This is not a projection on my part.
You claimed that I have been trying to convert you. You also claimed that I was frustrated, when in fact it was clearly yourself who was, evidenced by this abrupt burst of "I'm done with you!" shouted in my face after I thought we'd been having a respectful and civilized, non-hostile discussion over our differences of points of view.
Clearly that frustration was and is yours. And then considering you cast me as the one trying to convert you, when that hardly is the case, it is more than easy to see that as a projection as well. After all, the handbook on conversion tactics that the other poster just shared snippets of with us, clearly shows that primary motivation of the religious organization.
So it is not hard for me to imagine that since you have spent 50 years in a system whose primary objective is to make converts, to see this as a projection as well. You see my reasoning here, right?
BTW, of course in this 'debate', each side presents their own points of view and tries to support and defend them to the other. That is what makes for a good discussion, IMO. But that is not the same as trying to convert the other person on the level of "making converts". That's just basic persuasion of ideas. That's the nature of a healthy
dialog.
When I doubted you claim of what you experienced that was because it didn't fit what I thought was reality. I still don't see that what some mystics have believed and what you believe are correct.
Yes, and then in the spirit of a healthy dialog, I pointed out that this is an error. It's like arguing with Galileo that he couldn't possibly have seen shadows on the moon through his telescope because that would contradict church authority by indicating that the sun was the center of the solar system, and not the earth.
So when Galileo reasoned with them why his experience was valid, and they were mistaken, what might you have said about his personal motivations in defending his research? We all know the history of how the church authority took the other path of trying to silence him because they were unable to rethink their beliefs.
If any motivation I have at all in discussions like these with you and others, it is to provoke them to growth, to see that there may be more to consider beyond entrenched religious dogmatic views that hold them back. I don't see that as trying to make converts though. I see it in the spirit of provoking one another towards growth spiritually.
I do not believe, for instance, that someone who denies science in order to preserve their views of the creation story in the book of Genesis, is doing something in service of their faith. I very much see denialism as working against faith. This is my own personal history speaking here, trying to deny reality in order to hang onto what my church "authorities" told me was the infallible, inerrant truth of God's word. I came to see this as detrimental to spiritual health and wellbeing.
I'm not at all interested in converting you.
To be honest, that's hard to believe, after I was just shown the techniques and methods of the how to make converts that the other poster just shared. They are straight out the handbook that the fundamentalist evangelical church I was in would use. Everything had an ulterior motive behind it. Show love to someone, in order for them to be impressed by your friendliess so that they might be interested in the teachings of your church. Everything was tainted by this ulterior motive of converting them. Genuine love was never allowed to just be there, without some hidden expectation or hope of making them converts lurking back there in the corner. It colorized everything good it touched because of that.
I can't tell you how liberating that was for me to be free of this hidden expectation of making converts for Jesus looming over me as some religious expectation. "Smile" because you represent the Lord.
Now I can just be genuine. I used to say after I left that system, "I feel more a Christian now that I'm not one, then I ever did when I was one!". That really says it all to me.
What you said especially lately did genuinely seemed to me like you were working on disproving my faith, and I was defending myself.
I was challenging your views. Not out to disprove your faith. In all honesty, I can see how many can benefit from a top-down hierarchical system of faith. I've even in this discussion pointed out that there is nothing wrong and that there can be benefit to a healthy student teacher relationship. I grow as a result of those myself in other areas of learning, such as my learning Tai Chi from an expert.
Where the not so good part of that can happen is where if that Tai Chi expert goes around bad-mouthing the other masters as not teaching the truth of Tai Chi because they have a different experience and understanding of it than he does. I've encountered teachers like this in taiji (the other spelling of it), and it's the same problem I have with fundamentalism. I am of the belief that "everyone has a peice of the truth", even him in his ego-driven view that only he has the right taiji.
Therefore, I have no doubt whatsoever that in the Bahai'i system, you do have genuine Truth in there in places. But I challenge anyone who thinks that they alone have the exclusive monoloply on that truth, and only agree with the other teachers in different Tai Chi strudios when they agree with their master. That is how what you have been presenting to me comes off. If anything, I would encourage you to try to see that others have truths that you yourself do not have. That you have errors too.
Take advantage of what others who have some degree of mastery themselves might offer, even when it contradicts your own understanding. That, this, is the spirit of my motivations in this discussion. Not your accusation of trying to convert you or disprove your faith.
I guess I misinterpreted that you were trying to convert me, but now I realize that it wasn't about that. It was about ego, proving that you are right and I am wrong, and unfortunately I have an ego myself and I was trying to prove you wrong and I was right.
Again, no. It's not about my ego trying to prove myself right. This is again a projection. Proving myself right", is a very hollow thing for me. That means little to nothing to me at this point on my path.
I have just, perhaps more clearly explained my motivations. I can assure it's out of a genuine desire to provoke you to see a greater more inclusive view of others in their views and experiences, rather than invalidating them by attempting to preserve your entrenched views. You too may not have all the truth, where others do.
By all means, stick with your system, but I'd encourage you to stretch yourself in the interest of seeing what others have to offer to the larger picture. That's all about you and your own path. "
The two people that debate get nowhere with that. I hate debating, but unfortunately this is what happened.
I have to somewhat smile in that this is after all a "debate" forum.
I think what you are saying is you allowed yourself to become frustrated and falling into that trap in yourself of trying to prove me wrong. That's a good thing that you caught that. But the next step is to take ownership of that, and not try to project it off of yourself and on to me.
By the way, I guess you think I was lying when I said this "I am a thoughtful person, and I don't want to have a faith that misleads me, and I've always considered seriously if there are flaws there in the Baha'i Faith." because you never seemed to have acknowledged that. if you don't trust that I am on the level why should I talk to you when you don't believe I am sincere?
Actually, I do believe you are sincere. However, I also see you struggling. But this is all a good thing. You are making an effort, and I see that and appreciate that. That is why I continue to respond. I don't waste my time with those who are absolutely closed off to others. You don't impress me as that.
www.latimes.com
