Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[Guest]

I think you missed the point, or perhaps the nuance, of that story. ;)

 

Reality is always subjective, right on down to the sub-atomic level.  We can all be accurate in our perceptions of whatever part of the elephant (or God) we happen upon.  While my perceptions may differ, that doesn't invalidate yours.  We've each happened upon a different part of the elephant, but neither of us are able to see the whole.    

 

How small your God must be, bound by the laws of reality and narrow human understanding.  My understanding of the Divine is much broader.

 

 

Case in point.

[Denise in Florida]

I just meant the basics of Christianity.  Sorry for not clarifying.  I have a little one, so I type my replies quickly!   :p

 

I meant the basics too. :)

 

Such as did Christ die for the sins of the entire world or just for the 'elect'?  Once save always saved, or can we lose salvation?

 

I believe God exists but my understanding of what that means might be different than other people's understanding. 

 

I am in a large multi-denominational study group.  The more I talk with them the less I think there is an underlying "basics' of Christianity. 

 

I enjoy that group very much and have learned a great deal, but it has also opened my understanding of the many different ways people believe. 

[Guest]

I meant the basics too. :)

 

Such as did Christ die for the sins of the entire world or just for the 'elect'?  Once save always saved, or can we lose salvation?

 

I believe God exists but my understanding of what that means might be different than other people's understanding. 

 

I am in a large multi-denominational study group.  The more I talk with them the less I think there is an underlying "basics' of Christianity. 

 

I enjoy that group very much and have learned a great deal, but it has also opened my understanding of the many different ways people believe. 

 

I guess I meant even more basic?  :P

 

Like either God/Jesus exist, or they don't.  You have to accept Jesus as your Savior to be saved, or not.

[Mergath]

Case in point.

 

Pardon? I'm saying the Divine is big enough for everyone's beliefs to be "right."  You're the one saying your version of God can only be one thing to one group of people, and that everyone else is wrong.

[Catwoman]

I'm straying off topic, now, but... what the heck. :001_smile: And I don't want to start a fight with Catwoman. :lol: (Or anyone else of course.) But...

 

I am really not sure about the bolded. Are there multiple truths? How can that be?

 

Maybe you mean "my beliefs are just as valid as yours?" Well, that sounds condescending and I don't mean it to be. But I've heard people talk about "my truth" and "my reality" and honestly it makes no sense to me.

That makes sense. :) (No claws here!!! :D)

 

I guess I mean something more along the lines of "my interpretation of the truth is just as valid as yours."

 

Realistically, we all have our beliefs, and none of us will truly be able to prove them 100% until we're dead and see what -- if anything -- is really out there, so even though I'd like to think my version of things is the truth, I'm not arrogant enough not to realize that I might be way off-base and that someone else's ideas may turn out to have been right.

[Guest]

Pardon? I'm saying the Divine is big enough for everyone's beliefs to be "right."  You're the one saying your version of God can only be one thing to one group of people, and that everyone else is wrong.

 

Veiled insult.  

[idnib]

I do live close to a college campus so every once in a while someone shows up who wants to scream at people about hell and damnation. Them I just ignore. It seems to me, based on my exposure to them, that they have some mental health issues. That is just my impression, not saying all street preachers, or whatever you call them, are mentally ill. So please, just saying that they seem unstable, maybe it is the angry tone.

 

Yes, I think anything beyond "Level E"? may involve mental health issues. My "Level H"-ish experience happened when I was walking down the sidewalk and a man came out of his house, aggressively put his palm on my forehead, and make the sign of the cross on me. His family came out and got him and sort of apologized. It's not that they didn't feel bad, just that they were so mortified they wanted to escape and quickly get back in the house. I felt bad for all of them.

[Catwoman]

I guess I meant even more basic? :P

 

Like either God/Jesus exist, or they don't. You have to accept Jesus as your Savior to be saved, or not.

I think people can believe in the existence of God and/or Jesus without actively accepting Jesus as their savior. I think you're making two separate points here.

[fraidycat]

Veiled insult.

Persecution, right?

 

Seriously, this is the kind if stuff that inspired the blog post and this thread. She in no way said anything insulting about you or your faith. Yet you choose to view it as negativity toward both.

[Guest]

Persecution, right?

