quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We quite recently had a discussion about some of this stuff.

My answer is still the same: supertition is just what other people do when they do things that I do in a different context to the one I accept.

---

This is how most people use it.
I try not to. For me, something is superstitious when it falls outside of a belief system. So, believing breaking a mirror is "bad luck" is superstitious; but animal sacrifice, within the context of religion, isn't.
For Christians, believing an relic has power is; but for Wiccans, it isn't.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Any belief that changes practice for the better is good.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
But some Christians do believe that relics have power, as you put it - not intrinsic power in and of themselves ... but power nevertheless.

By the same principle, they believe that physical things - Holy Water, icons, consecrated bread and wine - can convey and transmit grace.

It isn't the same as Wiccan ideas of magic, although InGoB of partially blessed memory once argued on these boards that Roman Catholicism really was 'magic' in the full sense and that all other magical things were some kind of approximation ...



There is a continuum, it seems to me, between those more Catholic/sacramental Christians who do believe that physical objects can be conduits of divine grace and power in a very real - but not 'magical' sense - and those who treat them as talismans ...

So I suggest your dividing line between what is 'in' and what is 'out' as far as Christianity is concerned needs some qualification or modification. The boundaries may be blurred or more elastic ... I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I was once told to watch out for people who will take a consecrated wafer away rather than eat it, as they wanted to steal God's power and use it for their own purposes. This would be superstitious use of the wafer, it seems to me, as with 'holy water' which people try to use for their own purposes.

The priest who blesses the wafers and the water is asking for God's blessing upon those who use it for its proper purpose, which is fine unless he or she thinks that they are the ones who are bestowing the blessing upon it.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
In the MOTR (especially Methodist) context I've never heard any particular disapproval of 'superstitions', certainly not in connection with any historical religious tradition. I suspect this is partly due to the respect in which the RCC, and the Orthodox churches, etc., are held.

My sense is that 'superstition' in the modern Western world is now a more interesting concept with regard to popular spirituality, not Christian denominations. What's left of magic, if you like, is surely more prevalent among Westerners who largely live outside the influence of organised religion than those who are within.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I was once told to watch out for people who will take a consecrated wafer away rather than eat it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

For Christians, believing an relic has power is; but for Wiccans, it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

If for example Real Presence wasn't true, but belief in the doctrine led people to live holier lives, would it be a superstition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We quite recently had a discussion about some of this stuff.

My answer is still the same: supertition is just what other people do when they do things that I do in a different context to the one I accept.

---

This is how most people use it.
I try not to. For me, something is superstitious when it falls outside of a belief system. So, believing breaking a mirror is "bad luck" is superstitious; but animal sacrifice, within the context of religion, isn't.
For Christians, believing an relic has power is; but for Wiccans, it isn't.

---

quote:

---

A body is a limit on the unlimited. An unnecessary thing.

---

quote:

---

The concept that Jesus rose bodily into heaven is a limitation of how our minds operate. None of heaven being a place or bodies residing in it makes any real sense, even in the context of religion. Not Christianity, anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
LilBuddha, I'm thrown by this. I'm a Christian. I've got a reasonable understanding about what is and is not 'within the context' of Christianity. I couldn't, though, and wouldn't presume to, speak for Wiccanism or Buddhism. For them, as an outsider I just don't know enough about either faith to assert what, even by your definition, is superstitious or fits within its context as a religion.

---

quote:

---

I could, for example, ask you how one can pray by turning a wheel in a non-theist system? What I can't legitimately do is say that that is superstitious 'within the context of' Buddhism as a religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Why is the charismatic focus on placing the locus for divine/human interaction in 'the worship time' any less 'superstitious' say, than the sacramentalist focus on putting the locus on the apparent hocus pocus of the 'Real Presence'?

What makes the one 'superstitious' and not the other? Why aren't both seem as equally 'superstitious' if that's how we want to categorise or evaluate them?

