Alice Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The Christian I am corresponding with never answered my, "how would you feel..." questions. Not once. She just whipped out a bunch of Bible verses about God's demand that you worship ONLY Him. She didn't even try to feel empathy or put herself in the place of the people I'd been asking her about. And hey - hello ;-) Alice Hello to you too, Alice. It's good connecting with folks back here again... I think what you are saying is often key here - do you know this woman in 'real life'? I'm just wondering about the empathy thing - whether she can put herself in other people's shoes, but has to block this out because of her own cognitive dissonance and needing to hold fast to her belief structure, or whether she does actutally lack the ability to view others from different perspectives - I think I have encountered both types - but of couse we never really know the internal workings of others and what is going on inside their minds. I think I'd go back to your above approach and say something along the lines of .... I noticed you didn't comment on my questions about putting your self in the shoes of others - can we talk about how you would feel if you had been born a muslim and had experienced christianity in the way many palestinian muslims have? I think everytime someone is asked to do this a little window of opportunity opens - now of course most fundamentalists have a good array of draught excluders to prevent any fresh air getting in - but I think you were on a good track asking her these questions and its often good to go back and revisit over and over There is a reason she didn't comment fully and had to grab a draught excluder/handful of bible verses ;-) OM - there has just been the most fabulous TV series in the UK called 'around the world in 80 faiths'. The presenter is an anglican vicar called Peter Owen Jones. The series had me laughing out loud, crying copiously and watching the screen open mouthed with amazement in equal measure. It was a wonderful celebration of humankind, the only negative for me was the addition of 'atheism' into the list of 'faiths', that I know would cause a storm of debate here! Especially as he chose to examine this in the context of a rather stuffy russian debating club - but this aside it was fascinating. The series is available on the internet - on the BBC iplayer but I'm not sure if access is restricted outside of the UK? I just know you'd love it ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think what you are saying is often key here - do you know this woman in 'real life'? I'm just wondering about the empathy thing - whether she can put herself in other people's shoes, but has to block this out because of her own cognitive dissonance and needing to hold fast to her belief structure, or whether she does actutally lack the ability to view others from different perspectives - I think I have encountered both types - but of couse we never really know the internal workings of others and what is going on inside their minds No - we don't know each other in real life. We ended up in an email conversation because she was "concerned" about my work in inter-faith dialog. I think I'd go back to your above approach and say something along the lines of .... I noticed you didn't comment on my questions about putting your self in the shoes of others - can we talk about how you would feel if you had been born a muslim and had experienced christianity in the way many palestinian muslims have?Yes- that is my intent. It really bothers me on a deep level that she would not address the human element I was trying to bring up. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking sides here. I'm not pro-Palestinian (or pro-Israeli). I just think it's very important to look at our actions through the eyes of those we are impacting. As I said in my letter to her, the least we can do in "loving our enemies" is to ask ourselves what we would do, how we would feel, if we were in their shoes (on all sides). I think everytime someone is asked to do this a little window of opportunity opens - now of course most fundamentalists have a good array of draught excluders to prevent any fresh air getting in - but I think you were on a good track asking her these questions and its often good to go back and revisit over and over. I don't disagree with you, but honestly I've about given up hope that this woman even cares to empathize with other humans who have a different view of reality than she does. I may end our "conversation" if she doesn't give me some sign that she is honestly seeking an understanding of other people. OM - there has just been the most fabulous TV series in the UK called 'around the world in 80 faiths'. The presenter is an anglican vicar called Peter Owen Jones. The series had me laughing out loud, crying copiously and watching the screen open mouthed with amazement in equal measure. It was a wonderful celebration of humankind, the only negative for me was the addition of 'atheism' into the list of 'faiths', that I know would cause a storm of debate here! Especially as he chose to examine this in the context of a rather stuffy russian debating club - but this aside it was fascinating. The series is available on the internet - on the BBC iplayer but I'm not sure if access is restricted outside of the UK? I just know you'd love it ;-) I'll have to try and find it. I'm leaving for the weekend early tomorrow morning, but maybe next week and can find it and watch it. Thanks for the heads up. O_M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hi Open Minded, Welcome back! The whole thought sinning thing always bothered me because it makes thinking worthy of being tortured eternally -- and eternal torture is unethical, much less eternal torture for thinking the "wrong" thing, especially something caused by human biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hi Open Minded, Welcome back! The whole thought sinning thing always bothered me because it makes thinking worthy of being tortured eternally -- and eternal torture is unethical, much less eternal