww bless" or "bless you for that", but I don't mean it literally. It's just an expression to say how much I like something.

If someone offered to pray for me, I would think that was nice of them. It wouldn't offend me at all. Neither would I mind "May the peace of Allah be upon you" for example, even though it's not my religion it means something to the person saying it and I would accept it with good grace.

[libstaK]

Purplos, on 03 April 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

NOTHING is offensive if no one chooses to take offense to it.

People seem too ready and eager to find offense in things that don't affect them whatsoever.

God vs. god? If you don't believe in one, who cares? If you do believe in one, does the quality of your god suffer somehow if it is not capitalized?

"I'll pray for you." If you do not believe in prayer, a god, or anything, why is this any different than someone saying, "I'll think of you" or "Best wishes" or... in some cases... "I pity you or feel sorry for you." You might decide the last person's a bit of a jerk, but it's hardly something to get all offended at.

I think people get too wrapped up in expectations that everyone will be like them, or cater to their whims. Selfish people get offended at everything if it's not their way. Nice people will try to make others around them comfortable, whether by capitalizing God when talking about the Christian God, or by silently praying for someone instead of making an announcement, if they feel prayer a good idea. Mean people will act like jerks.  It's like that for any topic, and getting offended cause someone is a jerk is just silly.

Hi Purplos, well said, I heartily agree.

Someone once shared a thought experiment with me.

Imagine you are thrown into a world where everyone just said whatever they pleased and felt.  Imagine if in doing so they offended you and you told them.  Then imagine that this is the very first time the notion of being "offended" had EVER been brought to their attention or anyone's in the world.  Who in this world would have damaged the social dynamic - them by "causing offence" to someone capable of being offended, or you by being offended and possibly fascinating them with the implications of such a notion?

On a GOOD day I remember this thought experiment and where it led me and make a very special effort not to be offended by anything.  Unfortunately, it's not always a GOOD day, heck I forget it for months at a time dammit , but I just wanted to share that it is worth having a go, entertaining in so many ways too.

[Leonardo]

libstaK, on 05 April 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Hi Purplos, well said, I heartily agree.

Someone once shared a thought experiment with me.

Imagine you are thrown into a world where everyone just said whatever they pleased and felt.  Imagine if in doing so they offended you and you told them.  Then imagine that this is the very first time the notion of being "offended" had EVER been brought to their attention or anyone's in the world.  Who in this world would have damaged the social dynamic - them by "causing offence" to someone capable of being offended, or you by being offended and possibly fascinating them with the implications of such a notion?

On a GOOD day I remember this thought experiment and where it led me and make a very special effort not to be offended by anything.  Unfortunately, it's not always a GOOD day, heck I forget it for months at a time dammit , but I just wanted to share that it is worth having a go, entertaining in so many ways too.

It's a nice idea, this thought experiment, libstaK - but what would a person be like, who took no offense at anything?

Would anything have meaning for that person? Would anything anyone said actually make that person feel 'good'?

I can imagine that, for a person who could not take offense at anything, everything would be one shade of grey. Dull and emotionally void.

[libstaK]

Leonardo, on 05 April 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

It's a nice idea, this thought experiment, libstaK - but what would a person be like, who took no offense at anything?

Would anything have meaning for that person? Would anything anyone said actually make that person feel 'good'?

I can imagine that, for a person who could not take offense at anything, everything would be one shade of grey. Dull and emotionally void.

Hmm, that is possible Leonardo based on how we understood good and evil.  The nature of society and the way our personalities develop within does make the notion uncomfortable but there is more past it than "lack of emotion", in fact far from it. I see the problem, you cannot appreciate the brightness of day if there is no night - so by that standard to accept some things, we should deny others.  "Offense" in words though is to be offended by the ignorance of others by and large.  

They say "the pen is mightier than the sword" and "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me".  It is not that we should agree with what we are told, far from it, but that we accept the right of the party to say it and not be offended that they exercise that right - feel confronted somehow by them saying what they think.  In reciprocation (as such a utopia would hold) ALL would be brought into the light and examined - clinically, robustly and scientifically without people coming to blows or imagining an enemy has just been presented to them in the opposition of others thoughts. Emotion would be there, defending what one holds dear would be there, but recognition that the verbal attack brings no harm and therefore accepting no harm has been done outside exposure to a view we disagree with would be paramount IMO.

Offence commonly creates opposition to someone who simply does not know better than to speak the things that they do. If they knew better than to speak them because in this world they could cause offence - the fact is they would still think them but we would never know.  

Offense in the actions of other's too can seem connected to our moral stance.  I do not suggest we deny ourselves being offended by actions which bring physical harm to others  but to be offended by words is to deny the capacity to empathise.  It is easy to empathise with those that hold our own world view but not so easy to see the humanity in those that oppose it - yet we are all human nonetheless.

