Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[Thief]

kathryn, for what it's worth, my discourse with theif pretty much says it all...

thief, that is your truth embrace it for yourself...

Redirect instead of rebuttal?

Cheap trick.

But that's your technique...not mine.

 

[waitasec]

Why did we just have that recap of posts? I've read all those already.

Yawn.

i was just trying to make a point...
why belittle my effort?

 

[waitasec]

Redirect instead of rebuttal?

Cheap trick.

But that's your technique...not mine.

is this not the truth... as it were...?

i laid out the discourse between you and i to make a point...

did i misrepresent your posts?

and i did answer you...

 

[Thief]

is this not the truth... as it were...?

i laid out the discourse between you and i to make a point...

did i misrepresent your posts?

and i did answer you...

Okay....so then, as per title....

There are occasions when helping will not take hold.

 

[waitasec]

Okay....so then, as per title....

There are occasions when helping will not take hold.

excuse me, did i ask for your help?
i'll repeat an earlier post...

i think proselytising diminishes the truth others hold...
in other words, it's not respectful even though it may come from a heart of gold. the mere act of proselytising is assuming "i have it, you don't and i want to share it with you" for a various reasons

 

[Kathryn]

If a Roman Catholic believes that he is ingesting the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the Eucharist, does that make it true? Is he REALLY ingesting the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ?

I mean, he believes it - it's his path, it's valid apparently, but is it true or not?

 

[waitasec]

If a Roman Catholic believes that he is ingesting the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the Eucharist, does that make it true? Is he REALLY ingesting the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ?

I mean, he believes it - it's his path, it's valid apparently, but is it true or not?

it makes it true to the believer...however, if they accept what cannibalism is, is up for debate?

 

[Draka]

Holy crap nuggets Batman...what has this thread become? I seem to see a lot of this: :banghead3


If I may be so bold as to try to referee just a second...

There seem to be a lot of assumptions here that some people are jumping to that have turned what may have been a short simple conversation into something entirely blown out of proportions with accusations thrown on both sides. Neither side is innocent of this now.

The argument about "truth" seems to stem from the fact that there are more than one idea or concept of "truth". The concept of "absolute truth" versus "personal truth". Now, while the argument of "personal truth" lends itself to a more accepting view of differences, the concept of "absolute truth" doesn't do this so well. This may well contribute to the problem of proselytization. Some religions have an "absolute truth" concept that allows for all "personal truths" to be equally valid while some others don't. The argument here seems to stem mainly from a difference in concepts. It's hard to argue a point when the definition of the point differs between people. You really aren't ever on the same page. At this point you either have to calm down and let each other specifically outline their definitions and agree to debate those concepts separately, or you agree to disagree and leave it at that. But to continue like it has been for the last over ten pages or so...well...that's just round robin and no one's going anywhere.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree - which is why I asked many pages back for a definition of "objective truth" and "subjective truth" - two terms which were being bandied about.

No definition or clarification was given.

 

[waitasec]

I agree - which is why I asked many pages back for a definition of "objective truth" and "subjective truth" - two terms which were being bandied about.

No definition or clarification was given.

well i did direct this to you kathryn...

do you equate sharing and preaching as the same thing?
1st i want to get this straight before we go any longer.
i am assuming we are talking about proselytizing
meaning: to induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith
induce meaning: to stimulate...

are we one the same page?

maybe i missed your response...

 

[Draka]

Perhaps another thread devoted entirely to how people define "truth" would be a good idea. No one is going to have an argument on equal ground unless their base thought is defined the same way. Otherwise you're more battling definition than the actual topic.

 

[waitasec]

Perhaps another thread devoted entirely to how people define "truth" would be a good idea. No one is going to have an argument on equal ground unless their base thought is defined the same way. Otherwise you're more battling definition than the actual topic.

the idea of truth whether it is objective or subjective goes hand in hand with
proselytizing...it's the nature of the beast.

 

[waitasec]

here, you said it yourself

The argument about "truth" seems to stem from the fact that there are more than one idea or concept of "truth". The concept of "absolute truth" versus "personal truth". Now, while the argument of "personal truth" lends itself to a more accepting view of differences, the concept of "absolute truth" doesn't do this so well. This may well contribute to the problem of proselytization.

 

[Draka]

the idea of truth whether it is objective or subjective goes hand in hand with
proselytizing...it's the nature of the beast.

Only if the particular definition of "truth" does not allow for other "truths".

 

[waitasec]

Only if the particular definition of "truth" does not allow for other "truths".

which is what proselytizing implies...
right?

 

[Penumbra]

MOD Post

Personal statements about members and misrepresentation of beliefs are against forum rules. Please comment on the idea, not the person.​

 

[Draka]

which is what proselytizing implies...
right?

Well, there's still the weird need to tell others what to believe. There are some who think they have the only "truth" there is and theirs is absolute, but they still don't feel the need to bully around at people. One must not only feel they have the one and only "absolute truth" but they must have some sort of inner drive or arrogance about having that "truth" that they feel they must inflict it on everyone else. Oh, I'm sorry..."share the good news" with everyone else.

 

[Vinayaka]

inflict

Excellent.... but it reminded me of the notorious historical purposeful spread of smallpox ... another sad moment in the history of proseltysing

 

[waitasec]

Well, there's still the weird need to tell others what to believe. There are some who think they have the only "truth" there is and theirs is absolute, but they still don't feel the need to bully around at people. One must not only feel they have the one and only "absolute truth" but they must have some sort of inner drive or arrogance about having that "truth" that they feel they must inflict in on everyone else. Oh, I'm sorry..."share the good news" with everyone else.

that is the key.
it's the implicit action of inducing the charge..."the truth" or "the good news".
the problem i think most christians grapple with is they understand this as arrogant but are commanded to do it...it is woven into their doctrine...there's no way around it...thusly presenting a dilemma for most christian followers who understand that people should respect other peoples....truths.

 

[Kathryn]

If this is the case, what's the excuse for arrogant proselytizing from, say, atheists? Or anyone else who shares their personal belief system with others?