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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Frubals to you again. They won't let me, but I really agree with what you said, again. Tolerance for each other's beleifs is critical at this juncture of our evolution. I'm not talking about the ones that hurt or harm us, but more that they can believe in whatever brings them comfort as far as a god or no god goes. I still think we need to decline from allowing murder, rape etc. because these things are not in our best interest as a society and cause an endless cycle of hard feelings that can and usually do escalate into more violence.
"church" is the name of a particular type of building. Technically speaking it is a label but not the kind of label that I have been speaking out against.
Those are titles but again could technically be considered labels. However, again they are not really what I have in mind
I do see your point DL. The truth is about 90-99% of our language is comprised of labels/titles/names because we do need them in a way in order to portray a concept to others. We call a teacher a teacher because he teaches. But that is merely a job title. And we know that a teacher is not just a teacher. Calling him a teacher merely tells us what job he has. It doesn't tell us whether he's a good teacher or bad teacher or anything else about him. When it comes to labels like good and evil, we tend to let those labels encompass the whole person. We label someone good or evil and we don't think that they could be anything else, after all how could that which is evil do good or that which is good do evil. I think the reason we are getting confused is because I'm working with a more specific definition of the word "label" than you are. When I think of labels I think of words like "good" "evil", "bully", "nerd" "fool" "wise", etc. Basically anything that implies an absolute. "good" implies an absolute because again how can something be "good" if it also does "evil". "wise" and "fool" also imply absolutes because after all how can someone who is a fool be wise or someone who is wise be a fool. This is where my main beef lies. With labels that imply absolutes. Because every person who shows wisdom can also show foolishness. People who do things that people call bad can also do things that people would call good(people often forget that hitler brought Germany out of a deppression worse than the one the united states experienced. He brought the country together and made it stronger. People get so caught up in the genocide he comitted that they forget how he helped is own country) Often times these labels have an opposite and that is how we can usually tell that they are absolute terms. Good and evil are opposites, nerd and bully are opposites(in a sense at least of social status) wise and fool are opposites. But words like teacher or prophet or church, have no opposite, they are not absolute. Now of course their are exceptions to the rule as always. And yes I would go so far as to say that words like "friend" and "enemy" should be avoided because they imply absolutes. After all how can a friend go against you or an enemy help you. But yes I do use the word "friends" myself simply because there is no better way to describe the people that I would label my friends. And even so I am not particularly fond of the term. Now yes just because one uses labels doesn't mean the person will also stop at that label or think that that label encompasses the whole person. The thing is for me personally I have found that I do. In the past I have labeld people as fundamentalists, or extremeists and as a result I ignore everything they say, I think of them as self-righteous fools and don't go any further. The thing is there is far more to those people than simply their religious views. I get caught in the label trap, so and so is an extremeist because he is an extremeist. I've done this before and would just as soon avoid doing it again. As such I avoid using those particular labels that imply absolutes. And yes it is a judgment call on my part as to which labels I avoid and which I don't. Is that hypocritical or contradictory, perhaps, But this, I have found, is what works for me. If labeling works for you, and you can do it without reducing a person TO their label, fine, go for it. I just feel that for me, at least, and in my experience many others, labels are counter-productive because we get so caught up in the label that we forget to look at the person. This happens even with words like "teacher" or "prophet" sometimes. I remember as a child even on up into middle school I didn't think my teachers did anything other than teach or that there was anything more to them other than teaching(another label trap). We often let the person become their label in our minds and forget that there is far more to people than just the labels we give them. Hence that is why I personally try to avoid using labels. Now yes sometimes there is no better way at the moment to describe something or someone. There is no better way to describe someone who teaches other than calling him a teacher, and I would sooner call genocide evil than I would call it good, but then I'd just as soon avoid such labels all together. Indeed if I were to create my own language "labels" would apply strictly to objects and not be applied to actions or people or ideas. For instance instead of calling someone a teacher I would simply say "he is someone who teaches".
. And in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to tell you to change just explaining my point of view. You may find it "superfluous" but I find it helps me. I DO see it as a "point of clarification", one that is necessary for me, in my mind to make. I often go into long schpeels because I want to make sure the other person understands my position. And i think you've noticed how the longer I remain on the same topic with someone the longer my posts tend to get. I do tend to ramble at times. In the end it simply comes down to "this is what works for me". You are welcome to take it or leave it however you wish. It's no skin off my nose either way. Been fun chatting with you DL. I do hope we have finally reached at least SOME modicum of understanding:angel2:
)
I always have a question that doesn't ever go over well- Can anything be a "god". Does a person who obsessed with money use money as their god? If a person lives to eat, is food their god? Does a drug addict worship his drugs? It can go on and on. I am not talking about just enjoying something or loving something, I am talking about things that take most of your effort and time (outside of parenting,that is
I always have a question that doesn't ever go over well- Can anything be a "god". Does a person who obsessed with money use money as their god? If a person lives to eat, is food their god? Does a drug addict worship his drugs? It can go on and on. I am not talking about just enjoying something or loving something, I am talking about things that take most of your effort and time (outside of parenting,that is
