Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?

Solar Empath said:
I technically agree with some of the ideas presented here. However; What good does reading the book do when there are very angry book readers in your front lawn looking to punish you for not accepting their interpretation?
Click to expand...

This is true - but if you use their own words, how can they really fight you? It's they who have the problem, not you. Mind you, I *do* understand because I'm a minority. I've had a lot of things shoved in my face by wrong thinking Christians (saying it's a sin for me to date White men, and all that mess). It's wrong thinking on their part, and the only way to change that attitude is to come at it from an angle opposite from theirs.

It's tough, but Martin Luther King was right; how can you really get angry at someone who fights back with kindness and tolerance and love? The anger that comes out of that is because the other person doesn't like looking like the crazy one.
 
Wyst said:
Reading the bible from an inerrant point of view and getting involved in hyped up about religious politics are two very different things.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. I however do not interpret all of the bible literally. Where this the case, I'd have to interpret it's poetry literally - nobody takes poetry literally... at least I hope they don't.

So basically, it's not Christians that use the bible as an 'equalizer' of sorts that you have a problem with.. it's the God of the Bible that you have a problem with because you disagree with what He has to say about certain things. No?

I'm just trying to understand you, SE, I'm not trying to corner you or anything.
Click to expand...
My personal issue with biblical doctrine is mainly in the Doctrines of Original Sin, some of the Definition of Sin, Judgment, God's Forgiveness and Salvation, and of course Premillennial Eschatology. Primarily the Fundamentalist Rapture Apocalypse, but Millennial Eschatology in general.

I do not believe that the inerrant viewpoint portrays Deity correctly.
 
Solar Empath said:
My personal issue with biblical doctrine is mainly in the Doctrines of Original Sin, some of the Definition of Sin, Judgment, God's Forgiveness and Salvation, and of course Premillennial Eschatology. Primarily the Fundamentalist Rapture Apocalypse, but Millennial Eschatology in general.

I do not believe that the inerrant viewpoint portrays Deity correctly.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the bible is from God or from man? In other words, do you think the bible is what God has to say about himself or do you think it's what man has to say about God?

And just for kicks, I'm a post-millenialist. I don't believe there will be a rapture.
 
Wyst said:
struggle with homosexuality
Click to expand...

I find this to be very offensive. Perhaps they aren't "struggling with homosexuality", perhaps they are struggling with Christian intolerance for homosexuality. Had that ever occurred to you?
 
Sometimes the "biblical view" commonly presented is not necessarily the real view found within the Bible. Weird, huh? In fact, I know Bible churches where things are said that frankly aren't biblical at all!!! You would have to talk to some pretty good theologians/professors or good pastoral people to get the real deal with all it's nuances. Most folks are hard pressed to find people like this though. It's as if the pop-culture version of Christianity is so loud that the more refined, rooted version is drowned out. This is tragically common I'm afraid.
 
Satya said:
I find this to be very offensive. Perhaps they aren't "struggling with homosexuality", perhaps they are struggling with Christian intolerance for homosexuality. Had that ever occurred to you?
Click to expand...

Sure it has. Do I think that's the case? No.

Why? Mainly because I've met people like you who DO struggle with homosexuality being a sin, according to Christian belief. The attitude of the former and that of the latter are completely different.
 
I didn't want this thread to deteriorate into a thread about Christianity, I wanted this to be thread that asked the simple question, is it an attack of a person to challenge their views.

I can see how people can feel attacked when their views are challenged, specifically if the questions are loaded. In that regard, I can avoid using loaded or presumptuous questions. However, I don't believe reasonably questioning a person's beliefs is an attack of them, even if it causes them to feel a little incompetent for believing what they believe.
 
arbygil said:
This is true - but if you use their own words, how can they really fight you? It's they who have the problem, not you. Mind you, I *do* understand because I'm a minority. I've had a lot of things shoved in my face by wrong thinking Christians (saying it's a sin for me to date White men, and all that mess). It's wrong thinking on their part, and the only way to change that attitude is to come at it from an angle opposite from theirs.

It's tough, but Martin Luther King was right; how can you really get angry at someone who fights back with kindness and tolerance and love? The anger that comes out of that is because the other person doesn't like looking like the crazy one.
Click to expand...
MLK Jr. was a man among men. He changed the country (with a lot of help from a lot of people). Those that still stand against integration will never be swayed by his words however. They prefer to use the stick. Only fear of the stick can stop the KKK.

More to the point, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about non whites needing to be separate or being inferior. It does explicitly stand opposed to homosexuality and various 'magical' practices, even if you ignore 'Suffer not a witch to live.' I disagree with the labeling of Sin and the penalties ascribed to it by 'Inerrant Scripture' in these cases. Unlike MLK, I cannot stand on Inerrant Scripture and passively resist on these points. They are there in black or white. I have to argue against the Majority Position of Christianity by facing down Inerrant Scripture by default.
 
Wyst said:
Sure it has. Do I think that's the case? No.

Why? Mainly because I've met people like you who DO struggle with homosexuality being a sin, according to Christian belief. The attitude of the former and that of the latter are completely different.
Click to expand...

So basically, because of the Christian belief system, they struggle. Not because they are homosexual, but because the Christian belief system tells them it is wrong.

If I demonstrate that the Christian beleif system is flawed, it certainly casts a lot of doubt on its arguments in regards to homosexuality being wrong. And those poor people who suffer as a result of the Christian belief system can have some relief from being judged for their homosexuality.

So in my opinion, it comes down to control. People like yourself want to blame others for who they are and not the belief system you endorse.
 