---

You say 'we', but apart from these charismatics and others from a similar stable, who accuses other traditions of being 'superstitious' these days? AFAIK the RCs don't do it. The MOTR churches don't do it. I don't know about the Orthodox churches.

At this point, many mainstream Protestant traditions have become relatively sacramental themselves and have nothing to gain from calling others 'superstitious', a term that still has negative overtones. (I also suspect that in urban environments, where churches like to pay lip service to mutual respect, even the charismatics would be loathe to use the word publicly. But this may be uncommon.)

Commentators already agree that the Pentecostal and charismatic movements have undergone their own versions of (re-)sacramentalisation, or (re-)Catholicisation. The members of these Pente/charo churches might not see it like that themselves, but engaging them in the debate might be easier if the use of the word 'superstition' were discouraged rather than expanded....

[ 11. January 2018, 00:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure. I suppose the fact that I started this thread partly in response to Sipech's use of the term 'superstition' in relation to the 'Real Presence' and 'The Perpetual Virginity of Mary' on another thread serves to illustrate your point.

Sipech comes from within the charismatic evangelical constituency of course - although I find some of his comments almost sub-Trinitarian at times but that's another matter ...


 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you believe any belief system makes people better, than we cannot talk.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. has ample evidence that its followers do not achieve better than average goodness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you believe any belief system makes people better, than we cannot talk.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. has ample evidence that its followers do not achieve better than average goodness.

---

I don't think the absence of a belief system is possible. Do you?

---

quote:

---

You seem to be arguing that a person who believed nothing at all would be as good as anybody else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

If for example Real Presence wasn't true, but belief in the doctrine led people to live holier lives, would it be a superstition? Clearly the belief has spiritual power and therefore at the psychological level at least the Eucharist is holy and Real Presence is not a superstition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think this is one of those irregular verbs that crop up from time to time.

I have faith.
You are superstitious.
They are barking mad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We quite recently had a discussion about some of this stuff.

My answer is still the same: supertition is just what other people do when they do things that I do in a different context to the one I accept.

---

This is how most people use it.
I try not to. For me, something is superstitious when it falls outside of a belief system. So, believing breaking a mirror is "bad luck" is superstitious; but animal sacrifice, within the context of religion, isn't.
For Christians, believing an relic has power is; but for Wiccans, it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Only as you fail to understand Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Only as you fail to understand Christianity.

---

That is an assertion, not a rebuttal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

If for example Real Presence wasn't true, but belief in the doctrine led people to live holier lives, would it be a superstition? Clearly the belief has spiritual power and therefore at the psychological level at least the Eucharist is holy and Real Presence is not a superstition.

---

I thought several people had pegged this one pretty accurately on the other thread.

The characteristic of magical = superstitious thinking is causation by occult/hidden/unknown means.

If you say an effect is psychological you're sketching out the means by which it works, so it's not magic.

If you say that by performing this rite we ask God to do something, then that leaves open the possibility that He will in His wisdom decline to do so, so no causation, so it's not magic.

If you believe that under certain circumstances God is present (in an inexplicably different way to the way that he is normally present) and that this different mode of presence doesn't actually cause anything else to happen, then again no chain of causation so not superstition.

Where's the problem ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Only as you fail to understand Christianity.

---

That is an assertion, not a rebuttal.

---

LilBuddha, even if you think it is, I think Mousethief is being fair. Several shipmates have already tried on this thread to explain to you why your criticism of Christianity is founded on what you think Christianity ought to be, rather than what it is.

---

Several? Three on this thread.

Gamaliel: 'Some people do believe in relics'

And some people don't.

Enoch: 'You are not Christian, therefore you cannot understand and are not allowed to comment anyway.'*

The former is not remotely accurate and ignores that there are Christians who believe as I do on this; and the latter is not part of the rules or general practice of this forum.

*That is a paraphrase of how I understood your post. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

Mousethief: 'You don't understand.'

