Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Old friend turns born again

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No, not really. I think its too simplistic. Its all about motivation.
    Yes and smoker number 3 is motivated by consideration.
    Can you give a reason why there's no difference between smoker 2 and smoker 3 or is it just no difference because there's no difference?

    Ultimately it's all about consideration. I was on the train yesterday saw 3 women in the seventies get on. No-one offered them their seat.

    Again there's a spectrum:
    1. Some people will never offer anyone their seat.
    2. Some people will offer someone their seat if they see them, but won't actively check every few stops if there is anyone who needs it.
    3. Some people will offer someone their seat and will actively check if there someone who needs every few stops.

    My view is some people just have more conscience than others. It doesn't matter whether they are atheist of christian, it's independent of both.

    The ironic and really irrating thing about the christian with little conscience, is that this is something they claim to have authority on.

    But conscience means thinking, not just feeling. Christianity is more about the latter than the former.


  • Options
    #93
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    JimiTime wrote: »
    And your reaction would be to your best friend becoming a christian and sharing his testimony with you would be?
    My best friend wouldn't try to "turn" me in the first place. That's the point. The conversation would be thus, "I'm a christian now". "That's nice.".
    I don't think we'll ever agree on this one. You think that communication is necessary to prevent the situation. I don't.


  • Options
    #94
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    seamus wrote: »
    My best friend wouldn't try to "turn" me in the first place. That's the point. The conversation would be thus, "I'm a christian now". "That's nice.".
    I don't think we'll ever agree on this one. You think that communication is necessary to prevent the situation. I don't.

    I never said the communication is 'necessary' if the friend doesn't first start talking about it:confused:. The point to the hypothetical was 'if'. The point being for you to distinguish what you see as an appropriate response.


  • Options
    #95
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    JimiTime wrote: »
    b) Discussing it with him, and trying to understand why the change.

    This one. I'd talk about it and with the person and would be genuinely curious about what had brought about the change. But I would not expect them to be ramming it down my throat or attempting to convert me at every opportunity. Discussing something is very different from pushing it on someone. No-one said the op's friend didn't have a right to talk about it or share this part of his life with his friend, and it's already been agreed that the op should tell his friend to cool off on the evangelism.


  • Options
    #96
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Yes and smoker number 3 is motivated by consideration.
    Can you give a reason why there's no difference between smoker 2 and smoker 3 or is it just no difference because there's no difference?

    Well both are considerate. Both have been thoughtful. If both know me. The problem lies in the person who takes exception to smoker 2 IMO. Its oversensitive and no big deal at all IMO. both may have considered things equally and concluded differently. Bringing it back to the point at hand. Even if the non-believer is uncomfortable with it, the Christian can still have the right motivation for talking about it. I.E. He may know the barriers that the non-believer has. He may have had them himself. He may think the importance of the message is more important than his friends discomfort. However, If the friend makes it clear that he doesn't want to talk about it, I think the Christian should accept that wish.
    Ultimately it's all about consideration. I was on the train yesterday saw 3 women in the seventies get on. No-one offered them their seat.

    Again there's a spectrum:
    1. Some people will never offer anyone their seat.
    2. Some people will offer someone their seat if they see them, but won't actively check every few stops if there is anyone who needs it.
    3. Some people will offer someone their seat and will actively check if there someone who needs every few stops.

    What is your point?
    My view is some people just have more conscience than others. It doesn't matter whether they are atheist of christian, it's independent of both.

    and?
    The ironic and really irrating thing about the christian with little conscience, is that this is something they claim to have authority on.

    I could equally say that about any person. Christian in that sentance means little tbh.
    But conscience means thinking, not just feeling. Christianity is more about the latter than the former.

    LOL. You really do have a thing for pigeon holes. Ah well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    aidan24326 wrote: »
    This one. I'd talk about it and with the person and would be genuinely curious about what had brought about the change. But I would not expect them to be ramming it down my throat or attempting to convert me at every opportunity. Discussing something is very different from pushing it on someone. No-one said the op's friend didn't have a right to talk about it or share this part of his life with his friend, and it's already been agreed that the op should tell his friend to cool off on the evangelism.

