CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Warning against institutionalized religious Dogma.
 
Living in the Spirit Views: 515
Published: 28 months ago
 
This is a reply to # 2,424,407

Re: Warning against institutionalized religious Dogma.


Rainy: Ed, you misunderstood my apology.

Ed: Actually i really do understood what you were apologizing for Rainy.

Rainy: I did apologize for not stating things in a more loving manner...

Ed: This is what i understood.

Rainy: ... which I am not sure I am even able to do with these serious errors.

Ed: Then you have your work cut out for you. First you have to recognize that treating people with kindness in disagreement is actually possible, not impossible. Maybe if you first learn and completely understand what personal attacks are so you are able to at least recognize them when your heart and mind immediately want to rush there as opposed to stating and supporting your positions? Is treating people with respect and common decency really so difficult for you? Is this how you treat everybody in the world who is not a fundamentalist "christian", a zealot for catholic originated dogma? If you are sincere about wanting to learn what ad hominem personal attacks look like and how you can state your position without making these personal attacks, i am willing to help you. I have already provided you with 20 examples. If you are unable to see what was wrong with any of these 20 personal attacks, then did you apologize for something to which you were completely oblivious?

As one exercise, maybe you can think of someone that you really love and care about. Maybe it's a 5 year old child, maybe it's your mother or aunt or maybe a cute puppy. Imagine how you would want people to talk to them with kindness and respect regardless of their beliefs. Imagine how it would make you feel is someone hammered them with the same 20 personal attacks that you leveled against me in one post. Is this how you want these loved ones spoken to?

Something else of value would be learning about "logical fallacies" and not using these in dialogues and/or debates.

Why haven't you ever said, "the reason i believe in a 100% God breathed (original) bible is x, y and z". The reason i don't believe Jesus was excluding himself when He said that His Father was the one true God is x, y and z". As opposed to: "you're so deceived because you don't believe the way i do, You don't have any discerneemtnt because you don't believe the way i do", "you need to stop watching youtube videos because only i am able to choose the right ones", etc. Maybe too think about how Brown and White and other professionals debate eachother. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously launches into pre-emptive personal attacks Rainy unless they don't know how to honestly and skillfully defend their beliefs. It is an extremely immature and unhealthy tactic. Can you even imagine Brown or white doing that to eachother?

Rainy: You would most likely have been offended no matter how I stated things.

Ed: No Rainy, this is a cop out and you are better than this. You were being personally abusive with ad hominem attacks. It really is possible to express yourself and your doctrinal beliefs without doing this. But it first takes the decision to recognize that it's wrong to behave that way and to change it. and then it would take practice.

One of the greatest ways to live in the Spirit is to develop the practice of "taking every thought captive and bringing into into obedience to Christ" which is one of the most practical and essential bible verses when it comes to Living unto God.

Rainy: I never wanted to offend you, but sometimes the truth is offensive.

Ed: Dogmatism is offensive rainy, but even such dogmatic phrases as "The bible (original) is 100% God breathed, inerrant, infallible and the final authority" ","The Koran is the 100% God breathed word of God, dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel" "Jesus is God" ,"Mohammad was God's greatest messenger",    "God is a Trinity" are nowhere near as offensive to the person that does not believe these dogmatic statements as the kind of personal attacks you have made a habit of habitually launching into when someone does not agree with you. Hopefully you are willing to become much more clear on the difference.

Rainy: It is still better to tell the truth than cover it up in order to not offend someone.
Ed: I believe it is great for you or anybody else to speak what you believe the truth to be, but not in the area of ad hominem attacks. Speaking truth can be done with kindness, patience and other aspects of Love and need not be accompanied by ad hominem attacks. Maybe you can try to act more like Brown and White when you are stating your case and trying to convince someone to see things your way.

Rainy: The outcome can be very disastrous if we do and say all things with the motive of not offending others.
Ed: The outcome can be very disastrous if you push people away from God by hammering them with pre-emptive ad hominem attacks and if you push other people away from God when they see that your example is not at all Christlike.
You will have a much better chance of encouraging people to see things your way with kindness, not with hostility and deprecation.

This was a quick response so it's not comprehensive or as clean as i might have liked.

God bless you.

 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  curezone.org

6.000 sec, (3)