This is a simple statement with nothing to illustrate why it should be considered true.

On a different thread, he did say tradition. We've always done thus is not a reasoned explanation or logical defence.
And mt has opposed traditional views of Orthodoxy (his chosen variation of Christianity). So tradition has only so much weight as an argument.

Holy places misses the universal nature of God. It also is directly prejudicial against those who do not have the opportunity to encounter them and tends towards the fetishisation of things other than God. Not that it has to, but that is a tendency.
The same with relics.
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Another example: The Pentecostal tradition I grew up in would have scoffed at sacramentality, at the idea objects could be conduits of God's grace. And yet, somehow, objects could have demons attached to them.

I really think some of these discrepancies just point to historic rifts in the Church. Loaded words like "vain superstition" get bandied about to try to stop people in the new/reformed church from continuing former practices that the church authorities want to purge for whatever reason.

I wonder, too, if it's necessary in this context to nail down a definition of "superstition." It's not being used as a technical term, but a pejorative one.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, but some Pentecostals do go in for 'sacred objects' and so on without realising that's what they are doing.

My brother-in-law's parents pioneered a Pentecostal church in the docklands of Cardiff. When he was growing up Southern US preachers were forever coming along and ripping his parents big time - getting them to subscribe to magazines and 'blessing pacts' and ordering 'anointed' handkerchiefs and soil and sand that had apparently been 'blessed' through their association with particular locations favoured by these US evangelists for their rallies and conventions.

The irony seemed to escape them that they would mock and criticise Catholics for doing ostensibly the same sort of things.

@lilBuddha - I can certainly understand your objections - you seem like a very 'Protestant' Buddhist ...

If I understand you rightly, you are saying that if we invest this, that or the other location, object, practice or whatever else with particular spiritual significance we are thereby denying it to other locations, objects, practices or whatever else that aren't associated with the same ...

Which is a bit like saying that because I might celebrate my birthday on a particular day, I'm saying that all the other days in the year lack significance ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Or, to put it another way, as T S Eliot did in 'Little Gidding' - and I hope this doesn't breach any copyright regulations:

'There are three conditions which often look alike
Yet differ completely ...
Attachment to self and to things and to persons, detachment
From self and from things and from persons; and, growing between them, indifference'

Eliot goes on to to observe that 'indifference' resembles the others as 'death resembles life.'

What is he saying here?

That both 'attachment' and 'detachment' (is that non-attachment in the Buddhist sense, or something like it?) can be life affirming, whereas indifference is the opposite?

Of course, there are some Buddhist notes in 'The Four Quartets' critics say ...

Anyhow, in my customary both/and rather than either/or way, I would argue that both 'attachment' and 'detachment' can 'flourish in the same hedgerow' as Eliot put it - and that we can found both within Christianity (and other religions I'm sure).

Is it the Hindus or the Sikhs who put their holy book to bed at night?

Are they literally saying that it goes to sleep?

At what point does any of this overstep the mark and who sets the mark in the first place?
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Enoch: 'You are not Christian, therefore you cannot understand and are not allowed to comment anyway.'*

The former is not remotely accurate and ignores that there are Christians who believe as I do on this; and the latter is not part of the rules or general practice of this forum.

*That is a paraphrase of how I understood your post. Please correct me if I misunderstood. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@lilBuddha - I can certainly understand your objections - you seem like a very 'Protestant' Buddhist ...[QB][QUOTE]
Actually, I adore tradition, grandeur and ceremony. I love and treasure places of significance and loathe bare, utilitarian spaces. But, as I said on one of the other, identical threads: The spiritual is everywhere or nowhere.
[QB][QUOTE]
If I understand you rightly, you are saying that if we invest this, that or the other location, object, practice or whatever else with particular spiritual significance we are thereby denying it to other locations, objects, practices or whatever else that aren't associated with the same ...