 

Seriously, this is the kind if stuff that inspired the blog post and this thread. She in no way said anything insulting about you or your faith. Yet you choose to view it as negativity toward both.

 

No, it wasn't persecution, it was just rude.  Also, it came off as... I'm not sure how to politely say what it came off as.  

 

Just because you didn't see it as rude or insulting, doesn't mean it wasn't to others.  I thought we are supposed to be understanding other POV's here.  

[Guest]

I think people can believe in the existence of God and/or Jesus without actively accepting Jesus as their savior. I think you're making two separate points here.

 

Yes, separate points.  Each of those is either correct or incorrect.  

[fraidycat]

. I thought we are supposed to be understanding other POV's here.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Guest]

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Um, I think it you look at my responses in this thread, I have been doing that very thing, so "Pot, meet kettle" doesn't work here.

 

I don't think you and I are going to gain anything from talking with each other.  Agree to disagree?

[Library Momma]

Rude?  Reading this thread I am shocked that people are equating promoting their religion with selling Thirty-one bags or Pampered Chef.  Insinuating (or outright telling someone) that their personal belief system is flawed and that your way is better is what is rude.  I am thankful that I do not live in a region where this has ever happened to me.  I barely know the religion of many of my acquaintances because it is not anything people discuss on a regular basis here.  You are not telling people "Hey I found a great new whisk you might like..." you are telling people that their fundamental beliefs about they way they live their daily life are wrong.  There is thread after thread on this board from homeschoolers who are  furious when someone comes to them telling them that homeschooling might not be the best option for thier children, and tries to push public school on them.  How is that offensive and this not?  How is it different?

[fraidycat]

Agree to disagree?

Yep.

[Guest]

Rude?  Reading this thread I am shocked that people are equating promoting their religion with selling Thirty-one bags or Pampered Chef.  Insinuating (or outright telling someone) that their personal belief system is flawed and that your way is better is what is rude.  I am thankful that I do not live in a region where this has ever happened to me.  I barely know the religion of many of my acquaintances because it is not anything people discuss on a regular basis here.  You are not telling people "Hey I found a great new whisk you might like..." you are telling people that their fundamental beliefs about they way they live their daily life are wrong.  There is thread after thread on this board from homeschoolers who are  furious when someone comes to them telling them that homeschooling might not be the best option for thier children, and tries to push public school on them.  How is that offensive and this not?  How is it different?

 

I'm actually not sure who you are upset with.  Am I the only one confused?  Maybe I need a break from this thread, LOL.

[*Lulu*]

Rude? Reading this thread I am shocked that people are equating promoting their religion with selling Thirty-one bags or Pampered Chef. Insinuating (or outright telling someone) that their personal belief system is flawed and that your way is better is what is rude. I am thankful that I do not live in a region where this has ever happened to me. I barely know the religion of many of my acquaintances because it is not anything people discuss on a regular basis here. You are not telling people "Hey I found a great new whisk you might like..." you are telling people that their fundamental beliefs about they way they live their daily life are wrong. There is thread after thread on this board from homeschoolers who are furious when someone comes to them telling them that homeschooling might not be the best option for thier children, and tries to push public school on them. How is that offensive and this not? How is it different?

I think you are referring to my posts.

 

I am not saying that telling someone about your belief system is as trivial as suggesting a particular brand of bag or whisk. What I am saying is if people get offended and put off when people are pushy or persistent in selling them a good or service, why on earth would they be open to having something much more personal and private intruded upon in such a manner?

[poppy]

2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindu.............. and really almost all people want the same things deep down. 

[Guest]

I think you are referring to my posts.

 

I am not saying that telling someone about your belief system is as trivial as suggesting a particular brand of bag or whisk. What I am saying is if people get offended and put off when people are pushy or persistent in selling them a good or service, why on earth would they be open to having something much more personal and private intruded upon in such a manner?

 

I did think she was referring to your posts, but the sentence right after that sounds like she is talking to someone else. 

 

I did think it was rude when you said that (at first), but I do see where you are coming from if you say no thanks, and the person goes on and on... I can see the analogy after clearing up what preaching and proselytizing in polite vs. impolite ways.

[Mom-ninja.]

I believe in God.  If there is no God, I am wrong, despite my belief.  God's existence (or nonexistence) does not depend on my belief or lack of belief.   