torture for thinking the "wrong" thing, especially something caused by human biology. Hello Amethyst: Good to "see" you again. Yes - even as a very young Catholic school girl - I could never wrap my head around that whole thing. The nuns placed so much emphasis on it. I never really bought into it, anymore than I bought into the whole hell thing in general. One of the reasons that whole line of thought came back to me, is that this woman I'm having an email conversation with has no problem thinking of other people as "going to hell". And in my mind (at least) that seems an odd thing from the literalist perspective. I mean - if even a thought can be a sin, then isn't thinking that someone else is going to hell a sin? I was never a fundy, but it makes me wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hi Open Minded, Welcome back! The whole thought sinning thing always bothered me because it makes thinking worthy of being tortured eternally -- and eternal torture is unethical, much less eternal torture for thinking the "wrong" thing, especially something caused by human biology. Hello Amethyst: Good to "see" you again. Yes - even as a very young Catholic school girl - I could never wrap my head around that whole thing. The nuns placed so much emphasis on it. I never really bought into it, anymore than I bought into the whole hell thing in general. One of the reasons that whole line of thought came back to me, is that this woman I'm having an email conversation with has no problem thinking of other people as "going to hell". And in my mind (at least) that seems an odd thing from the literalist perspective. I mean - if even a thought can be a sin, then isn't thinking that someone else is going to hell a sin? I was never a fundy, but it makes me wonder. Sometimes, seeing other Christians, and listening to them; it's almost like the Bible somehow teaches us to judge. Example, Peter, killing that couple that peter said lied about their offering. I would say Peter judged them, Jesus didn't kill anyone. So, my question is what made Peter think he had the right to put someone to death? Because they blasphemy the Holy Spirit? Nobody knows who is really doomed to hell, yet the way the NT, especially, is laid out, it makes a person 'think' they have that authority. Jesus said judge not? Right? See OM, I your a better person than me, because I would've probably stopped communicating to the person if they thought that way. Even thinking, your thoughts are connected to your appearance. Make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Sometimes, seeing other Christians, and listening to them; it's almost like the Bible somehow teaches us to judge. Example, Peter, killing that couple that peter said lied about their offering. I would say Peter judged them, Jesus didn't kill anyone. So, my question is what made Peter think he had the right to put someone to death? Because they blasphemy the Holy Spirit? Nobody knows who is really doomed to hell, yet the way the NT, especially, is laid out, it makes a person 'think' they have that authority. Jesus said judge not? Right? See OM, I your a better person than me, because I would've probably stopped communicating to the person if they thought that way. Even thinking, your thoughts are connected to your appearance. Make sense? Here is the thing, YoYo... Nobody will ever be able to convince me that burning someone undead (since they won't technically be alive) and making them feel that pain for all of eternity for thinking the wrong thing is ethical, much less any sort of real mistake in life, or even actually committing a crime that makes them go to jail. And heaven forbid being born into a religion other than Christianity and being a member of that religion for all of one's life simply because they happen to live in another culture, or converting into a belief that is not Christian because it fits them better. And that is what the Christian religion hinges upon, this notion of being literally burned and feeling pain forever and ever and ever for not being Christian enough or being sorry enough for one's sin or being perfect enough in general. Nobody. Ever. Will convince me that it is ethical to torture like that for one minute, let alone eternally. This is why I am not a Christian and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever will be, ever again, at least as long as I am alive. Comprende? I know not all Christians believe in hell, but liberal Christianity does not work for me because of the fundamentalist mindset in which I was raised. Once the fundamentalist house of cards fell, it all eventually fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 And that is what the Christian religion hinges upon, this notion of being literally burned and feeling pain forever and ever and ever for not being Christian enough or being sorry enough for one's sin or being perfect enough in general. Nobody. Ever. Will convince me that it is ethical to torture like that for one minute, let alone eternally. This is why I am not a Christian and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever will be, ever again, at least as long as I am alive. Comprende? I know not all Christians believe in hell, but liberal Christianity does not work for me because of the fundamentalist mindset in which I was raised. Once the fundamentalist house of cards fell, it all eventually fell. As I read this, I had a revelation from on high. TERRORISM From Wiki: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which (1) are intended to create fear (terror), (2) are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants." So... OM. You should ask your friend if she thinks TERRORISM is a bad thing, or a good thing? I see no difference between the use of it from Islamists or Christians who have emotionally scarred people with this threat, "intended to create fear... perpetrated for an ideological goal... deliberately targeting non-combatants (those who just live their live not part of the controversy). Christian Terrorists inside America... in YOUR neighborhood! That should get a response from her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 