---

quote:

---

From Susan Doris: Superstitions range from the completely daft to almost believable, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

At some point along the scale of superstitions, they become confused with religious beliefs and it seems to me that religious beliefs are allowed to say that they are not superstitions.

---

quote:

---

They assume, and are given, a privileged position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Enoch: 'You are not Christian, therefore you cannot understand and are not allowed to comment anyway.'*

The former is not remotely accurate and ignores that there are Christians who believe as I do on this; and the latter is not part of the rules or general practice of this forum.

*That is a paraphrase of how I understood your post. Please correct me if I misunderstood. ...

---

Yes, you have misunderstood. I'm not saying you're not allowed to comment. I'm saying it ill behoves you as a Buddhist to tell Christians what is and isn't true to our faith, just as it would be if I as a Christian were to tell you as a Buddhist what is and isn't true to yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, if I were to cite something that some Buddhists believe and say that this represented Buddhism as a whole, you wouldn't pick me up on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair enough.

But you do seem to be taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a tenable position within Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTSF?? People start a thread discussing aspects of Christianity and I participate. You would be hard pressed to find a thread on which everyone agrees, so why is my opinion "taking it upon" myself

---

quote:

---

If you believe any belief system makes people better, than we cannot talk.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. has ample evidence that its followers do not achieve better than average goodness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem I have with holy places or saint’s bits and bobs is that it runs counter to the general premise of the Christian God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In what way? The Christian God is Incarnational last time I looked ...

---

Well, no. He incarnated at one point. There is a difference. One not without its own problems.

quote:

---

As with Judaism, there is something very 'physical' about Christianity.

It's not a 'disembodied' religion.

---

Not relevant. To say God is more in one place than another automatically gives a preference to some and a deficit to those who cannot be there or touch that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
AFAIK it's all Christians (well, barring the we-don't-do-miracles-types) who believe that Christ retains his body. It's sort of the point of the Ascension. WhatImeantersay is, it's the mainstream Christian belief, not just for conservatives.

ETA, curiously: Why doesn't it make sense?

---

A body is a limit on the unlimited. An unnecessary thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Right. So you're agreeing with me?

---

lol, no. Exactly the opposite. The concept that Jesus rose bodily into heaven is a limitation of how our minds operate. None of heaven being a place or bodies residing in it makes any real sense, even in the context of religion. Not Christianity, anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But I’d also have to say that they way those perspectives and challenges are expressed often comes across to me as saying “You Christians don't really understand your religion or the Bible as well as I do." And that, I think, is what has rubbed some the wrong way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTSF?? People start a thread discussing aspects of Christianity and I participate. You would be hard pressed to find a thread on which everyone agrees, so why is my opinion "taking it upon" myself

---

quote:

---

If you believe any belief system makes people better, than we cannot talk.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. has ample evidence that its followers do not achieve better than average goodness.

---

I think the two have something to do with each other. You have done made the natives restless.

As you know, every Christian is better for being a Christian. Sort of like the Masons claim they can take a good man and make him better. Or the Druids can take a good person and make that person a tree, or blue, or something.

Everyone knows that Christians don't do bad things unless their theology disagrees with your own* Christian theology.

_________
* Present company excepted lilBuddha.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be honest, though, I think if my board name were lilChristian, the response would not have happened.
Which I find irrational.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But I’d also have to say that they way those perspectives and challenges are expressed often comes across to me as saying “You Christians don't really understand your religion or the Bible as well as I do." And that, I think, is what has rubbed some the wrong way.

---

quote:

---

People do not like their views being challenged. It activates the same regions in one's brain responsible for fight or flight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

quote:

---

From Susan Doris: Superstitions range from the completely daft to almost believable, I suppose.

---

At the completely daft end of the scale I would place holding one's collar when having seen an ambulance and not being allowed to let go until you see a four legged animal, otherwise something terrible will happen to you. = Pretty Daft. (the stuff of children at play).

At the almost believable end I would place examples like, not walking under a ladder and refusing the third light for your cigarette from a single match.

