|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings-
I thought I'd avoid hitting the 'new post' button for a while, but when reading the philosophical question thread when things warmed up about religion I started to wonder:
(This is a question about process, not content, so don't anybody whip out their theology or dogma on ME)
Is it possible to discuss the details of a religious believe without the discussion being perceived by one (or all) as an attempt to prostelatize? If I ask a real question, does that mean that I'm fair game because I asked?
By the same token, If I'm asked, and I am a believer of conviction, am I not obligated by my beliefs to make an attempt at a conversion?
Off the top, the only time that I don't see it be as an issue is when you have to be born a member of the tribe before you can practice the belief.
Regards
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Simon Rutlust wrote:
> Greetings-
>
> I thought I'd avoid hitting the 'new post' button for a while, but when reading the philosophical question thread when things warmed up about religion I started to wonder:
>
> (This is a question about process, not content, so don't anybody whip out their theology or dogma on ME)
>
> Is it possible to discuss the details of a religious believe without the discussion being perceived by one (or all) as an attempt to prostelatize? If I ask a real question, does that mean that I'm fair game because I asked?
>
It depends WHO you ask... Or even where you ask....
> By the same token, If I'm asked, and I am a believer of conviction, am I not obligated by my beliefs to make an attempt at a conversion?
It depends WHO asks... Or even where the question is asked....
>
> Off the top, the only time that I don't see it be as an issue is when you have to be born a member of the tribe before you can practice the belief.
>
> Regards
> Simon
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Marc
On a board like this you don't have any control over the 'who'. So does that mean that the topic shouldn't be broached?
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No not at all....
But it does mean that there are probably as many answers as there are people to do the answering.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
If someone asks me about my philosophical or religious beliefs, I just state them and do not try a conversion. Hopefully the type of person my beliefs have made me will speak volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I think it does have an answer.
This forum has thrived because it fosters logical discussion and the dissemination of (hopefully!) interesting news and information, all with a liberal leavening of humour (or pedantry!). It's a friendly place, where we don't often shout at each other, and in which we feel free to raise any topic which interests, puzzles or troubles us.
Though few of us are ever likely to meet in 'real' life, over time we get to know each other's quirks and peculiarities. We may sometimes appear to be a bit undisciplined, but we do follow certain basic rules - and one of those rules is the classic rule of debate (though I know Timmy doesn't like that word) - that if you express an opinion you should be ready to back it up, either with plain facts or with reasoned argument.
Our community certainly includes Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists and even Scotsmen (for whom self-advertisement is a religion in itself); it may well include other faiths, though so far as I recollect no-one has come forward to demonstrate this. If we are to maintain the atmosphere and ethos of the community, common sense dictates that, as with every other subject, discussions of faith should be pursued in the same logical manner as any other subject.
Thus we might discuss the provenance of some of the biblical traditions, or the validity of a particular religious point of view. In so doing, we may well express different opinions, but they will be - if you like - detached opinions, ripe for discussion. But expressions of faith per se are potentially destructive; faith is an intensely personal thing and best kept to oneself in such an environment. If it IS raised, then words like 'proof' should be backed by revelation of that proof, so that others can argue to the contrary on a level playing field. And emotive criticism of another Church as satanic is certainly reprehensible.
Fundamentalism - Christian, Jewish and Islamic - has often been criticised here, but the focus of criticism has always been against the use of religion as a power base, or the use of selective biblical quotation as a weapon with which to condemn. I don't think that anyone has specifically rejected the religious beliefs of others - as far as I am concerned, you are free to dance naked around an oak tree every Friday evening, if that's what floats your boat - but if you argue that the rest of us should join you, you risk destruction of our community.
None of the above is new. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK quite a number of clubs and societies prohibit discussion of certain topics within the club. As I understand it, English Freemasonry specifically prohibits discussion of religion or politics within its gatherings, precisely for the purpose of avoiding dissent and discord.
So .. discussion or proselytisation? Well, each has its place, and it would be unreasonable to expect an evangelist - religious or otherwise - to eschew proselytisation. But, in my considered view, that place is not here. If anyone disagrees, let's have the logical arguments - otherwise, it's sabres at dawn!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
l would love to see Timmy prohibit the discussion of religion or politics, and try to make this a more friendly place. A feeling of love would be a nice change from having to watch your back at all times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
with a gay theme it is not possible either to remove discussions on religion or on politics, though.