I don't believe in God. If there is a god then I am wrong despite my not believing. However, which is the truth? There can only be one answer. I feel my answer is true just as strongly that you feel your is.

 

I get what you're saying. It's just impossible to prove one or the other.

 

True, but this is just an internet forum... people are using words interchangeably, sure... that doesn't mean the Bible wasn't clear on that.  I actually find the Bible pretty easy to understand!

 

I didn't say the Bible is difficult to understand. I said people have different understandings/interpretations of the Bible. Just because someone doesn't have the same interpretation as you do does not make them incorrect or that they find the Bible difficult to understand.

 

I find the Bible easy to understand as well. As in the actual words in the Bible, I understand. I know exactly what the word say. However, for me those words have a very different effect on me than they do you.

[marbel]

I think you missed the point, or perhaps the nuance, of that story. ;)

 

Reality is always subjective, right on down to the sub-atomic level.  We can all be accurate in our perceptions of whatever part of the elephant (or God) we happen upon.  While my perceptions may differ, that doesn't invalidate yours.  We've each happened upon a different part of the elephant, but neither of us are able to see the whole.    

 

How small your God must be, bound by the laws of reality and narrow human understanding.  My understanding of the Divine is much broader.

 

No, I don't believe I did.

 

I said nothing about God being bound by the laws of reality and narrow human understanding.  I said God exists or God does not exist regardless of whether anyone believes or not.   

 

[Library Momma]

No, it wasn't persecution, it was just rude.  Also, it came off as... I'm not sure how to politely say what it came off as.  

 

Just because you didn't see it as rude or insulting, doesn't mean it wasn't to others.  I thought we are supposed to be understanding other POV's here.  

 

 

I was actually responding to this.  You are angry here because you feel a comment a poster made was rude yet you have no qualms about making statements to others that they consider rude.  Then you mention considering other's POVs while touting the need to promote one religion above others.  I just see it as a disconnect.  

[marbel]

I don't believe in God. If there is a god then I am wrong despite my not believing. However, which is the truth? There can only be one answer. I feel my answer is true just as strongly that you feel your is.

 

I get what you're saying. It's just impossible to prove one or the other.

 

 

I didn't say the Bible is difficult to understand. I said people have different understandings/interpretations of the Bible. Just because someone doesn't have the same interpretation as you do does not make them incorrect or that they find the Bible difficult to understand.

 

I find the Bible easy to understand as well. As in the actual words in the Bible, I understand. I know exactly what the word say. However, for me those words have a very different effect on me than they do you.

 

Of course we both feel or believe our answer is true.    But our belief does not change what is true.  And yes, of course, neither of us can prove or disprove each other's belief. 

 

I'm not claiming to have or know the truth (ETA about the existence or nonexistence of God).  I am simply saying that there is objective truth, and it is true regardless of what we think or believe.   

 

[Library Momma]

I think you are referring to my posts.

 

I am not saying that telling someone about your belief system is as trivial as suggesting a particular brand of bag or whisk. What I am saying is if people get offended and put off when people are pushy or persistent in selling them a good or service, why on earth would they be open to having something much more personal and private intruded upon in such a manner?

 

 

No I guess I'm not being clear - I actually agree with your posts on this subject.  There just seemed to be a number of analogies liking proselytizing to selling some sort of product.

[Guest]

I was actually responding to this.  You are angry here because you feel a comment a poster made was rude yet you have no qualms about making statements to others that they consider rude.  Then you mention considering other's POVs while touting the need to promote one religion above others.  I just see it as a disconnect.  

 

What did I say that was rude?

[Joanne]

Well, you've got me there.... :-)

 

But I am thinking of objective reality. Either it's wrong to shoplift or it is not. Still people shoplift and and they believe that it is OK. Their truth is: taking stuff from stores without paying is OK.

 

Or for this thread: either Christ died to save sinners, or he did not. It can't be both.

 

KWIM?

Actually, it can be both.

 

One of the exit motivations for me from Christianity was other Christians and in particular their inability to sit comfortably with ambiguous, nuanced, complicated truths.

 

Some of the most egrevious exchanges I had where when i WAS a Christian and the vehemence was from other Christians. Exhortions to "read the bible" and "it says what it says" were patronizing; I was a lifelong Christian and way past that.

 

There are millions of people who believe in bible truths while believing the bible to be a work of metaphor, poetry, intentional hyperbole, and drama. It is no LESS true for them - it is differently true.

 

I eventually left the faith, or more accurately admiited i didn't have the faith or need that faith at all.

 

But to strip other's complex, rich faith of their truth is an aggresive spiritual assault.

 

Fwiw, the same dynamic from pagans and wiccans is the reason I ultimately denied those labels.

 

My 2nd husband used to say "Either Jesus was the son of god and savior of the world or he was crazy." He parroted it from rhetoric designed to inspire and attract but to me it was an insipid saying.

 

At the time, I was a Christian who believed Jesus was a spiritually evolved man captured in a book tainted by patriarchical cultures and developed during traditions or parable, fables, and hyperbole.

 

Ultimately, you can't take the bible literally because everyone who does picks and choses, period.

 

Imo and ime, you can't tell a Christian by their acts anymore than you can a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, 12 Stepper, Wiccan or Pagan. They ALL embrace living principles - Spiritual princples - that are not owned by Christianity but by the collective wisdom of evolved mankind. "Christian principles" don't exist and it is quite arrogant to asssert they do.

[Library Momma]

Okay, great.  I guess I don't do either. IRL, I'll share if someone seems interested, or answer any questions they have.  

 

I'm okay with people preaching or proselytizing if they are being respectful of others (not continuing if the person is not interested, not yelling "You are going to hell!", behaving like Westboro Baptist Church, etc).  

 

 

This, not the comment itself but the idea of preaching and proselytizing.  It doesn't matter how nice anyone is being about it, it can be perceived as rude.  

[PeacefulChaos]

answer below

 

 

I am not trying to twist your words at all, but I am completely confused. You said that street preaching had its place, you said that you hand out DVDs, you mentioned something about gatherings where you preach at the ballpark. I thought this was the type of preaching we were talking about. I thought this was the type of preaching you were "gently" chiding other Christians for not participating in. If it was simply answering questions about their faith when asked, then *you* are twisting words. I don't recall any Christians on this thread saying they wouldn't do this. :confused:

This. ^^  I agree, I was confused, too.

\

I think you missed the point, or perhaps the nuance, of that story. ;)

 

Reality is always subjective, right on down to the sub-atomic level.  We can all be accurate in our perceptions of whatever part of the elephant (or God) we happen upon.  While my perceptions may differ, that doesn't invalidate yours.  We've each happened upon a different part of the elephant, but neither of us are able to see the whole.    

 

How small your God must be, bound by the laws of reality and narrow human understanding.  My understanding of the Divine is much broader.

Luckily, God is much bigger than I can imagine and no human can pretend to understand God fully.  :)

 

 

On another note, I was one who compared it specifically to Thirty-One and Pampered Chef.  :)

[unfrumpable.]

I still would like a link to the DVD in question here.

[Mergath]

Veiled insult.  

 

There was no insult, veiled or otherwise.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Mergath

[Leav97]

No, I don't believe I did.

 

I said nothing about God being bound by the laws of reality and narrow human understanding.  I said God exists or God does not exist regardless of whether anyone believes or not.   

 

 

 

God is Schrodinger's cat :)

[Catwoman]

I still would like a link to the DVD in question here.

I would, too. I asked for more information about it in an earlier post, but I guess she didn't see it.

 

I don't necessarily need to see the actual video footage, but a general brief synopsis would be nice. :)

[SadieMarie]

My 2nd husband used to say "Either Jesus was the son of god and savior of the world or he was crazy." He parroted it from rhetoric designed to inspire and attract but to me it was an insipid saying.

 

 

I think of him as the ultimate rabble rouser lol, in a good way.  I think of him as an outsider who was able to empathize and love others who were outsiders, or even outcasts. He wasn't afraid to challenge the rules and expectations of his time or call out those in authority who were corrupt.   I admire much about him and think that many people who profess to follow him (not thinking of anyone specifically here btw) would be shocked and dismayed by what he would say to them if he did come back somehow.  I think he might start with the crowds of of ---holes who think it OK to yell hateful things about traumatized immigrant children.  I would love to be a fly on the wall when he took on the preachers of the gospel of prosperity lol.

[Free]

God is Schrodinger's cat :)

 

Wow. Love this.