The daft end of the scale is just irrationally stupid and ignorant i.e. superstitious.
The almost believable end is a leftover tribal memory based on lifesavingly sensible advice. [./QUOTE]
Agreed! I think I was fortunate to be a child in a home where superstitions were explained and never taken seriously. CofE church-going and God were an integral part of life, but biblical stories were just that, stories, and were taught and read as how to and how not to behave. The only thing believed and accepted without question was God himself.

quote:

---

Yes and so, of course, do religions range from the completely daft to the 'almost' or even experientially believable.

[QUOTE]At some point along the scale of superstitions, they become confused with religious beliefs and it seems to me that religious beliefs are allowed to say that they are not superstitions.

---

That might be because, so far, you have perhaps yet to experience anything which fits into your definition of a 'religious experience'.

---

quote:

---

If you had had such an experience and were convinced that it was 'real'

---

quote:

---

You also might thereafter be offended, were someone who had no idea what kind of religious experience you had had, referred to it as mere superstition and dismissed your subjective experience as mere delusion.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

They assume, and are given, a privileged position.

---

I don't think it is a privilege to be only accorded the ability of rational thought if one is an atheist; and who is it that confers this supposedly privileged position you speak of and seem to envy, anyway?

---

quote:

---

My dictionary defines superstition as: n false worship or religion; an ignorant or irrational belief in supernatural agency, omens, divination, sorcery etc; a deep-rooted but unfounded general belief; a rite or practice proceeding from superstitious belief or fear.

I think the thread OP is primarily about the double standards surrounding what various worship communities label 'superstitious belief and practice' in other or rival worship communities. A kind of Pot calling the kettle black mentality among religious people.

---

quote:

---

I fear, human nature being what it is, this tendency will continue among the spiritually immature and of course especially among the non-religious and philosophical atheists, many of whom believe themselves to have shaken off the shackles of superstition, thus becoming supremely rational, to the extent that they are then qualified to declare ALL religion, without exception, mere superstition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...Why do we worship God? The primary answer to that is because God has revealed Himself to us as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer. Adoration and thanksgiving correspond to this aspect of worship - we worship God for who He is and for what He has done for us. Thus, Psalm 136 seems to express this adoration and adoration in a very comprehensive way...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I will not apologise for discussing the thread topic and placing challenges.

---

quote:

---

I am not saying I understand better than anyone. I am saying this is how I understand it and am challenging the defences that do not appear to be adequate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But I’d also have to say that they way those perspectives and challenges are expressed often comes across to me as saying “You Christians don't really understand your religion or the Bible as well as I do." And that, I think, is what has rubbed some the wrong way.

---

Thank you Nick. I couldn't have put it better. It's that, and not a question of,

quote:

---

People do not like their views being challenged. It activates the same regions in one's brain responsible for fight or flight.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...Why do we worship God? The primary answer to that is because God has revealed Himself to us as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer. Adoration and thanksgiving correspond to this aspect of worship - we worship God for who He is and for what He has done for us. Thus, Psalm 136 seems to express this adoration and adoration in a very comprehensive way...

---

Couldn't agree less (creation hurts like hell) and more. Psalm 136 being immanent and transcendent with, Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Perhaps it was too sweeping a statement, yes. By 'supremely rational' I had in mind the attitude of the ilk of Prof. Dawkins et al. not all atheists in general. I have close relatives and friends who are avowed atheists who do not consider themselves 'supremely rational' when communicating with people of 'faith'. I accept that there is a place for rational thought, we should value it highly but it should not necessarily trump 'faith' by labeling it 'superstition'. Gracious people don't.

---

quote:

---

By 'spiritually immature' I intended to imply that spiritual maturity would be an attitude that has grown beyond 'finger pointing' and 'double standards' in the evaluation of other peoples cherished 'beliefs'.