What I dislike is evangelism or debate. But discussion is healthy.
I think, with suitable care and with adult attitudes that each subject has a valid place here, so long as neother takes over.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim wrote:
> l would love to see Timmy prohibit the discussion of religion or politics, (snip)
That would leave some of us not posting at all!
Seriously, religious and political convictions are probably the two major drivers that make people feel it is morally acceptable to impose their views / beliefs / "standards" etc on others. Many of us here are struggling - in whatever way - to be "ourselves" (whatever "ourself" turns out to be). The discussion of the forces in society and beliefs of other individuals that make that struggle more difficult is, IMO, *part* of the unique value of this forum.
However, I'd agree that on occasions in the heat of things a line can be crossed into what can be taken as personal attacks on other people - it happens rarely, but it does happen (I admit I've crossed that line myself on one occasion, to my regret). But such occasions can turn into learning experiences for all involved, however unpleasant and disruptive they can be at the time. Given they happen by accident not design, and remain infrequent, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing either for those directly involved or for others.
Many of us have plenty of experience of rejection: learning to disagree constructively without taking it as a rejection of ourselves as people is no bad thing.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim:
>l would love to see Timmy prohibit the discussion of religion or politics, and try to make this a more friendly place. A feeling of love would be a nice change from having to watch your back at all times.
Hmm. It depends what the purpose of this board is.
If its sole purpose is support, then the discussion of religion and politics is probably off-topic and inflammatory. But I don't think that is its sole purpose. It is a place to discuss anything you like, anonymously if you prefer, with other people who may or not share some of the same views, and the same sexuality, as you. And the fact of the matter is that, in normal conversation, people talk about politics. And, for gay people, if religion is presented as being dangerous to our opinions, then we will be inclined to argue against it too.
To be honest, I do think the subject of religion comes up too much. When someone posts the latest pronouncements by an irrelevant hell-fire preacher in America, all it does is stir us all up; it doesn't stimulate discussion, as we've already had the same conversation many times already. In fact, it is damaging:
i. it turns those of us who are not Christian further against Christianity, or at least that variety of Christianity, and
ii. it embarrasses those who are religious.
I suppose the most important thing is to be tactful at all times. I dare say I have been rather tactless lately. Because of the historical nature of the people on the board, it has been easier to get away with derogatory sentiments about a religion or political movement, because no-one has been there to be upset by them. Now there are people. I see absolutely no problem with pointing out the mistakes in an opinion or action as I see them, but that is not a reason to launch a personal attack.
I don't think anything should be banned on this board, because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression (even if those are, unfortunately, not absolutes in today's societies -- though, to be honest, they never have been). Perhaps, when starting a thread, we could just think about what may upset other people, and try and avoid those things that will blatantly cause distress -- except, of course, when there is an important and original point to be made.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I woudl be upset if, for example, it had been decided by the ephemeral "us" that we could not post items about religion or politics. That would preclude our applauding the current moves in Conservateive Judaism towards embracing gay clergy and same gender unions.
It would preclude our deploring the Anglicans of they bow to African pressure to rail against gay clergy
It would prevent our praising blair and castigating bush over gay marriage in their respective nations
I have no issue with our being reminded constantly about nasty US preachers of no paryicular pedigree
All I have an issue over is it becoming personal, and against the devoutly held beliefs of a bona fide member, or as a flame against a bona fide poster here.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
I'm a zealot. You should have heard me 'preaching' about the virtues of Firefox over Internet Explorer. I was after her soul! When I thought about this thread, I took a step back and let it go.
Scary
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej I really agree with what you just said. I also think that the new people, and I put myself in that catagory, should not be so easy to take offense at someone elses opinion of an issue. For the biggest part we are all friends and purhaps even a family that we need sometimes.
By the way, I actually figured out what Deeej is.
Brian
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Religion and Politics are the spice of life, but we all have our own personal tastes and any dish is spoiled by too much spice.
I love talking about religion & politics, but only to people who agree with me 'cos otherwise they're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Except chili......;-D
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Well, yeah - except chili
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings
I sorta almost kinda actually figured out 'Can you sing again?'
Not, he told me in the end. (and if he thinks I'm work out the cypher that is his current sig he's ....
So, spill the beans - what does Deeej mean?
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