    I agree with these sentiments. Some posters seem to be annoyed at the way the Christian in question is behaving. I at no stage said I agreed with his approach myself, but called for some empathy as to what 'may' be the friends motivation. So rather than being annoyed, just have a bit more understanding. Even if you think its a bit inconsiderate, Its your frinend, so have a bit of patience. That goes for most things, not just Christianity btw. As is my point, and your by the looks of it, simple communication is a very effective tool for sorting these things out.


  • Options
    #98
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Dades wrote: »
    I thought everyone was in agreement that the OP should be clear with his friend.:confused:

    Its the method thats involved. The advice that was given about pointing out his obvious logical issues or ending the friendship etc. Whereas, I'd be more of the ilk to tell the OP to be honest, not contrived. Just converse about it, and speak openly and honestly. Don't just rush off and find rubutals to christianity. If you are not interested, just say it. I also tried to reveal a bit more about how the friend 'may' be feeling so as to give him some empathy. For all we know the friend has got in with a dangerous cult. Personally, as a friend, I'd discuss it with him, and like to think theat he feels he can discuss it with me.

    i go back to when I was a newbie on this very forum. I wrote a very condescending post. Son Goku (PBUH:) )promptly informed me of my behaviour, and it was an enlightening experience. Such that I remember it to this day as a bit of a turning point for me. So even if the approach of this friend is all wrong, telling him it is, is doing him a service. If he's coming on strong, even saying 'man, you're freaking me out. Take it easy.'. You may still feel disgruntled that he came on strong in the first place, but give him the benefit. Surely your years of friendship means that much. A bit of empathy goes a long way.

    Also, i know that not everyone thought these things, I'm just talking about the ones that did. I learned along time ago not to just group you guys all together as you have a diversity of opinion on all sorts, including atheism. i empathise with that, as people think they know me and my faith because I call myself Christian.


  • Options
    #99
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    JimiTime wrote: »
    And your reaction would be to your best friend becoming a christian and sharing his testimony with you would be?

    a) Bitching to other friends about him.

    b) Discussing it with him, and trying to understand why the change.

    c) Telling him he's talking BS and showing him the true atheist light.

    d) Telling him you don't want to know, and you really don't want it brought up again.

    e) Telling him you are p!ssed off with him for sharing his views with you, liken him to a scumbag (as you mentioned earlier).

    f) other: Please explain.

    Remember, imagine your best friend doing this. What would you do?

    C

    I wouldn't phrase it so melodramatically but yes, C.


  • Options
    #100
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zillah wrote: »
    C

    I wouldn't phrase it so melodramatically but yes, C.

    Great. Then you'd have a conversation. Communication. You'd both know where you stood. You'd both be sharing your opinions, and hopefully it'd be a good discussion.


  • Options
    #101
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Zillah wrote: »
    C

    I wouldn't phrase it so melodramatically but yes, C.

    I was tempted to say the same, but judging by the email yer man wrote, if my friend in question was talking like that I don't think telling him he's flat out wrong would get me very far.

    I'd try and point out the obvious (to me at least) flaws in his way of thinking, the total or near-impossibility of some of what he believes etc Somebody that much into it won't be for turning in a hurry though. As the saying goes you can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, though no harm in trying.

    If they wanted to talk about it and listen to my reasoning as well as giving their own perspective I'd be happy to do that, but if the 'god wants you bad man' sort of stuff persisted I'd be wondering if this was a friendship I could carry on with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    What is your point?
    My point is that the property conscience varies more subtly than you think.
    The action of smoker 3 is clearly one of more conscience than smoker 2, as it the action of the person who actively looks out for the person who needs a seat and not just person who gives the seat up when the happen to see a person who needs it.

    In your opinion, there is the levels of conscience and consideration for others are not as distinct. Perhaps, this is why you think that the christian behaving in an evangelical fashion, is not crossing boundries.