Also If we didn't understand "shades of grey" just in it that way, what new paradigms could be available?  Is it ignorance of a world outside judgement that chains us to it's machinations?  There are other opportunities available in pure action that many if not most to do not experience because who they are is tied to what they think of others - if what they thought was based on what they did with their lives they would be engaged in life affirming action more often IMO. Take Bear Grylls and his ilk for example - there is very little in the realm of experience that seems taboo or offensive to those types sensibilities - all experience is fair game limited only by the body's capacity to handle it.  I would rather explore those paradigms than being offended by the lack of a working toilet in an outback campsite for instance   as so many choose in this day and age.

Also, take comedians, who find humour rather than demeaning or defacing attributes in what most think of as life's more embarrassing or confronting experiences. (I personally find it sad how people don't recognise so readily when someone is telling a joke these days due to PC). There are emotions which receive very little attention but can provide great joy in many people-the dominant factor is that they engage life, laughter and a sense of community not inspite of but rather due to the diversity of human views and experience.  I tend to find I can see the absurdity in behaviour (my own inclusively) on an affectionate and amusing level when I skip being offended-perhaps because past the barrier of "offence" I can see that "I am that" - entirely human, it is a warm feeling, expanding and liberating, not grey at all.

[Leonardo]

Do you truly believe that words cannot wound, libstaK?

[Mr Walker]

Leonardo, on 05 April 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

It's a nice idea, this thought experiment, libstaK - but what would a person be like, who took no offense at anything?

Would anything have meaning for that person? Would anything anyone said actually make that person feel 'good'?

I can imagine that, for a person who could not take offense at anything, everything would be one shade of grey. Dull and emotionally void.

Not necesarily. I disagree with peoples' views, but dont "take offence" at them. I will point out how certainn ideas, if put into practice, may harm others. I will work to prevent certain ideas and practices becoming common But "take offence" on an emotioanl or intellectula level? No. Why should I? They are only words, and as one of the earliest folk sayings i ever heard goes, "Words can never hurt me."
What people say, says more about them than  me. For example if a person says im stupid I know they are wrong, so why take ofence? If a person says im over weight, i know they are right, so why take offence.  Offence is a nonproductive response, like anger envy fear or hate. ita a waste of time and energy.
And so I argue intellectually, emotionally, instinctively etc.,  but i dont take offence.  Certainly not from people who do not even know me, and have never seen me. And not even from close friends and family. If i took offence at everones comments i soon would have no one  i could relate to.

Besides which, everyone is entitled to being differnt/having differnt opinions and values, and i should expect it. Offence is often a reaction to differnce, like fear . If one is sure in ones self, then anothers differnce and opinion is interesting, rather than threatening.
We must all take responsibility for how we think and respond to others comments. Offence is a choice  like any other.
And no one has ever called me dull or  emotionaly void, although some say I am more driven by logic than emotion (I dont take offence at that because it is true, and i work hard at it. I see it as a positive human trait in modern times. Something I learned from the vulcans, and spock in particular..)
Not sure how my calvin persona fits into this, but it does.

Edited by Mr Walker, 07 April 2012 - 02:20 AM.

[Beany]

I think logic is a wonderful tool for clear thinking. And if someone wants to pray for me, "Thy will be done" is totally OK.

[Leonardo]

Mr Walker, on 07 April 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

Not necesarily. I disagree with peoples' views, but dont "take offence" at them. I will point out how certainn ideas, if put into practice, may harm others. I will work to prevent certain ideas and practices becoming common But "take offence" on an emotioanl or intellectula level? No. Why should I? They are only words, and as one of the earliest folk sayings i ever heard goes, "Words can never hurt me."
What people say, says more about them than  me. For example if a person says im stupid I know they are wrong, so why take ofence? If a person says im over weight, i know they are right, so why take offence.  Offence is a nonproductive response, like anger envy fear or hate. ita a waste of time and energy.
And so I argue intellectually, emotionally, instinctively etc.,  but i dont take offence.  Certainly not from people who do not even know me, and have never seen me. And not even from close friends and family. If i took offence at everones comments i soon would have no one  i could relate to.

Besides which, everyone is entitled to being differnt/having differnt opinions and values, and i should expect it. Offence is often a reaction to differnce, like fear . If one is sure in ones self, then anothers differnce and opinion is interesting, rather than threatening.
We must all take responsibility for how we think and respond to others comments. Offence is a choice  like any other.
And no one has ever called me dull or  emotionaly void, although some say I am more driven by logic than emotion (I dont take offence at that because it is true, and i work hard at it. I see it as a positive human trait in modern times. Something I learned from the vulcans, and spock in particular..)
Not sure how my calvin persona fits into this, but it does.

My emphasis.

I strongly disagree with your summation of 'offence' (among other emotional responses) as a "non-productive response". Feedback is always productive, and grants the respondee the opportunity to learn. If I exhibit some prejudice towards another, and that other takes offence at my prejudice, then through my realisation of causing offence I have learned not only something about myself and that other, but also about the limits we should employ when communicating with others.

The paradigm you are projecting in your statements, is of a person who cannot (or will not) learn. Or, one who has convinced themself they are somehow 'different', without being so in fact.

Edited by Leonardo, 07 April 2012 - 10:41 AM.