 

[Audrey]

Okay, great.  I guess I don't do either. IRL, I'll share if someone seems interested, or answer any questions they have.  

 

I'm okay with people preaching or proselytizing if they are being respectful of others (not continuing if the person is not interested, not yelling "You are going to hell!", behaving like Westboro Baptist Church, etc).  

 

It sounds to me like you're doing something similar to what Heather describes upthread ... just sharing with someone who is interested.  Nothing wrong with that at all.

[Joanne]

 

Just because you didn't see it as rude or insulting, doesn't mean it wasn't to others. I

 

OMG. Exactly. I personally believe even A and B of the earlier lists are rude. I think it is rude to assume anyone needs or wants your version of spiritual truth. I think it is rude to pray for someone's "salvation." I think imposing a worldview on someone is flat out obnoxiouly rude.

 

I think any exclusive minded faith or religion is, by definition, rude. It is a matter of degree -adding evangelizing into the mix deepens the rude.

 

Jesus was a pretty Zen guy.

 

Buddha was quite Christ like.

 

Mohammed, John Smith, Bill Wison were open to being led to somethings that would help many millions of people.

 

St. Francis, julian of norwich, richard foster, emmett fox, thich naht hanh, the dalai lama, mlk, wayne Dwyer, neale walsh, and many more all all inspired people by some greater force.

 

Limiting spiritual truths to one written record of oral stories reduces god.

[marbel]

Wtf?  There was no insult, veiled or otherwise.

 

Apparently her perception is that it was an insult.  It's true for her.  How can you argue against that?  

 

[Free]

I said God exists or God does not exist regardless of whether anyone believes or not.   

 

 

I think this is quite a useless statement (and I don't mean this to sound rude or offensive). It is useless because it tells us nothing.

 

When people talk of an entity which they call "God", we cannot even be sure they are talking of the same thing. So what is it that you believe exists or does not exist? In the story of the blind men, each person could probably say "Objectively, the elephant is like a pillar, or it is not" and another could say "Objectively, the elephant is like a hose pipe or it is not" and they would all be somewhat right and yet completely wrong at the same time. Yes, in this particular example the elephant objectively exists, but only because we already have a working definition of what an elephant is. When it comes to God, we are all the blind men and we could all be right and wrong at the same time.

 

How do we decide what is objectively true? Do sunsets objectively exist or do we just perceive them? Do they objectively exist, because we perceive them?

 

We perceive the ocean as blue (or green, or blue green). Yet when you take a little bit of the ocean in your palms, it is boringly plain and colourless. Is the ocean objectively blue, or is it not? Or is it both blue and not blue ;-)?

 

You perceive yourself as solid and yet the matter you're made of consists mostly of empty space. Are you objectively solid, or not? Is an electron a wave or a particle? Or is it both?

 

Is it possible then that there are many ways to look at the same thing, and therefore there can be multiple objective truths?

 

You gave earlier an example of shoplifting being either objectively right or wrong. Imagine now a tiny 7 year old orphan stealing bread to feed himself and his younger 5 year old sibling. Through your objective framework do you believe this is wrong? Do you believe the child is a criminal and must be put in juvenile detention?

 

Consider killing another human being. Is it objectively wrong? And yet we sanction the state to execute criminals. We send soldiers to kill each other in battlefields. We do not even bat an eyelid. If in future we evolve into a kinder and more humane society, is it possible that they would be horrified at the sanctioned killings?

 

There are many areas where so called objectivity breaks down and that is only because human society like nature itself, is complex and messy and tangled. In such cases nuance and common sense have to take over.

 

 

[Free]

Apparently her perception is that it was an insult.  It's true for her.  How can you argue against that?  

 

 

:laugh: You are sure getting a hang of how multiple truths work.

[chocolatechip]

Examples of notional conversations with acquaintances, to help clarify how people may feel.  FWIW, I've not had a conversation beyond 'A' in Scotland (apart from once when a missionary group came to my village, and every six months when the Jehova's Witnesses come to my office).  Religion is considered a private matter, to be discussed only if one is questioned.

 

A

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up on Sunday - we have church in the morning and a church picnic in the afternoon.

Me: Oh.  Okay - how about next Saturday?

 

B

Me: Would little Johnny like to come over and play on Sunday?