So... OM. You should ask your friend if she thinks TERRORISM is a bad thing, or a good thing? I see no difference between the use of it from Islamists or Christians who have emotionally scarred people with this threat, "intended to create fear... perpetrated for an ideological goal... deliberately targeting non-combatants (those who just live their live not part of the controversy). Christian Terrorists inside America... in YOUR neighborhood! That should get a response from her. As always - Antlerman - great minds think alike. At one point, in my "discussion" with this woman - I told her I couldn't think of any higher form of violence that one person could inflict up another, than believing the other person would go to hell. The reason I believe this is because if we honestly believe another person will go to hell, then they become "less than" us. That gives us permission to treat them in ways we wouldn't treat people who are equal to us. It gives us permission to go to war, it gives us permission to do all sorts of horrible things. No... the more I think about it... the more I believe that REALLY believing other people are going to fry in hell... is a form of violence... (sigh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Comprende? Ooo...kay Amethyist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Here is the thing, YoYo... Nobody will ever be able to convince me that burning someone undead (since they won't technically be alive) and making them feel that pain for all of eternity for thinking the wrong thing is ethical, much less any sort of real mistake in life, or even actually committing a crime that makes them go to jail. And heaven forbid being born into a religion other than Christianity and being a member of that religion for all of one's life simply because they happen to live in another culture, or converting into a belief that is not Christian because it fits them better. As I read this, I had a revelation from on high. TERRORISM From Wiki: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which (1) are intended to create fear (terror), (2) are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants." So... OM. You should ask your friend if she thinks TERRORISM is a bad thing, or a good thing? I see no difference between the use of it from Islamists or Christians who have emotionally scarred people with this threat, "intended to create fear... perpetrated for an ideological goal... deliberately targeting non-combatants (those who just live their live not part of the controversy). Christian Terrorists inside America... in YOUR neighborhood! That should get a response from her. As always - Antlerman - great minds think alike. At one point, in my "discussion" with this woman - I told her I couldn't think of any higher form of violence that one person could inflict up another, than believing the other person would go to hell. The reason I believe this is because if we honestly believe another person will go to hell, then they become "less than" us. That gives us permission to treat them in ways we wouldn't treat people who are equal to us. It gives us permission to go to war, it gives us permission to do all sorts of horrible things. No... the more I think about it... the more I believe that REALLY believing other people are going to fry in hell... is a form of violence... (sigh) I agreed with OM basically, and am a little confused. I said, I wouldn't communicate with the lady anymore, since she thinks, believes, assumes a 'living human being' might go to hell in her mind. I also stated that it is my opinion that this mentality is judgmental. I am not trying to create fear of hell, or convince anyone of hell. I do personally believe their is a hell, but I don't think it's something we as finite people could comprehend fully, just as heaven can't be fully comprehended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 At one point, in my "discussion" with this woman - I told her I couldn't think of any higher form of violence that one person could inflict up another, than believing the other person would go to hell. The reason I believe this is because if we honestly believe another person will go to hell, then they become "less than" us. That gives us permission to treat them in ways we wouldn't treat people who are equal to us. It gives us permission to go to war, it gives us permission to do all sorts of horrible things. No... the more I think about it... the more I believe that REALLY believing other people are going to fry in hell... is a form of violence... (sigh) This comes back to your asking about the sin of thought. I hadn't had time to embellish on the couple verses I gave you "supporting" that before, but will here. To have your mind filled with negative thoughts about a person, or something in your life has an overall negative effect on your emotions, which affects your beliefs, which affects your attitudes, which affections your behavior, which affects others, which affects your self-esteem, which affects your body, mind, and soul. Your friend, in her thoughts that others are excluded from God, destined for eternal punishment, creates for herself a conflict between her humanity, her "innate" knowledge of others through her own humanity, and a mythology she has been told to acknowledge as factual. Her "faith", necessitates her severing her heart in favor of a type of reason, in the form of religious doctrine. The effect of this is to become separated from her heart (or the voice of god, if you will), and become distorted and disfigured to the ultimate point of disconnect from "God" that they objectify others and justify violence towards them, as they are no longer seen as human. To see others as human, you have to see them as a part of you. And if you don't, then you are not in touch with yourself, and your soul is lost. The one who ends up in hell, is the one that believes in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 The effect of this is to become separated from her heart (or the voice of god, if you will), and become distorted and disfigured to the ultimate point of