    Let me ask you this as it happened to me once. I was speaking to an evangelical christian. I was trying to tell him in a diplomatic way I didn't believe because I felt sorry for him because his wife was sick.

    I was saying "Look I'd be lieing if I told you believe" rather than saying "it's fairy tale nonsense". He asked me why I didn't believe and I again diplomatically said, "I just don't think the evidence is good enough", rather than "because just like fairies there is absolutely zero evidence".

    After a lengthly conversation, which was nearly completly on his terms as he knows very little about Science and nothing about Philosophy, he proceeded to say "I think you've still a few doubts about it all". I refused to say "I don't believe your childish nonsense" because his wife was sick. So I said again "look sorry I can't believe it".

    He then said well may I recommend a great book for you, it answers all your questions, I said fine took the name and author of the book down.

    Then I said and would you read anything that challenges your viewpoint or represents my viewpoint such as Russell, in my view this was quid pro quo,
    he said: "I don't need to". I found that incredibly smug and arrogant.

    All he wanted to do was shove his views on me and had no interest in challenging his own or understanding mine.

    From that day on I said, I would not enter into a conversation with a Christian who had not or refused to challenge their own views about christianity. Instead, I would simply point out the fact they had not challenge their views so what gives them the right to challenge mine. It's not actually that hard to politely point this out and it can safe a lot of hassel.


  • Options
    #103
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    My point is that the property conscience varies more subtly than you think.
    The action of smoker 3 is clearly one of more conscience than smoker 2

    No its not. They may have both had the same considerations, but decided on 2 different approaches.
    , as it the action of the person who actively looks out for the person who needs a seat and not just person who gives the seat up when the happen to see a person who needs it.

    Ok we just switched analogies to your bus one. I'd agree, that the bus passenger 3 is certainly the more considerate, as he is always on the look out. This is irrelavent to the discussion though. Also, my point is not about such overt considerations. My point is about understanding where the OP Christian 'may' be coming from. As i said, if a Christian is true to himself, he'll probably think it better to say it, knowing the possible discomfort it will cause than not say it. As I said, like the guy who takes exception to Smoker 2. He's the problem in it for me. He lets a friends question rile him up beause of some oversensitivities and insecurities with his social gathering. He doesn't sound like a man comfortable with himself. So thats where the problem lies IMO.
    In your opinion, there is the levels of conscience and consideration for others are not as distinct.

    What?
    Perhaps, this is why you think that the christian behaving in an evangelical fashion, is not crossing boundries.

    I know its not crossing any boundaries to share your faith. It only becomes an issue if the reciever tells you to quit it. As I said, its wholly irresponsible, if you truly believe in Christs message, not to share it. I would think friends would be the first people you'd like to share it with.

    Jimi: Quick theres a fire.
    Tim: I'm P!ssed off you didn't consider asking me if I wanted to know about the fire.
    Jimi: Well It would have been inconsiderate not to have.
    Tim: Well logically speaking yadda yadda yadda
    Jimi: I only had your interests at heart
    Tim: Ahhhh it burns, it burns.

    Now although you don't seem to fathom faith in these terms, the good christian does. He's giving you a life saving message, but you'd rather concentrate on why he shouldn't tell you. The lines he's crossing etc.

    Again, let me say, that it is not my point to defend those who harass. I am merely trying to get you guys to understand why christians evangelise. Or at least why they should evangelise. I do accept that there are plenty of those who are holier than though, and that they are in it to feel superior. But each case should be taken on merit, and I would asume that if the guy is your friend, you'd give him the benefit of maybe having the right motivation.
    Let me ask you this as it happened to me once. I was speaking to an evangelical christian. I was trying to tell him in a diplomatic way I didn't believe because I felt sorry for him because his wife was sick.

    I was saying "Look I'd be lieing if I told you believe" rather than saying "it's fairy tale nonsense". He asked me why I didn't believe and I again diplomatically said, "I just don't think the evidence is good enough", rather than "because just like fairies there is absolutely zero evidence".