---

quote:

---

By all means we should educate people by suggesting alternatives to their way of thinking, (if it would improve things for them), but it is uncharitable to simply condemn their, (perhaps ignorant religious practices from an educated point of view), as superstitious nonsense,

---

quote:

---

…particularly if their beliefs have 'seemed to work for them' for generations, and there is not something significantly better on offer with which to replace them.

By the way, never dismiss a personal 'spiritual' experience because others seem unimpressed. Always check it out against the teaching of Christ and file it away under '(I), for interesting' and wait patiently for the next one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interestingly, I had similar 'experiences' as a child to the one SusanDoris describes. I think a lot of kids do.

Those have got no bearing on my faith position now.

I'm not a believer because I thought I heard 'voices' as a child or because I've had a few apparently 'spiritual experiences' since.

I'm quite prepared to accept that there are scientific, readily explainable reasons for these.

My faith doesn't stand or fall on whether I've had this, that or the other spiritual experience.
I'm not sure that any of the theists here are claiming such a thing either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.

---

Sorry I shouldn't have written "primary". Well, indeed, this is why natural religion is defective or incomplete, and lends itself easily to superstition. Religion requires revelation both to attain and transcend its natural end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.

---

Sorry I shouldn't have written "primary". Well, indeed, this is why natural religion is defective or incomplete, and lends itself easily to superstition. Religion requires revelation both to attain and transcend its natural end.

---

Nicely, deeply put. And no apology necessary. You filled in the implicit gap between the thread and where we've taken it.

I'd continued my response to your request, as I'd only answered the first half, with:

'But He takes responsibility for creation as demonstrated in the incarnation. He shared the unavoidable Hell with us and trumped it.'

And then saw your latest post; mine above possibly evokes a suggestion of the revelation to which you refer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think what rankled a bit and I didn't articulate it very well, was the way - IMHO - that you didn't apparently hear us out. It could be that this is because the conversation is ranging over several related threads now - relics, special places, hocus pocus .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But I’d also have to say that they way those perspectives and challenges are expressed often comes across to me as saying “You Christians don't really understand your religion or the Bible as well as I do." And that, I think, is what has rubbed some the wrong way.

---

Thank you Nick. I couldn't have put it better. It's that, and not a question of,

quote:

---

People do not like their views being challenged. It activates the same regions in one's brain responsible for fight or flight.

---

---

Which comes across as passive-aggressive as all fuck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, that's not the implication at all, intended or otherwise.

I'm sure we all of us recognise that you are knowledgeable and have the right to comment.

That's not the issue.

---

quote:

---

The issue was that it come across as though you were claiming to know more about our religion and how it 'should' operate than we do ourselves.

---

You cannot see this?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


I'm only 'proprietorial' to the extent that Christianity is my religion and not yours.

That doesn't mean I'm dismissing out of hand any comment you make about it just because you aren't 'on the inside as it were.'

It was a question of tone, I think. It wasn't so much what you said as the way you said it.

It sounded to me, and it would seem to others here, that you were saying, 'Look guys, I'm a Buddhist and even I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'

Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but that's not how it sounded.

I'm not sure if that makes things any clearer.

I'm not at all saying that you have no right whatsoever to comment. Of course you have. Heck, I very much enjoy reading your comments here on Ship and find myself in broad agreement with much of what you say.

I don't think I'm particularly touchy either.

But the way I read your posts - and it's a matter of interpretation and I'm open to correction - was as though you were saying, 'Look you saps, I know more about this Christianity business than you do and I can tell you that you've got it all wrong ...'

Can you not see that?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was a question of tone, I think. It wasn't so much what you said as the way you said it.

It sounded to me, and it would seem to others here, that you were saying, 'Look guys, I'm a Buddhist and even I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'

Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but that's ... how it sounded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was a question of tone, I think. It wasn't so much what you said as the way you said it.

It sounded to me, and it would seem to others here, that you were saying, 'Look guys, I'm a Buddhist and even I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'

Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but that's ... how it sounded.

---

This.