Her: I'm sorry, we are tied up with church on Sunday.  We are having the church picnic in the afternoon - would you like to come?

Me:  Thanks for asking, but I don't think so.  Would he be free next Saturday?

 

L

 

 

OMG. Exactly. I personally believe even A and B of the earlier lists are rude. I think it is rude to assume anyone needs or wants your version of spiritual truth. I think it is rude to pray for someone's "salvation." I think imposing a worldview on someone is flat out obnoxiouly rude.

 

 

 

What??? How is A rude? I mean, it's the equivalent response of, "Oh, I'm sorry, he has a music lesson on Sunday afternoon." It just communicates that they are busy. You've left me baffled here.  :confused1:

 

I don't even see that B is so rude. It's not like she (the person 'her' in the scenario) told the people that their "version of spiritual truth" wasn't good enough. She invited them to A PICNIC. Yes, it was a church picnic. But maybe the lady didn't mean it in an "evangelizing" way. A church picnic, in my experience, is not usually terribly religious - I mean, we bless the food, but mostly people just eat, talk (usually the chit-chat type), the kids play together, and sometimes people bring guitars and jam (not even usually religious songs. . .) Maybe said lady was wishing to be able to chat, but was already committed to the picnic and couldn't break plans, so she invited them along from a purely social motive. Food isn't religious or not religious, food is FOOD. 

 

True, in some situations an invitation to a church picnic could be a "sneaky" way to try to get someone to come to a "church thing." But I don't think that conclusion is true of all Situation B's - many are perfectly innocent; not "loaded" at all. 

 

I don't think we can judge all Situation B's as rude. At all. 

[chocolatechip]

See, I've had that happen, but non-aggressively. I live in an area with a lot of families from a Greek background, and especially when the kids were little, they would see us on the street and come over to bless us.

 

That I actually didn't mind, and I guess because it was just a form of love. They loved that a mama and her children were together and the form that took was a  blessing. "May God bless you today and always my darlings".

 

One elderly man stopped me one day and asked God to bless me for being a stay at home mama. That was actually nice. It was a form of cultural - and hence, social - approval, for being home with the kids - and I was pretty starved for that kind of social approval.

 

Plus, these people were my neighbours, and elderly, so there was zero threat. A random man putting his hands on me ? That would be confronting.

 

Idk. I can tell the difference between someone being the conduit of the overflowing of God's love ( as that person perceives it ) and being recruited. I'm OK with the first scenario.

 

I honestly don't understand why the 'hard sell' Christians don't change up their business plan. Love is always more compelling than fear, embarrassment, coercion....

 

LIKE. 

 

These people actually CARED about you and showed it in a tangible way, no?

[kiana]

What??? How is A rude? I mean, it's the equivalent response of, "Oh, I'm sorry, he has a music lesson on Sunday afternoon." It just communicates that they are busy. You've left me baffled here.  :confused1:

 

Agree. Huh?!

 

[Joanne]

What??? How is A rude? I mean, it's the equivalent response of, "Oh, I'm sorry, he has a music lesson on Sunday afternoon." It just communicates that they are busy. You've left me baffled here. :confused1:

 

I don't even see that B is so rude. It's not like she (the person 'her' in the scenario) told the people that their "version of spiritual truth" wasn't good enough. She invited them to A PICNIC. Yes, it was a church picnic. But maybe the lady didn't mean it in an "evangelizing" way. A church picnic, in my experience, is not usually terribly religious - I mean, we bless the food, but mostly people just eat, talk (usually the chit-chat type), the kids play together, and sometimes people bring guitars and jam (not even usually religious songs. . .) Maybe said lady was wishing to be able to chat, but was already committed to the picnic and couldn't break plans, so she invited them along from a purely social motive. Food isn't religious or not religious, food

Ok. I agree with you on "A".

 

I enjoyed our church picnics.

[Joanne]

Agree. Huh?!

 

Yea. I changed my vote.

[marbel]

:laugh: You are sure getting a hang of how multiple truths work.

 

Of course not everything is objective.

 

I am sitting at my desktop right now --> objective truth.  You can't see me, but here I am.  :seeya:   (Of course by the time anyone sees this I might be somewhere else, but objectively, I still exist.)

 

"There was no insult." --> subjective.  How about "I didn't intend that to be insulting."

