Ship of Fools: the value of believing 'wrong' things

Thread: the value of believing 'wrong' things Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023862

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I can explain this thought too well, but let me try:

Maybe objective claims of what is correct or incorrect miss the point of something having value even if (at some level of objectivity) it can be proven to be wrong or overblown or exaggerated.

For example, I recently met some young people who had returned from a few days in a famous field in the South West of England. They spoke of a powerful touch of the Holy Spirit, feelings of elation and so on.

Let me quickly say that at their age I also experienced such things at similar kinds of events so I know what that feels like. On the other hand, I tend to have fairly skeptical views of these things these days, and much of what I heard sounded like hype. And the elation I've experienced at large 'worship events' feels to me to be very similar to that I've experienced at large sporting events.

But does it actually matter? Is there benefit in these young people in ascribing their experiences to a touch of God – even if it is just whipped up emotionism?

Or take a different example: a church is praying for a sick friend. After considerable 'effort' - vigils and the like - the friend gets better. It turns out that although he was sick, the illness was worse than thought and studies show that the vast majority of patients recover on their own. Does it really matter if people in the church are describing this as miraculous?

Or put another way, is belief just a choice?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Don't numerous self-help gurus advise that we must believe in ourselves? What about the Olympic athletes-- didn't most of them believe that they could win a gold medal? Most of them never will, but the belief has inspired them to excel.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Yes, it matters. Truth is important.

I think that there can be value in believing wrong things - on the assumption that your young people are mistaking emotion for the Spirit, that error might still give them faith to resist some temptation or the impetus to do some good, but the error itself is still wrong.

I think that God lets us make mistakes. I think he uses them for our good and for the good of others, sometimes. I don't think that is reason enough to stop caring about truth. We should not proclaim something to be a miracle unless we have good reason to.

On the specific examples you give, I would be much less quick to say that the miraculous explanation wasn't true, but on the assumption that it wasn't, I would still say that natural emotions and natural recovery from illness and good things that we can properly thank God for, without making them out to be something more than that.

[ 11. September 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If the wrong things you believe are dangerous things, then we all (may) suffer for it. Perhaps you believe "women are inherently evil and should be controlled" -- Maybe it gives you a good feeling to believe that, and draws you closer to God. But it's clearly pernicious and has the potential to give rise to great evil. Other examples may come to mind.

Beliefs that are in accord with reality, it seems to me, are less likely to do so.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I have mentioned before that one of my favorite movies is "Second-Hand Lions." In it, Robert Duvall makes this wonderful speech to his nephew. That strikes me as exactly right.

--Tom Clune

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Right, what tclune said. Maybe it is less about whether something is right or wrong (correct or incorrect) but whether they are useful things to believe..

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

As others have indicated, the question would seem to be what result arises from the belief. A belief may not be harmful in itself, but the consequences which flow from that belief could be beneficial or harmful.

For example, it may be relatively harmless to believe that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Indeed, at one time that would not even be called a "belief" it was "reality" proven by the fact that you could stand on the earth and not feel it moving but could watch the sun and stars whirl around it--proof that the "truth" was that the earth stood still.

That belief/reality/truth could be harmless. As Sherlock Holmes commented (in A Study in Scarlet) what difference would it make to his day to day life whether the sun moved around the earth or the earth around the sun or around the moon?

On the other hand, that belief could become harmful if you take issue with somebody suggesting that, perhaps, the earth went around the sun. And, taking issue with that belief, you decide this heliocentrist should be put in prison or tortured or whatever until he recants.

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Or put another way, is belief just a choice?

I am not sure I understand this question.

No. Let me rephrase that. I am sure that I don't understand the question.

In one sense, each person chooses to believe whatever they choose to believe, of course. On the other hand, if I truly believe in something, I would not personally see it as a choice--what would the other choice be? Not believing in something that I truly believe in? That is an inherent contradiction. If I truly believe in something for reasons that I find compelling, I cannot logically not-believe it until those underlying reasons are no longer compelling to me--i.e., I cannot "choose" to not believe something I believe in until I no longer believe in it. I would not call that a "choice."

Suppose I am a geocentrist--for the reasons stated above. The fact of my self-perception of non-movement of the earth (outside of the occasional earthquake) and my self-perception of the sun and stars moving across the sky convince me. My belief in geocentrism is a result of my conclusions from observation/perception/life experiences. I would not call it a belief but a "reality."

Then some smart-aleck mathematician comes along and points out that my explanation for the movement of the stars and planets is horribly complicated, convoluted and inadequate, what with retrograde motions and all. The smart-aleck then explains to me that all of this could more easily be explained if I simply accept that the earth is moving around the sun and the sun and stars are (relatively) not moving. Once I accept that this viewpoint more clearly describes the nature of things, I abandon my geocentrist view and become a heliocentrist. Again, I would not call it a "belief" but a "reality" based on my new understanding of The Way Things Work.

I suppose technically it is a "choice" of mine to be come heliocentrist, but really, because I am no longer convinced that geocentrism adequately explains things, I would not personally view it as a "choice"--my definition of what constitutes "reality" has changed. An outside observer might say that I made the choice to become heliocentrist, but from my own viewpoint I have not "chosen a belief," I have "accepted a reality."

Choice is a strange concept.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Yes, it matters, particularly when there are real life consequences. My belief in prayer and the love of God has gotten me into a crisis of faith. Where a person may recover and it is attributed partly or fully to prayer, and another person does not recover yet prayers may be also said, means that the belief in the positive situation harmed those in the second. I have been harmed by this second idea.