---

Gamaliel makes a statement that specifically states that an outsider comment is less welcome¹ than an insider one whilst trying to posit the reverse and you think he is spot on?

Being a Christian does not impart knowledge. A massive number of Christians have little knowledge of their own theology.² This is true even in the sects with a formal catechism.

I am not a theologian and am claiming no such authority. What I am saying is that being, or not being, Christian has no bearing on the validity of what anyone says in the framework of this discussion.
If the complaint were purely me saying
'Look guys, I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'
Then 100% I'd agree that it could appear rude.
But the inclusion of 'I'm a Buddhist' in the original quote is inherently exclusionary.
Especially when I am saying nothing "as a Buddhist" here. I am saying what I say within the confines of Christianity. Anything "as a Buddhist" is inferred by the reader.


¹knowledgeable, authoritative, whatever
²True of any religion, of course.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
How could I be otherwise, though when your moniker states who you are, 'lilBuddha'?

Is that not exclusivist

You are not 'lilCatholic' or 'lilMuslim' or 'lilHindu' or 'lilMormon.'

If any of us are 'projecting' Buddhism onto you then it's because it's what you are saying on your tin.

I repeat. I have no problem with you commenting from Buddhist or any other perspective. Great. Bring it on.

That's not and never has been the issue.

The issue is that you are setting yourself up as judge and jury as to what Christians 'ought' to believe despite not being one yourself.

It'd be like me presuming to tell Muslims how they ought to believe and behave, or Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Jews or any other faith.

I can't speak with any particular insight about Buddhism because I'm not a Buddhist. That's not 'exclusivism' it's simply stating a fact.

It sure you know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than I know about Buddhism. But you seem to think that you know more about it than Shippies who are knowledgeable and practicing Christians do. Of course there are a range of views and perspectives within Christianity and none of us are catechised to the nth degree, but surely those who are practitioners of any faith position are best placed to pontificate about what it is or isn't about?
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Gamaliel makes a statement that specifically states that an outsider comment is less welcome¹ than an insider one whilst trying to posit the reverse and you think he is spot on?

---

quote:

---

From Gamaliel Interestingly, I had similar 'experiences' as a child to the one Susan Doris describes. I think a lot of kids do.

---

quote:

---

From Gamaliel I'm not a believer because I thought I heard 'voices' as a child or because I've had a few apparently 'spiritual experiences' since.

---

quote:

---

From Gamaliel I'm quite prepared to accept that there are scientific, readily explainable reasons for these.

---

quote:

---

From Gamaliel My faith doesn't stand or fall on whether I've had this, that or the other spiritual experience.

---

quote:

---

From Gamaliel I'm not sure that any of the theists here are claiming such a thing either.

---

quote:

---

From Susan Doris That is not what I do – unless you can cite an instance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[That's not what Gamaliel said. What he said is not welcome or appreciated is a tone of superiority, a tone that suggests “you people don't understand your religion as well as you think you do or as well as I do." And that is the tone that some of your posts have conveyed, whether intended or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

If any of us are 'projecting' Buddhism onto you then it's because it's what you are saying on your tin.

---

quote:

---

It sure you know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than I know about Buddhism. But you seem to think that you know more about it than Shippies who are knowledgeable and practicing Christians do.

---

Practise is meaningless in terms of knowledge, in religion at least. Though I will full well concede that there are many posters here whose knowledge of Christianity far exceeds mine. This includes you, mt and LC. But that doesn't mean you are correct in every particular. No one knows everything or gets it all correct and we are all susceptible to belief trumping reason and uncritical acceptance.

An example of practise not always giving knowledge is your use of the word practise. Though I am certain you have been practising English for a number of years longer than I, you are still misspelling it.

ETA:When critiquing spelling, make sure you get it right yourself.

[ 13. January 2018, 20:58: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[That's not what Gamaliel said. What he said is not welcome or appreciated is a tone of superiority, a tone that suggests “you people don't understand your religion as well as you think you do or as well as I do." And that is the tone that some of your posts have conveyed, whether intended or not.