 

Of course all this brings me back around to the original post of this thread.  If truth is subjective, and our truth is whatever we believe it to be, then those who feel they are being persecuted are indeed being persecuted - because they perceive themselves to be.   How can we argue with what is true for them? 

 

[marbel]

I think this is quite a useless statement (and I don't mean this to sound rude or offensive). It is useless because it tells us nothing.

 

When people talk of an entity which they call "God", we cannot even be sure they are talking of the same thing. So what is it that you believe exists or does not exist? In the story of the blind men, each person could probably say "Objectively, the elephant is like a pillar, or it is not" and another could say "Objectively, the elephant is like a hose pipe or it is not" and they would all be somewhat right and yet completely wrong at the same time. Yes, in this particular example the elephant objectively exists, but only because we already have a working definition of what an elephant is. When it comes to God, we are all the blind men and we could all be right and wrong at the same time.

 

<snip>

 

I am not talking about the character or attributes of God.  I am talking simply of existence.  (Though I suppose if God exists, God has specific, objective characteristics even if we don't know what they are.)   The blind men agree that the elephant exists.  They don't know have the whole picture of what it is like.  But the elephant doesn't exist simply because we know what an elephant is. It exists regardless of our knowing about it.  When a new species is  discovered we know it existed before we found and named it.   

 

And how did starving 7-year-olds in detention get into this?   Taking things that do not belong to us is wrong.  (Let's leave aside the possibility of a culture in which there is no concept of individual ownership.)   Allowing one's sister to starve to death is more wrong (nice grammar there) if one can take action to prevent it.   Saying that an action is wrong does not = punishing someone who takes the action. 

[[email protected]]

Ramp down the language and the personal remarks, please. Otherwise the thread will close.

 

Moderator

[Free]

I am not talking about the character or attributes of God.  I am talking simply of existence.  (Though I suppose if God exists, God has specific, objective characteristics even if we don't know what they are.)   The blind men agree that the elephant exists.  They don't know have the whole picture of what it is like.  But the elephant doesn't exist simply because we know what an elephant is. It exists regardless of our knowing about it.  When a new species is  discovered we know it existed before we found and named it.   

 

And how did starving 7-year-olds in detention get into this?   Taking things that do not belong to us is wrong.  (Let's leave aside the possibility of a culture in which there is no concept of individual ownership.)   Allowing one's sister to starve to death is more wrong (nice grammar there) if one can take action to prevent it.   Saying that an action is wrong does not = punishing someone who takes the action. 

 

And my point in all of this was that there can be multiple objective truths depending on varying perspectives.

 

If we give a pass to the 7 year old in that example, it is because compassion and kindness is a truth for most of us through which we evaluate rightness and wrongness.

[poppy]

Of course not everything is objective.

 

I am sitting at my desktop right now --> objective truth. You can't see me, but here I am. :seeya: (Of course by the time anyone sees this I might be somewhere else, but objectively, I still exist.)

 

"There was no insult." --> subjective. How about "I didn't intend that to be insulting."

 

Of course all this brings me back around to the original post of this thread. If truth is subjective, and our truth is whatever we believe it to be, then those who feel they are being persecuted are indeed being persecuted - because they perceive themselves to be. How can we argue with what is true for them?

 

What does the frequent and knee jerk 'I'm being persecuted ' response serve? What is the purpose of it?

 

For Fox News - selling the war on Christmas and similar stories about how much it stinks to not be an unquestioned majority anymore is profitable.

 

For people who feel persecution is a measure of righteousness - it makes them happy.

 

Non Chistians - mild annoyance.

 

So I guess everyone wins or at least doesn't lose much??

 

But from a religious perspective, it does not seem useful or enlightening.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

But from a religious perspective, it does not seem useful or enlightening.

 

I agree with you. I think it's all rather ridiculous, claims of the war on Christmas and such.  But if people are going to argue that there is no objective truth, but rather multiple truths based on the perspective of each person, then no one can say "there is no persecution of Christians in the US" because people are (apparently) feeling persecuted.   (I said "apparently" because I have never come across any person professing Christianity claiming persecution except on sites like the one in the OP.)   

 

But actually everyone doesn't win; the Christians lose because we are seen as goofballs who want to force our way on everyone. That is not a win.