    After a lengthly conversation, which was nearly completly on his terms as he knows very little about Science and nothing about Philosophy, he proceeded to say "I think you've still a few doubts about it all". I refused to say "I don't believe your childish nonsense" because his wife was sick. So I said again "look sorry I can't believe it".

    He then said well may I recommend a great book for you, it answers all your questions, I said fine took the name and author of the book down.

    Then I said and would you read anything that challenges your viewpoint or represents my viewpoint such as Russell, in my view this was quid pro quo,
    he said: "I don't need to". I found that incredibly smug and arrogant.

    All he wanted to do was shove his views on me and had no interest in challenging his own or understanding mine.

    From that day on I said, I would not enter into a conversation with a Christian who had not or refused to challenge their own views about christianity. Instead, I would simply point out the fact they had not challenge their views so what gives them the right to challenge mine. It's not actually that hard to politely point this out and it can safe a lot of hassel.

    The big difference is, A Christians message, to the christian, is life giving. It brings hope, and everlasting life. Its not just subject matter. Its not just knowledge. Its salvation. Again, 'to the christian'. I think in the above scenario, while you were irritated, you handled it well. You were tactful, and didn't disgruntle your vulnerable friend. So why get annoyed about it? Because he didn't meet your intellectual sandards? He has found his answer. Be happy for him, and be glad you did the right thing. If you genuinely think he'd be better off viewing things your way, then choose an appropriate time and discuss it with him. As long as its what you honestly feel, and its not some contrived approach brought on by an irritation of what you consider lazy thinking or the like. Thats my 10 cent.


  • Options
    #104
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Jimi: Quick theres a fire.
    Tim: I'm P!ssed off you didn't consider asking me if I wanted to know about the fire.
    Jimi: Well It would have been inconsiderate not to have.
    Tim: Well logically speaking yadda yadda yadda
    Jimi: I only had your interests at heart
    Tim: Ahhhh it burns, it burns.

    Isn't it more like this (assuming its a phone call etc):

    Jimi: Quick, your house is on fire and you're in danger.
    Tim: I'm at home now and I don't smell smoke.
    Jimi: But I know, I just know!
    Tim: Okay, I've had a look around and I didn't find anything.
    Jimi: I'm gong to call the Fire Brigade.
    Tim: Okay, but you pay the call out charge.


  • Options
    #105
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    5uspect wrote: »
    Isn't it more like this (assuming its a phone call etc):

    Jimi: Quick, your house is on fire and you're in danger.
    Tim: I'm at home now and I don't smell smoke.
    Jimi: But I know, I just know!
    Tim: Okay, I've had a look around and I didn't find anything.
    Jimi: I'm gong to call the Fire Brigade.
    Tim: Okay, but you pay the call out charge.
    Ha Ha.
    If only you could get them to agree the pay the call out charge!
    Then at least they would have to take some responsibility for their decisions.
    But, using Jimi's reasoning they get a free shot and they only have to take responsibility if they are explictly told they message isn't wanted and they persist.

    I'd see it as this:

    Jimi: Quick your house is on fire, I know because I have faith.
    Tim: Why are wasting my time trying to scare me when you haven't even thought fully about that? How do you expect me to take you seriously?


  • Options
    #106
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Ha Ha.
    If only you could get them to agree the pay the call out charge!
    Then at least they would have to take some responsibility for their decisions.
    But, using Jimi's reasoning they get a free shot and they only have to take responsibility if they are explictly told they message isn't wanted and they persist.

    I'd see it as this:

    Jimi: Quick your house is on fire, I know because I have faith.
    Tim: Why are wasting my time trying to scare me when you haven't even thought fully about that? How do you expect me to take you seriously?

    Ah yes, the mob. If you don't mind trying to understand the point. the analogy is not meant to be an extensive example. Its meant to be an insight into the Christian sharing the message. I KNOW YOU THINK ITS A PILE OF CR@P, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS TRYING TO EMPATHISE WITH THE CHRISTIAN FRIEND WHO IS SHARING THE MESSAGE RATHER THAN GET P!SSED OFF WITH HIM. Though, if your pedantic ways on this thread are anything to go by, I don't hold out any hope. Each to their own though I suppose. By all means continue to be irritated, if you think thats whats called for. I think I've made my point quite well, take it or leave it.