That said, truth does not apply to things of aesthetic value. Things like art, music, well spoken words, and these can touch the feelings in ways that ring true to the soul, and the truth and falsity ideas cannot touch them.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Truth matters, but the degree of harm caused by honest error is going to depend very much on individual circumstances.

There is also the problem that figurung out what exactly IS the truth can be very difficult. I wouldn't want to run down the religiously ecstatic teenagers' experiene simply because I had once gone through something similar that turned out to be phony. I might attempt to calm them down a tad, but who's to say that my experience is exactly parallel to theirs? They might have gotten luckier than I and hit something real. If I'm not sure, I prefer the Gamaliel approach--wait and see.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@hedgehog - I agree, choice is a strange concept in terms of faith. And I agree there are some things which can definitively be said to be right or wrong, like heliocentrism.

But what I'm trying to get at is that we can choose on some level what to believe. One might find amble evidence to believe the world is a dark and depressing place, one might also be able to find evidence it is a place of hope and excitement. I'm not trying to say you can explain away depression, but at some level we can consciously decide how we look at things and what to believe about them.

Or maybe it is a case of accepting that you are uncomfortable with something on the surface (say my example with the charismatic above), but choose to believe that this is unlikely to harm those involved. I could also chose to believe it is dangerous and evil and disassociate myself from those people, of course.

I dunno, it isn't an easy thing to articulate. When my friend told me that he was able to chose what to believe, it sounded ridiculous. I'm not so sure now.

@no_prophet - yes, I can see that. But even there, I have a choice to either believe that prayer is total bunk or to believe that generally it is harmless and/or sometimes it is beautiful/generous/important and/or occasionally it is harmful. I'm inclined to believe it is bunk, but maybe I need chose to believe something more positive about my religious compatriots.

@Lamb Chopped - that is sort of my point. I've experienced similar things, I interpret the words these young people use in a skeptical way. On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. So maybe it is more profitable to chose to believe that either it is harmless or that there might be something in it.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

The pragmatic relativism of the OP is pretty much the zeitgeist. It's the standard I'll-considered path of least resistance in a nominally secular but essentially pluralistic culture.

Consequently, it probably is the most 'useful' and convenient to way of thinking about belief. But that's all it is and nothing more. For all of its apparent magnanimity it is, at its heart, a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I don't see it as relativism. I'm not saying that anything goes, just a choice about seeing things in terms of their benefits rather than whether they are right/wrong.

Of course, you can chose to believe something else about it if you like.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

But isn't the hidden claim of your position that the 'right' way of thinking about belief is in terms of benefit, not truth?I don't think you've abandoned all recourse to notions right and wrong or truth and error. I think you've simply moved to the definition of 'rightness' and 'truth' into the parameters of your own claim.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Well as I said this is a difficult thing to discuss.

I believe that the charismatic is a load of old crap and hype and bunk. At the same time, I can chose to believe that it is either a) harmful and evil or b) mostly harmless.

I said as much in the title and original post of this thread.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I believe that the charismatic is a load of old crap and hype and bunk.

Well, it seems to me that you've got to the nub of your own issue.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it seems to me that you've got to the nub of your own issue.

Right, I'll assume you've nothing useful to add then.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it seems to me that you've got to the nub of your own issue.
Right, I'll assume you've nothing useful to add then.

As I said, such relativistic pluralism is a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said, such relativistic pluralism is a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.

Listen tosspot, what I believe about any given issue is actually beside the point under discussion - I could have easily have chosen an issue which you felt strongly about.

I couldn't care less what you think about the charismatic, as it happens that is not the issue under discussion. If you had actually read and engaged with the title and opening post, you'd know that.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

What if the majority of people on earth had gone on and on believing that the earth was the centre of the universe, or that the earth was flat, or that you ought to bleed people to cure them of illness. What if this stunted the progress of scientific progress?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

If you really believed the relativism of own OP you wouldn't be getting upset when someone disagrees with you. After all, there's no right and wrong and true and false is there?

[x-posted: to the long ranger]

[ 12. September 2012, 09:04: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you really believed the relativism of own OP you wouldn't be getting upset when someone disagrees with you. After all, there's no right and wrong and true and false is there?

I didn't actually say that. In fact I said the opposite. I said that there is a choice to be made about what to believe about people who accept wrong things. By wrong, I mean wrong. Read the OP.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Have I read the OP correctly or incorrectly?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said, such relativistic pluralism is a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.
Listen tosspot ...

You don't get to do that in Purgatory, it's a violation of Commandment 3. If it's a one off reaction, fine, you can drop it. If it represents a more enduring pissed-offness, please take it to Hell. But either way, cut out the personal insults here.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Why don't we consider the OP in a different light. Forget about relativism, but may I suggest that:

We don't know for sure that the Holy Spirit doesn't move, nor ever has, at these giant spectacular evangelistic events, do we? They may not be our cup of tea, but who are we to quench the Spirit?
We don't know for sure that every healing we ever knew is purely down to natural law and medical science, and that God never answers prayer, nor intervenes, do we?
So it could be that these young people were right all along, and we are wrong, same with those who believe their prayers have been answered.

So, instead of talking about "relativism", let's just keep an open mind about things we can't really be sure about.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's certainly correct that we don't know anything for sure. However, normally we go off what is reasonable, and for which evidence can be supplied.

Thus, it possible that I am being controlled by aliens. However, I am not haunted by this idea.

It is possible that some healings are miraculous. However, there is no evidence for that, and there cannot be, if we take evidence to mean something naturalistic.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I recently met some young people who had returned from a few days in a famous field in the South West of England. They spoke of a powerful touch of the Holy Spirit, feelings of elation and so on.