---

The tone I have apologised for. But, at worst, it would be me against particular posters, not me against all Christians.
I replied to actual posts, never making a blanket 'all Christians' post. I am addressing specific claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gamaliel makes a statement that specifically states that an outsider comment is less welcome¹ than an insider one whilst trying to posit the reverse and you think he is spot on?

---

quote:

---

Practise is meaningless in terms of knowledge, in religion at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you will forgive me for asking, Susan Doris, was your transition from religious faith to atheism a sudden thing, or gradual?

---

I started to write a reply this afternoon, but was distracted by a headache - I never have headaches. I have just returned from ~A& E - it was either a small bleed in the brain not a TIA, or a TIA, but either way, I'm okay now, so will reply tomorrow!!
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 

 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This is disingenuous. That's not what Gamaliel said.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Practise is meaningless in terms of knowledge, in religion at least.

---

That's your belief. In this you are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This is disingenuous. That's not what Gamaliel said.

---

It is what he said. If the comment were simply that I, as a person, were wrong to say someone else was wrong, then it would purely be about tone or me. But when the qualification of Buddhism is added in, that makes it an insider v. outsider issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What he said was that outsider comments and perspective are welcome and valued, but that the tone for which you’ve apologized, which was directly connected to the context of an outsider speaking to insiders, was not appreciated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What he said was that outsider comments and perspective are welcome and valued, but that the tone for which you’ve apologized, which was directly connected to the context of an outsider speaking to insiders, was not appreciated.

---

bold mine, for emphasis.
Which says that if I were considered an insider, there would be no issue. It says outsiders are welcome if they are properly deferential.

I'm an outsider? Nine years and more than 17,000 posts, most in Purg, and I am an outsider.
Depressing, that is.

---

Oh please. You are, in fact, an outsider to Christianity. Because you're not a Christian. This is not a difficult concept. And yes, outsiders need to be properly deferential. If I were at a The Magazine of Buddhist Unrest and having a conversation with Buddhists, I would not start telling them what they believe or should believe, or what was or was not contradictory to their beliefs or practices. It would simply be rude. I might say, "That doesn't seem to square with what you said over here" or "aren't there other Buddhists who believe X, Y, and Z?" But I would not state flatly, "That is inimical to what Buddhism, at its very heart, is about."
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 


What mousethief said.
 

---

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Reading through over the days, is there a need to define what is what among: faith, superstition, belief, hope, other terms.

Example:
Is it superstition to pray the same prayer each morning because it brings a sense of security or comfort for the day? even if the person praying expects no influence on the world, but merely find it sets them up feeling better for the day ahead? Would this person be said to have a faith? or just a belief that experience has taught them that this gives them an improved sense of optimism for that day ahead (hope).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you will forgive me for asking, Susan Doris, was your transition from religious faith to atheism a sudden thing, or gradual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Have you guys given any consideration to the implications of your use of the "Not a Christian" card in this thread?

As in, who might be qualified, or not qualified, to participate with you on the ship?

What about Hindus, or Muslims, or atheists? Should they be properly deferential as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Have you guys given any consideration to the implications of your use of the "Not a Christian" card in this thread?

As in, who might be qualified, or not qualified, to participate with you on the ship?

What about Hindus, or Muslims, or atheists? Should they be properly deferential as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I wouldn't presume to tell a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim that I understand their religion better than they do themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, lilBuddha, you've apologised for your tone. Perhaps you'd now like to apologise for misrepresenting what I wrote?

---

quote:

---

Then we can move on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't presume to tell a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim that I understand their religion better than they do themselves.

---

And that I have never done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's got nothing to do with deference, Tortuf. It's about presumption.

I wouldn't presume to tell a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim that I understand their religion better than they do themselves.

It's got nothing to do with denying lilBuddha the right to comment.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0