disconnect from "God" that they objectify others and justify violence towards them, as they are no longer seen as human. To see others as human, you have to see them as a part of you. And if you don't, then you are not in touch with yourself, and your soul is lost. The one who ends up in hell, is the one that believes in it. We agree completely. Part of me feels sorry for this woman, because she has become insulated and separated from her innate ability to empathize with other humans. It is sad. But... at the same time... when I see so much violence in this world as a result of this kind of thinking - I become angry. I truly believe that children naturally are able to empathize. But... our lives as children can sometimes teach us to separate ourselves from these empathetic feelings. Not just religion - but other things can as well. Parents who thirst for power and money can teach their children to separate themselves from empathizing. Parents who are violent and angry can teach their children these things as well... Well... I must go to bed. And tomorrow I'm leaving for a long weekend. Take care everyone. I'll check in next week. O_M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I understand the anger that is generated by contact with people who appear not to be able to empathise with others - and worse still, to be able to dehumanise or rule out a whole section of makind. What is weird is that many fundamentalists are able to empathise with people in many strata in society - many spend their life caring about and for different groups but cannot extend this to the future care or compassion for people who believe differently. Two fundamentalists I know personally- who have an absolute belief in a literal hell. One has devoted her working life to caring for the elderly, the infirm, and adults with learning difficulty. She does this with great insight and compassion and an ability to sustain the dignity of those she cares for. She is far removed from a 'do gooder' and treats people with such respect and loving kindness. The second person is a campaigner for various 'causes' that move her - she is an anti abortionist and anti seal trade campaigner because she see's these things as violent and cruel acts. Of course form my perspective she fails to see either in context and this is where I see a limitation in her capacity to empathise but what she 'sees' stirs empathy in her ... Neither seem to able to see that their belief in hell runs countrary to these other important parts of their life. For the first, the frail and elderly woman she has nursed and tended with such care and sensitivity might be hours away from being eternally tormented by the God she worships and loves, for the second the life she aims to preserve from abortion - experiences just a blink in the eye delay before they too might be destined to the lake of fire ... It doesn't make sense - but once upon a time I was in the same group as them, people who live a life where compassion and empathy are important principles but who have been 'trained' to hold ridiculous beliefs. The world is divided into two groups - those who divide the world into two groups and those who don't. The rub for me is that it is as easy to demonise and dehumanise fundamentalists as it is for fundamentalists to do the same to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I remembered the name of the other guy who murdered an abortion doctor. It was Paul Hill. Here's his site apparently: http://armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html I also think it's hypocritical that this fundie claims you can't use Wikipedia because it has inaccurate information yet he can use the bible all he likes even though the bible is just as historically inaccurate, if not more so. If you're not allowed to use Wikipedia for source material, then he shouldn't be allowed to use the bible for source material, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 The world is divided into two groups - those who divide the world into two groups and those who don't. The rub for me is that it is as easy to demonise and dehumanise fundamentalists as it is for fundamentalists to do the same to us. I know what you mean, Alice. On a personal level it is very challenging for me to deal with fundamentalists for this very reason. I must constantly remind myself that we are all part of the same human family. It is actually easier for me to connect with people of other faiths (or no faith), then it is for me to connect with a fundamentalist Christian. But, deep down, there is this little voice within me, constantly reminding me that we all belong to each other and that what we do to each other, we do to ourselves. (It's probably the voice of my late Grandmother - who constantly reminded people that there is a reason for each and every living soul. She died over 25 years ago, but her compassion and empathy for others still hold me to a higher standard than I often hold myself to. ) I also think it's hypocritical that this fundie claims you can't use Wikipedia because it has inaccurate information yet he can use the bible all he likes even though the bible is just as historically inaccurate, if not more so. If you're not allowed to use Wikipedia for source material, then he shouldn't be allowed to use the bible for source material, either.Neon Genesis, I agree. Every time she whips out a Bible verse, I remind her it's useless - because the Bible is not factual history and it can be interpreted as many ways as there are people to interpret it. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Thing about that fundy...wikipedia often sources their articles, and there you can often get good information i.e. springboard to better research. As for modern examples, two come to mind: Ireland. 'nuff said. Eric Ruldoph. He also received a lot of support from the local fundie community while he was on the run. Two that immediately come to mind. It's good to see you back 'round these parts OM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Edited to remove accidental double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts