-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interfering with 'another person's faith'?
- Thread starter Marcion
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
A mix of both, maybe?
Around here, several churches have been refusing to follow public health regulations, spreading the COVID-19 virus among themselves and into the community. If the churches around you aren't doing that, then I'm happy for you.
Of course, this is all on top of the ways that Christianity is imposed on non-believers in this society... from how our "standard" work schedule is built around the religious obligations of only one religion, or how everyone subsidizes churches' tax-free status (and the tax credits for donations to churches).
Things are a bit different between countries, though: your religious anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ lobby is more powerful than ours, and you don't have government-run Catholic schools or a requirement that your head of state also be the head of a church.
If I interfere with another, it's an unwanted intrusion. In other words, it's an aggressive act.
So, say, if someone is holding up a sign saying something I disagree with, I won't interfere with the sign holder.
But if someone on RF posts something I think is utterly wrong, then that person has done so in a venue created to facilitate discussion and debate. Then I feel free to disagree because the person is in a place, an arena if you will, where such activities are lauded (at least in theory and as long as it's done civilly).
I was thinking of debate and discussion. But if someone else's actions put me at a clear and present danger of illness or death, it's a different matter. Then I have no compunction about interfering with their putting me at risk.
If someone expresses a viewpoint or a belief in a public debate forum, I feel I am completely within my rights responding in any way that I believe to be correct.
If I wish to express my own views, even though those views might be seen as contradicting someone else's religious views, again I believe that to be perfectly reasonable.
I think it would be rude to enter a church, temple, mosque or synagogue and express views that contradict the beliefs of the worshippers there, and would never think of doing such a thing. Similarly, if a person tells me something directly to my face about their beliefs, I will generally say nothing, or I will simply say, "I don't share your belief." If they go on to ask me, I will explain further, but will not do so if they do not ask.
If I wish to express my own views, even though those views might be seen as contradicting someone else's religious views, again I believe that to be perfectly reasonable.
I think it would be rude to enter a church, temple, mosque or synagogue and express views that contradict the beliefs of the worshippers there, and would never think of doing such a thing. Similarly, if a person tells me something directly to my face about their beliefs, I will generally say nothing, or I will simply say, "I don't share your belief." If they go on to ask me, I will explain further, but will not do so if they do not ask.
Yeah... but there's plenty of ways that a person's religious views can have these sorts of impacts.
Many aren't as overt and immediate as spreading a deadly virus during a pandemic, but things like anti-LGBTQ religious views definitely have a death toll associated with them as well.
As for other, less deadly issues... well, as I was getting at earlier, religion imposes itself on us in all sorts of ways. I think that every citizen has the right to speak out about their government. It so happens that my head of state is the head of the Church of England. Well, it's still good and proper for me to criticize my head of state even if some Anglican takes offense at me criticizing the head of their church. If they don't like it, they can take steps to separate the two positions.
In general, if a religious organization is going to try to make it so that I have to live by their religion's rules, then their religion's rules are going to become fair game for me to speak out about.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Tell you what, when religious people stop proselytizing, then maybe secular folks will too.
That will depend on the context. Probably not with people with whom I have other relationships, that is, the people in my life, but here on a message board which purpose is to discuss such ideas, and with people with whom I have no other relationship than to see their words here, yes. It's worse to have your brother-in-law resent your atheism than an unknown person on the Internet, for example.
I never initiate conversations about the religious beliefs of others because as long as they keep them private, I have no interest. I don't want to spend time with people that are outwardly religious, and if they proselytize, I might give them a frank response before I disengage from them at the risk of offending them, but that would be alright with somebody who was pushy about religion, since I would be ending the relationship.
Here on RF, I make arguments against believing by faith, or against creationism, and even against organized, politicized religion. And of course, if their faith moves them to inform the forum that they disapprove of atheists or mischaracterize them, I don't feel any need to hold back regarding how I feel about the religion that teaches them to think that way.
I also object to the arrogance of others thinking that they have a better way to live than the one I chose. I happen to believe that I have the better world view, and that these people would have been better off raised as secular humanists, but I'm not going to tell them that unless they begin by presuming that I want their life advice. So, I'll push back when that happens, which might be considered interfering with another's faith, although that doesn't ever really happen, either - another reason no to discuss this subject except in this context. Otherwise, I have no reason to challenge their beliefs.
But this isn't Star Trek, and we unbelievers have no Prime Directive to have no impact on the culture of the faithful. If my words challenge their faith, so be it. They wanted to discuss these matters or I wouldn't be involved in such a discussion, and if that gets an emotional response from them, so be it. I have no duty to censor myself because somebody who's discussing religion in a public forum that includes unbelievers doesn't like to be disagreed with or having his most sacred beliefs challenged. If that's how you are, oh well. Perhaps you shouldn't be discussing your beliefs in a venue like this one.
But I have no interest in undermining their religious world view, and would consider it cruel were it even possible, unless I was dealing with somebody in the first half of life. There's still time to rethink the world and one's place in it. I might be able to help them if they're searching. I could share my own odyssey leaving Christianity at about age thirty, but only with somebody expressing interest.
But for older people, no. They probably not interested, they probably haven't developed critical thinking skills and thus never will, their social situation may be completely immersed in their church attendance and apostasy might devastate that, and adjusting to a new view of the world is difficult, disorienting, and painful. It was for me, but I was still young and flexible, still in school and not committed to the social situation I was in at the time, and with so much expected life still ahead, it was worth the effort. But there would be nothing in it for me to try now except chaos, so no, I wouldn't be interested in interfering in their faith even if they brought it up. I would only discuss what I believe if asked, not what I think they should believe.
McBell
Unbound
IMO, it depends upon the when and where.
For example, during church service I would sit down and shut up and not voice my opinions.
Here on RF, I might or might not voice my opinion.
Since religion very rarely comes up in real life discussion for me...
Perhaps I should have been more open about the situation that made this question enter my mind.
It's nothing on a forum, where such discussions of differing viewpoints should be normal.
Rather it is in a community of progressive (even vegetarian) Christians where prosetylizing is not done as far as I know or noticed.
I myself however have a natural inclination to want to share my insights into the history and meaning of spiritual texts with people who are interested in the subject. I don't want to convince anyone, just share my own discoveries and insights.
But I hold back somewhat because my viewpoint isn't Christian enough and it is me who visits and works with them and not the other way around.
the road to hell/heaven is paved with all kinds of good faiths. the heaven found find it with putting their faith to the Way, their talk into action. at a certain point a service to self belief system fails except at the Absolute. the sooner one comprehends its opposition to other as self and it's limit, the sooner they align with the limitless, the Absolute.
i have come to destroy that which is not permanent, limitless. love is an aweful thing
Last edited:
you'll find this behavior prevalent in most fundamentalists no matter their belief systems.
the pupil can never be above the teacher. it is good enough that she/he should become like her/him. so the job of the teacher is to be a mentor and not an overlord. everything you know, you try to give to those who come behind you, just as those who gave to you came before.
love changes things, even christians
Last edited:
The bit where Jesus teaches his disciples 'do not go babbling on like the heathen who imagine that the more they say, the more likely they are to be heard. Do not imitate them. Your Father knows what your needs are before you ask Him.
When you pray say:'
Then follows a series of short spells that I know in the form of Sanskrit mantra's which in the New Testament form the (extended) Christian "Our Father" prayer (used more ritually by Christians, not like separate mantra's).
See Q Matthew 6: 7-8 & Q 11: 2 = Luke 11: 2 / Matthew 6: 9-10
The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
And you would like to share your Hindu/Buddhist (?) interpretation of Christ with them, but you are afraid of causing offence?
If they are as progressive as you say, they’d probably welcome your perspective; Though of course I can’t speak for them. Cross fertilisation of cultures and faiths is to be encouraged, I believe, and often benefits both cultures.
That is also my way of thinking.
I don't reinterpret the Christian Christ, because that is their own viewpoint.
But I'm a fan of the Jesus before the kerygma and apocalypse were invented and that is not a specifically Hindu or Buddhist Jesus but a Tantric Jesus.
They are very progressive, but stripping back to such a Jesus is rather radical and unusual I suspect.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I was under the impression that Manthras are not supplication.
"faith" is just a set of ideas. ALL ideas should be criticizable.
In my experience, "the faithful" typically "throw the first stone". In other words, the faithful often try to find ways to wedge their faith into other people's business. It's those cases in which I feel no problem at all to push back. Here are some things I see faithful people doing that I think ought to be confronted:
- being misogynistic
- being tribal
- encroaching on science
- encroaching on spirituality
- pillaging the planet
And so on..
In my experience, "the faithful" typically "throw the first stone". In other words, the faithful often try to find ways to wedge their faith into other people's business. It's those cases in which I feel no problem at all to push back. Here are some things I see faithful people doing that I think ought to be confronted:
- being misogynistic
- being tribal
- encroaching on science
- encroaching on spirituality
- pillaging the planet
And so on..
firedragon
Veteran Member
Marcion. I am interested in discussion Q and Q-lite with you since you are always quoting these words. Not in a derailed thread, but in a new thread. Please let me know here if you are interested.
I was not thinking of a group seeking to impose their beliefs on everyone.
If people express an interest in a subject, it's not automatically an imposition presuming they are really interested in what you have to say and open to hearing a different view. Such people are rare in my experience. Most people seem to want to give people their perspective and want agreement in return.
So absent a really strong reason, I should not bother saying something that is almost certainly going to be rejected.
Today I read a piece lauding three questions someone with emotional intelligence asks himself before speaking (it's a work in progress for me):
There are three things you must always ask yourself before you say anything.
- Does this need to be said?
- Does this need to be said by me?
- Does this need to be said by me, now?