Last edited:
Wyst said:
Do you think that the bible is from God or from man? In other words, do you think the bible is what God has to say about himself or do you think it's what man has to say about God?

And just for kicks, I'm a post-millenialist. I don't believe there will be a rapture.
Click to expand...
To believe this statement in the way that you do would require me to believe in Doctrinal Inspiration.

I believe it is as inspired as the Tao Te Ching, The Eightfold Path, the Vedas, the Book of the Law and the Esoteric Tarot. Which from a Christian point of view would mean 'no', though from my point of view that is a 'yes'.
 
Satya said:
However, I don't believe reasonably questioning a person's beliefs is an attack of them, even if it causes them to feel a little incompetent for believing what they believe.
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at...

How about this... do you think there is a difference between questioning someone's belief and asking questions about their belief?
 
Wyst said:
Agreed - I don't think you jumped on that bandwagon in any way at all. I'm just speaking to what this thread's topic is: when does discussion become attacking.
Click to expand...
I still believe it becomes an attack when the 'attacker's' intention is to 'attack' the individual espousing the beliefs. I do not feel that arguing against a belief itself has rights, and may be 'attacked' freely. There's no point in such when a thread is specifically a list and Q/A about a specific belief system.

I would never, for instance, start a 'Showdown' with a preacher at his pulpit at church. If he moves that pulpit down to Main Street or a Gay Pride Parade and starts condemning, he's free game.
 
Wyst said:
I see what you're getting at...

How about this... do you think there is a difference between questioning someone's belief and asking questions about their belief?
Click to expand...

Yes, the former seeks to understand the reasoning behind a person's beliefs and the latter seeks to simply understand what a person believes.
 
Satya said:
So basically, because of the Christian belief system, they struggle. Not because they are homosexual, but because the Christian belief system tells them it is wrong.
Click to expand...

It is not a belief system that says what's right and what's wrong. It is God.

If I demonstrate that the Christian beleif system is flawed, it certainly casts a lot of doubt on its arguments in regards to homosexuality being wrong. And those poor people who suffer as a result of the Christian belief system can have some relief from being judged for their homosexuality.
Click to expand...

If you can disprove the existence of God, you can cast doubt on this subject in my mind. Maybe if you could disprove the existence of truth even.

So in my opinion, it comes down to control. People like yourself want to blame others for who they are and not the belief system you endorse.
Click to expand...

Man, I'm sorry. I was just trying to answer your questions. It wasn't my intent to be controlling.

If you would like to continue talking about this in PMs or some other form of communication where it isn't public. I'd be happy to dialogue with you some more. If not, that's cool too.
 
This issue seems pretty simple, it is not an attack to question someone's beliefs except under one or both of the following circumstances:

1. You intend to demean, humiliate, or otherwise bring negative emotion upon the other party (and I say INTEND...you are not in the wrong because they choose to feel bad about it, that it their fault...it just shouldn't be your intention). Your intention should be the enlightenment of one or more parties, or to cause reflection of one or more parties, at the complete exclusion of trying to cause your opponent to "look bad."

2. Their stated, obvious preference is that you do not question them. In otherwards, they ask you to not do that and you still advance.


Otherwise, I think it's fair. If they take it the wrong way and get offended, that is their own fault for not telling you that they rather not discuss it. If they feel bad for being "beat," again, their own fault for not taking this opportunity to enlighten and reflect.
 
Perhaps the complication with religion is that there are different layers to it.

It provides a moral code, spiritual guidance, an explanation for existence and a sense of cultural or personal identity.

If it is criticised it can wound on a number of levels. It can shake someones cultural foundations, their morality, their personal identity and their personal spiritual beliefs.

At the same time society is made up of people with different morals, beliefs and identities.

How do you allow everyone their room for their own personal take on these aspects whilst finding common ground on the rules you live by in society?

My concern about religion is that it seems to divide people (even amongst the same faiths) instead of bringing people together.
 
Solar Empath said:
MLK Jr. was a man among men. He changed the country (with a lot of help from a lot of people). Those that still stand against integration will never be swayed by his words however. They prefer to use the stick. Only fear of the stick can stop the KKK.

More to the point, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about non whites needing to be separate or being inferior. It does explicitly stand opposed to homosexuality and various 'magical' practices, even if you ignore 'Suffer not a witch to live.' I disagree with the labeling of Sin and the penalties ascribed to it by 'Inerrant Scripture' in these cases. Unlike MLK, I cannot stand on Inerrant Scripture and passively resist on these points. They are there in black or white. I have to argue against the Majority Position of Christianity by facing down Inerrant Scripture by default.
Click to expand...

Actually, it depends on how people interpret the Bible. People have taken Exodus 34:10-16 to mean races should not intermarry, and that miscegenation is a sin. I still have to fight that in some churches - heck, the most segregated places on Earth are still churches. Even if it's not said, it's still implied.

I would say this: Certain scriptural passages seem to contradict one another. You have "suffer not a witch to live" but you also have "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." How can such verses be reconciled?

I think conceptually, the Bible has to be taken as a heart issue. I think your relationship with God is between you and God, and you absolutely have to examine where you are in relation to Him daily. I don't have all the answers either, but I choose to love everyone regardless of what they worship or who they are, because I believe my God told me to love people regardless. So...that's where I stand.
 
Satya said:
Yes, the former seeks to understand the reasoning behind a person's beliefs and the latter seeks to simply understand what a person believes.
Click to expand...

Ok, cool.

I think some people feel in the first situation may feel as though they are under a microscope and being dissected. And there is a time and a place for that. When what you are dissecting is dead.

If the subject is alive and you care about not damaging the subject, care, consideration, and gentleness are called for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top