Let me quickly say that at their age I also experienced such things at similar kinds of events so I know what that feels like. On the other hand, I tend to have fairly skeptical views of these things these days, and much of what I heard sounded like hype. And the elation I've experienced at large 'worship events' feels to me to be very similar to that I've experienced at large sporting events.

It kind of sounds as though you're a weary older guy who's not excited by faith anymore, and you resent younger people getting excited about faith.... You want them to be low-key, quiet and respectable about these things, just as you are! But I'm sure I've just got totally the wrong impression about that!

On the positive side, though, you could see faith as a journey. These young people will probably end up more like you once they've passed through the spiritual and emotionally fraught excitement of the Christian festival scene. Excitement isn't a permanent thing. It transmutes into something different over time.
Perhaps the journey is valuable for the experience that's picked up along the way, for the lessons that will be learnt, even though some of the things someone might believe along the way will be 'wrong'.

And in terms of the wider church, there's certainly some value in this kind of spirituality. To put it bluntly, it keeps some young people in the church. Things can be 'toned down' later. There seems to be a degree of movement between charismatic churches and the more low-key mainstream, depending on the various life-stages that people are going through. But it's far more likely that a spiritually hyped up charismatic teenager will enter middle age as a calm, reflective Anglican than for an indifferent atheist teenager to do so, so perhaps you shouldn't be too quick to disapprove of this kind of faith. Things will happen in their own time.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think it's dangerous to choose what you will believe based solely on how useful it is to you, and leaving out truth. There are many, many ramifications of believing a lie, and most of them are likely to be unknown to you when you are making the choice.* But generally speaking, we know that believing and acting in a way that is out of line with the facts is dangerous. Ask any child who has put on a Superman cape and attempted to fly from the top bunk bed.

So I think it most important that we follow truth as best we see it, and that we encourage others to do the same. (I don't like taking people in to the emergency room late at night.)

* of course, this notion of "choosing" what to believe is an odd one. It seems to me that you can "choose" a philosophical stance, or a metaphysical basis from which to operate, in an "as if I believed" way. Heck, you could even choose to live "as if I believed in Christ." It would not actually BE faith, though given human tendency to grow into whatever we're pretending to be, it might soon be. But until you actually, well, BELIEVE it, it isn't belief. It is a hypothesis held at arm's length. And it may even be in conflict with something you actually do believe but haven't yet verbalized to yourself, which lies at a deeper part of your being. And since action springs from those deeply believed things, just as often or more often than from consciously entertained hypotheses, in a case like that you're likely to find your actions contradicting each other. Which is painful.

Take an example. Suppose you have a man (I'm thinking of one I have known in the past, forgive the choice of example if it offends you) who is theoretically committed to "believing" that women can fill an executive position just as ably and productively as men. Yet at a deeper, less examined level, he really holds to a belief that women are somehow less capable, less useful, and thus less worthy of that kind of position.

Such a man will say all the "right" things. He may even hire a woman to fill that executive position, and make very PC speeches about how he intends to support her. All of this is in line with the hypothesis he has chosen to "believe". He goes away patting himself on the back for being such a progressive person.

And yet, the first time she hits a major snag at work that requires his authority and support to iron out, and naturally turns to him (as any underling would, male or female), he removes it. Acting on his true, deep-seated and mostly unacknowledged belief that women are incapable fools, he not only removes from her by fiat the authority she ought properly to have and must have to resolve the situation, but he signals to the whole company that whatever he may have said or done in policy, his true belief is that women don't belong in these positions.

The real life case I am thinking of involved him doing this to a series of women, but not to the men who filled parallel positions. He then bemoaned how impossible it was to find women who were actually capable of working at the level of the men (he was not undercutting).

Looking back at that ancient history, I can see that it would have been much, much better for everyone involved if he had admitted his true belief and acted on it openly rather than attempting to "choose a belief" which conflicted with his true deep opinion. It would have made him a sexist jerk, true; but he was already that. And at least the women would have known not to take up the positions he offered them, and the pain he put them them through with his mixed messages and actions.

(and yes, I really do think he had talked himself into believing that he believed; but when the rubber hit the road, it became clear that he really didn't.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(and yes, I really do think he had talked himself into believing that he believed; but when the rubber hit the road, it became clear that he really didn't.)

I wonder how many professing Christians are in the same boat. Quite a lot, probably.

But what do we suppose the harmful aspects of their "wrong" belief may be?

[ 12. September 2012, 12:14: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I think there is value in the guy continually stating that he values women even if his actions prove otherwise*. I can't see the harm in that (at least, surely being overt about his sexism would have been even worse, no?). Don't judge God's holy law by my inability to live up to it - as Tolstoy is said to have written.

*clearly if he is unable to function in the job, that is a different thing.

Posted by Lord Clonk (# 13205) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why don't we consider the OP in a different light. Forget about relativism, but may I suggest that:

We don't know for sure that the Holy Spirit doesn't move, nor ever has, at these giant spectacular evangelistic events, do we? They may not be our cup of tea, but who are we to quench the Spirit?
We don't know for sure that every healing we ever knew is purely down to natural law and medical science, and that God never answers prayer, nor intervenes, do we?
So it could be that these young people were right all along, and we are wrong, same with those who believe their prayers have been answered.

So, instead of talking about "relativism", let's just keep an open mind about things we can't really be sure about.

This is the kind of thing I was expecting to be discussed and am still hoping will be discussed.

As far as I'm concerned the question is, what do we make of the fact that people smarter than us disagree with us about things that they have thought about more than us? And in response to this, I'm fairly settled with the idea of holding my beliefs lightly. What tempers this is the belief that a belief's value comes from the effects of holding such a belief - which gives me some leeway in being critical of dangerous beliefs.

For example, I'm not a trinitarian but I don't have an issue with people being trinitarians, except when they use it to exclude people such as myself.

I guess what I strongly dislike is when a belief is held arrogantly. I hold beliefs arrogantly myself, but it isn't to my credit. Perhaps the trick is to be confident about what you're confident about, but ever open to finding out you're misguided. Problem is that most people would say they do that... which is probably true, but I doubt they generally do it to anything close to the ideal extent.

Anyway, the belief that the content of a belief matters more than its effects is a challenge to my own views, and as such I'd like to hear more. I think it can be taken as a given that correct beliefs are generally going to have better effects, and beliefs with better effects are generally going to be more correct.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
This is the kind of thing I was expecting to be discussed and am still hoping will be discussed.

As far as I'm concerned the question is, what do we make of the fact that people smarter than us disagree with us about things that they have thought about more than us? And in response to this, I'm fairly settled with the idea of holding my beliefs lightly. What tempers this is the belief that a belief's value comes from the effects of holding such a belief - which gives me some leeway in being critical of dangerous beliefs.

I think this is what I meant in the original post. But I'm not sure what it means. How does anyone decide on which are dangerous and which are uplifting beliefs?

quote:
For example, I'm not a trinitarian but I don't have an issue with people being trinitarians, except when they use it to exclude people such as myself.

I guess what I strongly dislike is when a belief is held arrogantly. I hold beliefs arrogantly myself, but it isn't to my credit. Perhaps the trick is to be confident about what you're confident about, but ever open to finding out you're misguided. Problem is that most people would say they do that... which is probably true, but I doubt they generally do it to anything close to the ideal extent.

Well, I guess the problem with holding everything as some kind of provisional belief is that you're never really confident about anything. I struggle to believe that is a useful state to be in.

quote:
Anyway, the belief that the content of a belief matters more than its effects is a challenge to my own views, and as such I'd like to hear more. I think it can be taken as a given that correct beliefs are generally going to have better effects, and beliefs with better effects are generally going to be more correct.

Interesting. The truth will set you free.

Only.. I'm not sure it is like that. 'Correct' beliefs can be as bad as 'wrong' ones. Wrong beliefs might have better effects.

Reminding a small person that they're small, ignorant and never likely to amount to anything might be true, unless they're Einstein. Telling a child that they can become anything if they put their mind to it might well be untrue (if the statistics show that this isn't really true), but might inspire someone to break through to become the one person who does something unexpected and incredible.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think there is value in the guy continually stating that he values women even if his actions prove otherwise*. I can't see the harm in that (at least, surely being overt about his sexism would have been even worse, no?).

Wouldn't it be much better if he'd acknowledged (at least to one or two people) his struggles to conform to the social expectations of his company, and then got help to deal with them? The hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing something completely different is utterly poisonous, ISTM.

It's also worth saying, seeing as this is a website about Christianity (but not 'A Christian Website'!), that Jesus was not a fan of hypocrisy. Indeed, I gather he was the first to use the word in this sense of doing one thing and saying another, such was his hatred of the practice.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Lord Clonk, are you using the word 'arrogantly' in this context as a near synonym for 'conviction' or 'certitude', or are you referring to a particular way of expressing one's convictions and certitudes?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Wouldn't it be much better if he'd acknowledged (at least to one or two people) his struggles to conform to the social expectations of his company, and then got help to deal with them? The hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing something completely different is utterly poisonous, ISTM.

Dunno. Maybe he wasn't even aware that he was behaving in that way and truly believed that he was being fair to everyone. Repeating to yourself the words of the kind of person you want to be is a good thing, in my view.

I don't think that is hypocrisy unless he is deliberately papering over the faults he is aware of in his own life and projecting an image of himself that he knows is not accurate. Maybe that is what is happening.

More often, in my view, people exhibit things they're not even aware of doing and are the kind of person they themselves mentally deplore. That is a lack of self-knowledge, not hypocrisy.

quote:
It's also worth saying, seeing as this is a website about Christianity (but not 'A Christian Website'!), that Jesus was not a fan of hypocrisy. Indeed, I gather he was the first to use the word in this sense of doing one thing and saying another, such was his hatred of the practice.

I'm no expert, but I think the word being used is the same one used of actors. Are one thing, am pretending to be something else.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
How does anyone decide on which are dangerous and which are uplifting beliefs?

Not to mention the question "dangerous to whom?" Dangerous to the believer? Dangerous to society? Dangerous to the ruling elite? I suspect that most of the beliefs that the Church leaders decry as "dangerous" actually fall under the latter.

quote:
Well, I guess the problem with holding everything as some kind of provisional belief is that you're never really confident about anything. I struggle to believe that is a useful state to be in.

It depends on how you look at it. Someone who's not really confident about their beliefs, as you put it, is far less likely to insist that others agree with them or to persecute others on the basis of those beliefs. I'd say that's better. Certainty leads to the Inquisition.

Just think how much more tolerant the world would be if all the hardline conservatives were "not really confident" about the various Dead Horse issues. Wouldn't that be a better world to live in?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just think how much more tolerant the world would be if all the hardline conservatives were "not really confident" about the various Dead Horse issues. Wouldn't that be a better world to live in?

Hmm, what if all the hardline liberals and revsionists chose a similar stance on the same issues? Would that produce a better world too? As G K Chesterton once famously said:

quote:
What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.

[ 12. September 2012, 13:21: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hmm, what if all the hardline liberals and revsionists chose a similar stance on the same issues? Would that produce a better world too?

No, because that would be a world full of persecution.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hmm, what if all the hardline liberals and revsionists chose a similar stance on the same issues? Would that produce a better world too?
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...

...of the 'wrong' people?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
of the 'wrong' people?

Of anyone who is a) weaker and b) disagrees with you (and thus disagrees with God), I suppose.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

You suppose.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?

The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.

Then your original answer *might* require reconsideration because I think both sides of the row bandy the word 'persecution' around far too easily.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.

So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then? Riiight, I can see that working...not.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then?

Have we become so neurasthenic that being called a bigot now counts as "persecution?"

--Tom Clune

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then? Riiight, I can see that working...not.

While calling someone a bigot is perhaps a bar to fully reasonable debate, it nevertheless does not on its own amount to intolerance and is certainly not by itself persecution.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You suppose.

Yes, I suppose. What do you suppose would happen if the strong and 'correct' view was a conservative POV on abortion, say? Are you seriously telling me that there would be no witch-hunts or burnings at the stake?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then? Riiight, I can see that working...not.
While calling someone a bigot is perhaps a bar to fully reasonable debate, it nevertheless does not on its own amount to intolerance and is certainly not by itself persecution.

Ah, Dafyd. It's worse than you think -- Calling someone a bigot is one thing. But the persecution appears to reside in being tempted to call someone a bigot. Ah, brave new world...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

There would be fewer abortions, I suppose.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then?
Have we become so neurasthenic that being called a bigot now counts as "persecution?"

--Tom Clune

It exposes the illiberal nature of so-called liberalism.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There would be fewer abortions, I suppose.

Really. Is that what you suppose? Well it must be true then.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There would be fewer abortions, I suppose.
Really. Is that what you suppose? Well it must be true then.

We're talking in terms of supposition, so no, it mustn't or needn't be true.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
Then your original answer *might* require reconsideration because I think both sides of the row bandy the word 'persecution' around far too easily.

Well, when I use that word I mean people being sacked (or never hired in the first place), denied access to services (public or private), deliberately kept out of any high-ranking roles in society (be it local or national), hounded, attacked, imprisoned and even killed just because of who they are and how they choose to live their lives.

Often when conservatives use it they mean they're not allowed to do any of that shit any more. But I'm happy to hear what your definition is [Smile]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Oh. Well I think there is good reason to believe that if fundamentalists of all types were less dogmatic and more open to other opinions, the situation would be better than if liberals changed to have fundamentalist views. Just me, I know..

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I think there is good reason to believe that if fundamentalists of all types were less dogmatic and more open to other opinions, the situation would be better than if liberals changed to have fundamentalist views.

My point exactly.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
Then your original answer *might* require reconsideration because I think both sides of the row bandy the word 'persecution' around far too easily.
Well, when I use that word I mean people being sacked (or never hired in the first place) ...just because of who they are and how they choose to live their lives.

Like Lilian Ladele, Gary McFarlane and Christina Summers, you mean?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like Christina Summers, you mean?

First, that isn't a job. It is an elected position.

Second, when you stand for a political party, they are entitled to decide that your views are not in keeping with the views of the party and ask you to change your views or leave the party. Nothing unreasonable there - but just illustrates the point that if you don't believe in the views of a political party, you shouldn't stand for them.

.. mind you, I was once asked to stand for the Greens in a local election despite not being a member. I told the local organiser he was out of his mind.

[ 12. September 2012, 15:38: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like Lilian Ladele, Gary McFarlane and Christina Summers, you mean?

None of those people was sacked* purely because of who they were and how they chose to live their lives, they were sacked* because they refused to do the jobs their employers were paying them to do**.

.

*= or kicked out of their political party.
**= or to abide by the policies their party espoused.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

In fact, that's a perfect illustration of my point that when conservatives say "we're being persecuted", what they really mean is "we're not being allowed to persecute others any more".

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
Then your original answer *might* require reconsideration because I think both sides of the row bandy the word 'persecution' around far too easily.
Well, when I use that word I mean people being sacked (or never hired in the first place), denied access to services (public or private), deliberately kept out of any high-ranking roles in society (be it local or national), hounded, attacked, imprisoned and even killed just because of who they are and how they choose to live their lives.

I pretty much agree with that definition, including high-ranking roles in society. I can say that because I am a firm believer in the theology of two kingdoms which, incidentally, includes an affection for the separation of church and state.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

...or, "we're not allowed to live out our beliefs in good conscience".

Different perspectives and never the twain shall meet...

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or, "we're not allowed to live out our beliefs in good conscience".

But that is the lie at the heart of the narrative: nobody is stopping you being a believer. In fact, nobody is even saying you cannot be someone who holds strong views about gay marriage.

What is being said is that a) you can't carry out a civic function and make moral judgments which mean you pick and chose which ones you'll do b) you can't represent a party which says the beliefs you hold are incompatible with theirs c) you can't have a large piece of jewellery which is in violation of the organisation's (perfectly reasonable) health and safety policy.

If you want to retain the view a) get a different political party b) get a different job c) wear different jewellery.

It isn't that difficult.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or, "we're not allowed to live out our beliefs in good conscience".

Of course you are. But I'd have thought that doing so would involve not taking jobs where you'd be required to go against those beliefs, rather than taking those jobs then refusing to do them...

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I don't think that that rings true for conservatives: the Abortion Act for example has long establshed (45 years and counting) the principle of opting-out on the grounds of religious conviction; on the health and safety issue, would you similarly agree with the prohibition the Sikh kara and kirpan?

[cp with Marvin @ whom - yes and no. IIRC (someone will doubtless quickly correct me if I'm wrong), McFarlane and Ladele had taken their jobs before the law was changed, in which case that raises a slightly different question.]

[ 12. September 2012, 16:12: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
on the health and safety issue, would you similarly agree with the prohibition the Skh kara and kirpan?

If there could ever be an issue where Sikh headwear could be a health and safety issue the same as wearing a gold cross on a necklace, then of course. I can't personally think what that might be.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Those aren't the headgear, they are the dagger and bracelet.

So, are you saying that the size matters?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

If someone could grap the Sikh religious items and stab someone, then yes. We're comparing it with a large cross on a necklace which could easily be grabbed by an irate passenger.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

'Large' and 'wooden' are scarcely terms I would use to describe said cross, having seen the photos of it.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I didn't say it was wooden. It is a golden cross on a necklace.

The airline offered various ways that the cross could be displayed and worn, the flight assistant said it was her religious right to wear a cross on a necklace.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sorry, no idea where 'wooden' came from!

But I would hardly describe it as 'large'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[cp with Marvin @ whom - yes and no. IIRC (someone will doubtless quickly correct me if I'm wrong), McFarlane and Ladele had taken their jobs before the law was changed, in which case that raises a slightly different question.]

Slightly different in terms of the specifics, but not the principle.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In fact, that's a perfect illustration of my point that when conservatives say "we're being persecuted", what they really mean is "we're not being allowed to persecute others any more".

As I said, I think both parties have a tendency to play the persecution card waaay too early even if persecution does range from simple hostility and public mockery at one end through to abuse, violence and murder at the other.

However, I really think you are mistaken to suggest that political and theological conservatism has a monopoly on acts of persecution.

[ 12. September 2012, 17:16: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or, "we're not allowed to live out our beliefs in good conscience".
Of course you are. But I'd have thought that doing so would involve not taking jobs where you'd be required to go against those beliefs, rather than taking those jobs then refusing to do them...

If Marvin is right, then Christians of the conservative persuasion are prohibited from a large swathe of jobs, which are entirely conscionable bar a few select activities. Obviously a Christian conservative wouldn't get a job as an abortionist and then claim she was being persectued when she was sacked for refusing to do her job, but this is worlds apart from the person who wants to help childless couples adopt orphans or work alongside others to create a greener society and then finds she can't do any of it at all, because she is barred by her conscience from doing a small segment of the work - particularly when, as Matt Black has pointed out, the goalposts are moved after she takes the job.

In all of the various well publicised cases of Christians losing out because of their beliefs, it strikes me that there is a seam of malicious enjoyment at their expense, and that is what gives it the flavour of persecution, to my mind.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If someone could grap the Sikh religious items and stab someone, then yes. We're comparing it with a large cross on a necklace which could easily be grabbed by an irate passenger.

Yeah, because Virgin Atlantic are deeply embarrassed about the recent spate of impromptu vampire slayings on their trans-Atlantic flights... [Razz]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
If Marvin is right, then Christians of the conservative persuasion are prohibited from a large swathe of jobs, which are entirely conscionable bar a few select activities. Obviously a Christian conservative wouldn't get a job as an abortionist and then claim she was being persectued when she was sacked for refusing to do her job, but this is worlds apart from the person who wants to help childless couples adopt orphans or work alongside others to create a greener society and then finds she can't do any of it at all, because she is barred by her conscience from doing a small segment of the work - particularly when, as Matt Black has pointed out, the goalposts are moved after she takes the job.

Correct. If you have a religious conviction, that might affect your choice of jobs, and some jobs may affect your religious conviction. That is the price of having a religious conviction.

It is not 'worlds apart'. I have no sympathy for someone who was doing the job of the state and then finds they can't do it any more because of their religious conviction. Tough, sorry, the state is not there to promote your religious ideas. A registrar is a public official there to do a job under the law of the land. If you can't do it, then it is down to you to leave.

There is a widespread impression amongst conservative Christians that they're constantly losing out and that other religions are getting a free pass. Wrong. Most other religious people appreciate that their convictions mean that they can't do things. It is only the Christian who thinks that the law should suddenly take more notice of them (because of some waffle about this being a Christian country) to allow them to continue in whatever-it-is without having to pay the price of a conviction.

quote:
In all of the various well publicised cases of Christians losing out because of their beliefs, it strikes me that there is a seam of malicious enjoyment at their expense, and that is what gives it the flavour of persecution, to my mind.

The 'flavour of persecution' is perpetuated by groups (to my mind) who have no other function than complain when Christians who have bigoted views suddenly find they're no longer welcome to air them in public or on the public purse. To describe this as persecution, when there really are people in the world suffering from real persecution is to bastardise the term to such an extent that it no longer has any meaning whatsoever.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Two points leap out of me from that post:

1. Your 'bigotry' is someone else's 'religious conviction'.

2. Just because you don't like Theodosius and Constantine doesn't mean you have to leap into bed with Diocletian; there must surely be a via media between Scylla sad Charybdis here eg: the hospital nurse opting out from abortions, which incidentally rather scotches the idea that if the state says it's ok then tough.

[ 12. September 2012, 20:32: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

No matter how you spin it there's definitely something perverse about believing in something that isn't true. I can't help thinking that if everyone did it the world would be in a worse situation than it is now.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
No matter how you spin it there's definitely something perverse about believing in something that isn't true. I can't help thinking that if everyone did it the world would be in a worse situation than it is now.

Agreed Goerge - you either believe it or you don't, end of.

Well, maybe I wouldn't word it quite like that, but there's definitely something perverse about claiming to believe and live by something you don't believe in.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Agreed Goerge - you either believe it or you don't, end of.

Well, maybe I wouldn't word it quite like that, but there's definitely something perverse about claiming to believe and live by something you don't believe in.

Dunno, I'm not sure belief/unbelief works like that. Aristotle seemed to believe that behaviours can be instilled by modelling the behaviour - in the sense that if you repeat the things you want to become, you will eventually become it.

Moreover that seems in some cases to have been the opinion of Jesus Christ in the gospels. Whilst he got angry with unbelief at times, he sometimes seems to have taken the want to believe in something as enough.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
If Marvin is right, then Christians of the conservative persuasion are prohibited from a large swathe of jobs

Only because they are prohibiting themselves from those jobs. The same way a pacifist is prohibited from joining the army - and how ridiculous would we think it was if such a pacifist called persecution because they weren't allowed to join the army for all the physical exercise and travel, but not for the fighting part?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. Your 'bigotry' is someone else's 'religious conviction'.

Yes. Calling something a religious conviction does not change whether it's bigoted/prejudiced or not.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

No, it's more about the prevailing meme of pre-existing jobs changing. Your pacifist analogy would work better if, for example, all civil servants were required by government order to carry sidearms for self-defence.

And it's not just conservative Christians potentially thus excluded by this changed meme, but devout people of faith generally, eg: Muslims. I'm not sure it's a great thing for vast numbers of such people of faith to be effectively excluded from the public square in this way...

[cp - your last post expresses perfectly what I mean. It's almot a Ship irregular whatsit.]

[ 13. September 2012, 08:55: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Two points leap out of me from that post:

1. Your 'bigotry' is someone else's 'religious conviction'.

Nope. Bigotry is bigotry. I am very respectful of religious convictions even when I think they're bigoted. However, if they are bigoted then the cost is that it has an impact on the jobs they can do.

quote:
2. Just because you don't like Theodosius and Constantine doesn't mean you have to leap into bed with Diocletian; there must surely be a via media between Scylla sad Charybdis here eg: the hospital nurse opting out from abortions, which incidentally rather scotches the idea that if the state says it's ok then tough.

Well it is an easy thing to simply say 'well, Doctors and Nurses don't have to perform abortions therefore I shouldn't have to perform gay marriages'.

But clearly it is not the same thing. A similar option would be the nurse who was in a job which required her to conduct abortions deciding that she was going to make moral judgments about which abortions to conduct. Clearly in our system there are options for those people who do not want to conduct abortions to opt out and remain nurses/doctors, just as there are options for those who do not want to do surgery to be other kinds of doctor. Moreover, your refusal to conduct abortions has no impact on legal abortions.

That is not the same as being a Registrar. There is not the capacity for various kinds of Registrar, the role requires you to do all that the law allows. You don't get to chose to be a mixed-sex-only Registrar. Sorry.

Is it discriminatory? Yes. Is it discriminatory on your faith? No. It is simply discriminatory on you because of your unwillingness to perform the acts that the law requires because of your views.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sounds like twisting the argument to me, but so be it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And it's not just conservative Christians potentially thus excluded by this changed meme, but devout people of faith generally, eg: Muslims. I'm not sure it's a great thing for vast numbers of such people of faith to be effectively excluded from the public square in this way...

They're not being excluded. They are as free to join the public square and do those jobs as anyone else. There is no law banning them from doing so.

However, if they want to do those jobs then they have to, you know, do them. If their religious convictions bar them from being able to do that then that's hardly anyone's fault but their own.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

We'll just have to agree to differ on this one.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

If you want, but the way I see it the only other option to what I'm saying is to say that it's perfectly OK for some groups of people to be denied public services on the grounds of who or what they are.

I don't see it as any different to people being denied public services based on the colour of their skin, and I'm pretty sure that when that sort of thing started being stamped out there were a lot of people complaining that not allowing them to discriminate in such a way was excluding them from public service as well.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

This is getting DH-y but I think conservatives would draw a distinction between who people are and what people do; on the latter point, they - much as the nurse asked to assist at an abortion - would not wish to aid and abet what they see as a sin. That distinction appears to be lost on many liberals.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
This is getting DH-y but I think conservatives would draw a distinction between who people are and what people do; on the latter point, they - much as the nurse asked to assist at an abortion - would not wish to aid and abet what they see as a sin. That distinction appears to be lost on many liberals.

What if you think it's a sin to give people blood transfusions?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
If Marvin is right, then Christians of the conservative persuasion are prohibited from a large swathe of jobs
Only because they are prohibiting themselves from those jobs. The same way a pacifist is prohibited from joining the army - and how ridiculous would we think it was if such a pacifist called persecution because they weren't allowed to join the army for all the physical exercise and travel, but not for the fighting part?

So horrible conservatives, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities, whereas good people with Nice Ideas, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave a certain way, are in fact being persecuted when nasty conservative bigots suggest that they have prohibited themselves from certain things. Yes, I see.

[ 13. September 2012, 10:22: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
This is getting DH-y but I think conservatives would draw a distinction between who people are and what people do; on the latter point, they - much as the nurse asked to assist at an abortion - would not wish to aid and abet what they see as a sin. That distinction appears to be lost on many liberals.
What if you think it's a sin to give people blood transfusions?

Blood transfusions don't generally involve wilfully killing someone.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So horrible conservatives, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities, whereas good people with Nice Ideas, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave a certain way, are in fact being persecuted when nasty conservative bigots suggest that they have prohibited themselves from certain things. Yes, I see.

Interesting way to put it. Do people choose to be female, or gay, or black?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

There you go again: 'be' -v- 'do'. I feel a Sinatra song coming on...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So horrible conservatives, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities, whereas good people with Nice Ideas, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave a certain way, are in fact being persecuted when nasty conservative bigots suggest that they have prohibited themselves from certain things. Yes, I see.
Interesting way to put it. Do people choose to be female, or gay, or black?

Um. A golf ball, a matchstick and a melon.

Arguably, people can choose to become female via the process of gender reassignment. I don't know if same sex attraction has elements of choice, but I think it's a possibility, yes. I believe the behavioural aspects of homosexuality are subject to choice, in the precisely the same way as any other form of sexual behaviour. And no, a person can't choose their racial origin.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So horrible conservatives, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities, whereas good people with Nice Ideas, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave a certain way, are in fact being persecuted when nasty conservative bigots suggest that they have prohibited themselves from certain things. Yes, I see.

Horrible liberals, by dint of their free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities. Whereas good Conservative people with Sound Ideas by dint of their own free choice to believe in The Truth, which involves excluding, belittling and ridiculing other people and their choices, are in fact being persecuted when the State decides that by their own profession they're excluding themselves from the role. Obviously.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So horrible conservatives, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities, whereas good people with Nice Ideas, by dint of their own free choice to believe certain things and behave a certain way, are in fact being persecuted when nasty conservative bigots suggest that they have prohibited themselves from certain things. Yes, I see.
Horrible liberals, by dint of their free choice to believe certain things and behave in certain ways, prohibit themselves from certain activities. Whereas good Conservative people with Sound Ideas by dint of their own free choice to believe in The Truth, which involves excluding, belittling and ridiculing other people and their choices, are in fact being persecuted when the State decides that by their own profession they're excluding themselves from the role. Obviously.

If tinkering with the symmetry of the argument helps you to justify the imbalance in your thinking, then yes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
What if you think it's a sin to give people blood transfusions?
Blood transfusions don't generally involve wilfully killing someone.

But NOT giving them can.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Fair point.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Thank you mousethief. That's the point I was trying to make I just wasn't clear enough.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
...I recently met some young people who had returned from a few days in a famous field in the South West of England. They spoke of a powerful touch of the Holy Spirit, feelings of elation and so on.

Let me quickly say that at their age I also experienced such things at similar kinds of events so I know what that feels like. On the other hand, I tend to have fairly skeptical views of these things these days, and much of what I heard sounded like hype. And the elation I've experienced at large 'worship events' feels to me to be very similar to that I've experienced at large sporting events.

But does it actually matter? Is there benefit in these young people in ascribing their experiences to a touch of God – even if it is just whipped up emotionism?

The danger of the belief that this was the Holy Spirit lies in the fact that they may therefore accept as authoritative ideas presented in such an environment that are actually deeply flawed: the Spirit is here, we've felt this revealed, therefore it must be true. This, for me, is the issue underlying the adoption by many of their beliefs over expired equines: X 'feels' right because of experience...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

By the same token, there is an equal and opposite danger particularly in Conservative Evangelical circles with a heavy Sydney influence. And that danger is this: fear of the experiential aspects of being a Christian and a concomitant misapprehension that "knowing what the bible says" about an issue automatically means that one has in fact experienced what the Scripture is talking about. This simply isn't true. Christian experience is so much more than regular bible study. In this respect they (Sydney Anglicans) have catastrophically confused the means for the end.

The bible frequently points away from itself to an experience of the Holy Spirit which is to had by faith in the truth of the Bible. Sydney Evangelicalism, ISTM, is often dangerously turned in upon a false hermeneutic that assumes that intellectual comprehension of a bible text in an of itself is the same as experiencing the spiritual reality of which that text is speaking. It isn't. And, IMO, the weirdly cultish reductionism of Sydney is ample evidence of that assertion.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I would agree with that, daronmedway, but equally there's an equal and opposite danger in Illuminism ... I spend a fair bit of my time (fruitlessly?) engaging with former friends/associates from back in my restorationist/new churches days who've become so wary of any kind of church structure or 'tradition' that they've become incredibly foot-loose and full of 'God told me this' and 'God told me that' nonsense to the point that they think that all ministers/clergy of whatever stripe are somehow wicked, evil apostates and that they alone somehow have some kind of 'pure' handle on the truth ...

It ain't pretty.

I suspect the kind of uber-conservative, Sydney cessationist style position is one that is adopted in contradistinction to what they'd see as incipient 'Catholicism' - as soon as you introduce anything 'extra-biblical' - such as experiences of the Holy Spirit and so on, then you're on a slippery slope that will lead ultimately back to ... (dangNNANNGNARRRNNN ...creepy music) ... R-R-RRRome ...

It is interesting to see former charismatics ending up in the RC Church or Orthodoxy, though, so you can see the logic of their position - even if one doesn't agree with it.

Coming back to the lone rangers OP, though, and at the risk of sounding very relativistic, I would submit that what these youngsters may or may not have experienced will be, like everything else, a bit of a curate's egg - good in parts.

I think SvitlanaV2 has hit the nail on the head. This type of thing might be fine when you're in your 20s - I was well into that sort of thing back then - but eventually you'll grow out of it or else remain involved with such things but with a deeper understanding and a more nuanced perspective.

I felt quite uncomfortable this morning, for instance, in a mildly charismatic service - not because there was anything explicitly 'wrong' or inappropriate going on but simply because I no longer feel comfortable with that kind of style. There certainly wasn't anything heretical or flakey sung or said ... but it still made my toes curl.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0