  • Options
    #107
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    I don't know about anyone else but I'd wonder what happened in my friend's life that caused him to suddenly become so deluded.


  • Options
    #108
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Sangre wrote: »
    I don't know about anyone else but I'd wonder what happened in my friend's life that caused him to suddenly become so deluded.


    Me too, which is why I'd be interested in discussing it provided there was some degree of balance to the conversation, and I wasn't just being bombarded with evangelical grenades.

    PS Tim you have an unparalleled ability to drag threads into a pedantic argument.


  • Options
    #109
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Ah yes, the mob. If you don't mind trying to understand the point. the analogy is not meant to be an extensive example. Its meant to be an insight into the Christian sharing the message. I KNOW YOU THINK ITS A PILE OF CR@P, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS TRYING TO EMPATHISE WITH THE CHRISTIAN FRIEND WHO IS SHARING THE MESSAGE RATHER THAN GET P!SSED OFF WITH HIM. Though, if your pedantic ways on this thread are anything to go by, I don't hold out any hope. Each to their own though I suppose. By all means continue to be irritated, if you think thats whats called for. I think I've made my point quite well, take it or leave it.
    If you deconstruct a moral action into intent and consequence ( i.e. something may have the best intent but an uncongenial consequence), it differentiates the evangelical Christian with a propensity for proselytizing from the cautious Christian.

    If you think that deconstruction (also known as action analysis according to Marc Hauser see
    Moral Minds) is valid well then there is a clear difference in the moral action of some evangelical Christians and shall we say the cautious Christians, because the evangelicals do not give the impression they have thought about the consequence of their actions.

    As for the pedantry, I am just trying to work through the disagreement with some sort of reason rather than just tell you your wrong or resort to name calling.

    If it doesn't meet acceptable intellectual standards, well I apologise for trying to have what I perceived as a rational, reasoned based conversation.


  • Options
    #110
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you deconstruct a moral action into intent and consequence ( i.e. something may have the best intent but an uncongenial consequence), it differentiates the evangelical Christian with a propensity for proselytizing from the cautious Christian.

    If you think that deconstruction (also known as action analysis according to Marc Hauser see
    Moral Minds) is valid well then there is a clear difference in the moral action of some evangelical Christians and shall we say the cautious Christians, because the evangelicals do not give the impression they have thought about the consequence of their actions.

    As for the pedantry, I am just trying to work through the disagreement with some sort of reason rather than just tell you your wrong or resort to name calling.

    If it doesn't meet acceptable intellectual standards, well I apologise for trying to have what I perceived as a rational, reasoned based conversation.

    Fair enough. On a final note, people are often not reasonable, rational etc etc. People are often unreasonable. People are often over emotional etc. I think you'd be less irritated if you take such human characteristics into account, because even when they are being such things, they may still have good motivations. Often, 'people' can't be deconstructed into options a, b and c. But then you've shown in your response to your christian friend who's wife was sick, that you already know that. So why make such a staunch stance against it? You did the right thing, because you used tact and feeling along with your logic and reasoning to arrive at something you thought right. My advice is not to lay down rules for yourself in such a manner, just take each scenario on merit. As I said, motivation is the key.


  • Options
    #111
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sangre wrote: »
    I don't know about anyone else but I'd wonder what happened in my friend's life that caused him to suddenly become so deluded.
    aidan24326 wrote: »
    Me too, which is why I'd be interested in discussing it provided there was some degree of balance to the conversation, and I wasn't just being bombarded with evangelical grenades.

    I think the above is what I would consider the normal response of consideration for the friend. If you genuinely think he is being deluded, getting irritated or annoyed at him is not going to do much good. So just like he 'may' be motivated by concern for you and helping you see the light, you as a good friend will also be motivated by concern for him and help him see your point of view. I personally think that thats a normal response. In both cases, motivation behind the act is what discerns it. So fair play.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement