Daniel, that may be the best post in GD I have read in months. Well done, sir!
“Treat others as you would wish to be treated.” What a, well, Christian thing to do.
Lib, you listening? You wish your religious belief to be treated with respect, and you wish people not to make statements offensive to that belief?
Then afford the same respect to atheists.
Sua
Daniel
Your kindness is an example for us all. I accept your apology, but it wasn’t necessary. I knew you meant no offense. The phonemes don’t bother me. If it were Chinese, it would have no effect. Unfortunately, when I see English words, they enter my brain and deconstruct into meaning. Once that happens, it’s too late.
I’m not sure that I can express compassion without God. For me, it wouldn’t “feel right” to say, “All the best,” or something. I would feel insincere. And yet, I also do not want to do as someone suggested and just shut the hell up.
This is difficult for me. I’ll have to — forgive me — seek God’s wisdom on the matter. But in any case, I sure do think you’re a classy guy! God go… Um… May you… Well, you know what I mean.
Gosh, Sua and Lib, you’ll make my head swell.
I suspect that in an argument like this, we both exagerrate our sensitivities. If you say, “You’re in my prayers,” although I will cringe a little at the phrasing, I’ll also recognize the sincere sentiment behind it. So don’t worry excessively about phrasing like that, at least with me. I think that the more the phrasing resembles things that proselytizers might say, the more I’ll cringe. If you say something like, “Remember that Jesus loves you,” that’s when I’ll get snarly and defensive: I’ll probably respond the same way you would if I said, “Even though there is no God, remember that your friends will always be there for you.”
Of course, if you say, “I’ll be thinking of you,” and if you can say it and be sincere, that’s best of all. No cringing on my part. But if you can’t say that, don’t worry too much, as long as you can steer clear of language that sounds like it might be proselytizing.
Daniel
Daniel
How about this: “I love you and offer myself to you.” For me, that expresses exactly what I feel, and for you there is no (obvious) reference to God.
:eek:
Oh. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way.
I think what matters here are the thoughts behind the words. For example, I would take (and have taken) a “blessing” from someone like Lib (with his trademark “God go with you”) differently than I would a “blessing” from your average fundie (which usually translates, “I pray God will show you the truth” with the implied follow-on “you sinner, before he burns you up forever in Hell”).
In Lib’s case, I know he is wishing me the best, and that for him it matters not whether I believe in one God, no gods, or a hundred gods. For my hypothetical fundie, their wishes for the best have lots of religious conditions on them.
So yes indeed - it IS the thought that counts!
Thanks CJ! Of course, now I need to learn to do multiple quotes in one reply.
First, just to be clear, all of the muslims I know speak the queen’s english. I don’t know any arabic muslims. If someone calls God “Allah” that does not bother me.
You have both given me something to think about. I guess the question that remains in my mind is whether having completely different views about the same God and his nature is the same or tantamount to believing in a different God. While, until a few minutes ago, I assumed it was, your replies have made me realize that I have never put great thought into that assumption, and perhaps a little thought is appropriate.
Hopefully this is not hijacking the thread too much, but here is the conceptual problem I have. I am not a scholar of Islam (big suprise to you there, I am sure), and the majority of what I know about Islam is from muslim friends, which may or may not be entirely accurate. As I understand Islam, God is one person with one nature. To believe that God could be three persons with one nature (which I think is an accurate statement of the generally held Christian view) is blasphemous. To say the Jesus is God or is God’s son is an unpardonable sin. So, in other words, my beliefs are blasphemy to a muslim. Somehow, I am not sure that simply saying we are talking about the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” means we are talking about the same God. Perhaps we are, but simply have different understandings of him. It seems strange that we would be talking about the same God when what I consider to be essential characteristics of God are blasphemy to what a muslim considers to be essential characteristics of God. I have previously considered that difference to mean we are talking about different Gods, but I at least need to ponder that a bit. Certainly, our conceptions of God are vastly different.
A very good question. Perhaps there is no distinction other than cultural, which is something I need to think about. As of the moment (and this is subject to change) my general response is that the Islamic view of God is one of voluntarism, which as I understand it is vastly different from the judaic view of God. While both religions claim allegiance to the “God of Abraham and Moses”, the Islamic view ascribes to God characteristics that are different than those acribed by the judeo-christian viewpoint. Without placing a value judgment as to who is right, the judaic view is closer to my own view, and while most Jews would not agree with the concept of a trinity, they would neither hold that to beleve in the trinity is an unpardonable sin, nor would they strip God of intrinsic goodness. I am sure there is also a cultural element to it that is buried somewhere in my subconsconscience. This is a very cursory answer to an involved question, but I think this hijacks the thread enough.
In the end, it seems to me that expressions of concern or consolation should be made with sensitivity to the person who is being consoled. Why introduce anything that could make the person uncomfortable if your purpose is to do the opposite? Even if the person being consoled is unreasonable in their sensitivity (as perhaps I am), if the point is consolation, such an expression is hardly the time to expose one’s oversensitivity.
Well, we are into fine points of theology here, but I believe that the Jewish and Islamic concepts of God are closer to one another than either are to the Christian concept. All three religions believe that there is one God with one nature, and that he is the creator of all things. The all accept that God is omiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving, all-compassionate and all-merciful, although they might differ as to precisely what these terms imply. Christians, however, believe that there are three persons in the one God and that God has been incarnated in human form and has taken on human nature, whereas Jews and Muslims would reject those views strongly, and debate whether they should be considered as a form of polytheism and/or idolatry.
But all three religions would also agree that all human conceptions of God are necessarily imperfect, in that the reality of God passes human understanding. Therefore to say that somebody else has a different conception of God is not to say that he worships a different (and therefore false) God. Certainly both Jews and Muslims would agree that they recognise and worship the same God, and most (though perhaps not all) would also agree that Christians also recognise and worship that God. From the Christian perspective I think it would be very hard to argue that Jews worship the same God as Christians but Muslims do not.
I don’t think I am going to be able to substantially say anything more than Spiritus has, but I think it bears emphasis.
The method of expressing a sentiment seems to be far too narrow of a region to concern ourselves with so much. Which isn’t to trivialize atheism or religion in any way, but to wonder what the hell we’re really trying to dissolve here.
Sua might say, “I wish you well.” If you ask me, the comforting power of these words is not in the wishing, or at least, wishing is not itself some causal agent, I do not expect that I will feel better now only because of the wish. Why should we expect any more when Lib says, “God go with you”?
Sua, you seem to imply that they are in a sense equivalent, except one mentions a deity while another does not. But in what sense are they equivalent if you would rather not deal with the one and instead the other? On one hand, you find alternative expressions which have the same sense; on the other, you seem to refuse the sense of the expression Lib offers in any way other than some sort of religious proselytizing. Which isn’t to say we don’t have expressions we prefer for various reasons, but this is not a cause for debate. The cause for debate is whether one should ever be used at all in such cases, and I must admit a sort of foggy perspective of the reasoning behind it. What am I missing here?
[list=1][]Are the meanings similar enough to be substituted or not?[]If they are not, then why would you ask them to substitute it? If they are, then why would you ask them to substitute it?[]Do you agree that to an atheist a wish for God’s blessing has as much power over fate as an atheist’s wish that one get better?[]Do you suppose the situation in (3) is also similar for an atheist well-wishing a religious person? For example, were it so that a Catholic be upset, should an atheist then conform to their belief structure out of politeness and pray to God?[/list=1]
Like Minty, I’d think you were propositioning me if you said that to me. :dubious:
Other than that, it wouldn’t make me uncomfortable, although I wouldn’t be sure what you meant by the last part (the “offer myself to you” part). I’d probably ask you to clarify.
Daniel
—“I know that you find comfort in your God, and my sincere wish is for your comfort.”—
I the problem with this is that it’s insincere. What I would have to say would be “I know that you find comfort in your belief in God, and my sincere wish is for your comfort.” And the problem with that is that it could be taken the wrong way.
To me, that sentence would not preclude the idea that God exists (and hence one’s belief is especially comforting for that reason). But to a theist, it certainly sounds like it implies “your belief is JUST a belief, nothing more.”
Again, I think that the theist gets the raw end of this deal, because the theist is the one who more commonly feels the need to express something over and above human sympathy or concern, or at least has a concept of human sympathy and concern being an aspect of something that presumes a particular metaphysical view.
I don’t know that this extra burden is fair (though I’m not sure if anything can correct that unfairness), but that seems to be the price of any positive belief: it risks having effects, some good, some bad.
Apos wrote:
That makes perfect sense, much in the same way an evolutionist might cringe if he thinks someone is implying that evolution is JUST a theory. It’s heartening to see that there are atheists here, you and others, who can appreciate that our faith is not an accessory — it is a part of our deepest nature, our actual life experience.
I had no idea this would be so problematic when I raised the question. Heck, even if we were to drop all mention of “God” per se, we’re left with the kind of awkward thing that I proposed to Daniel, and that he could interpret as a sexual pass.
Agreed. The comforting power of the words are the the intetnt expressed and the words themselves. Hell, a grunt could be comforting.
The question is, which words are likely to comfort an atheist? When you comfort me, or when you express the hope that another entity, that I believe does not exist, will comfort me?
See below.
Hey, I agree. I didn’t start this debate. I was happily going along, nodding politely and saying “thanks” when a person who didn’t know my beliefs proffered god’s blessings, and informing my friends that I’d prefer they didn’t proffer me god’s blessings. It seems to work fine, without any debate.
Those who insisted in disrespecting my wishes quickly left the “friends” category, as do all who don’t show me respect. Again, no debate.
I’ll give you a simple analogy: in recent years, “Oriental” has been slowly evolving into a derogatory term. The transition is still ongoing, and currently some persons of East Asian descent find the term offensive, and some don’t - regardless of the intent of the speaker of the term “Oriental.”
When I grew up, “Oriental” was not considered offensive, and is my ingrained word for persons of East Asian descent. But since I know that some East Asians find the word offensive, I try not to use the word in front of any East Asians.
Instead, I use “Asian,” which, to my knowledge, offends nobody and expresses the same concept. Better safe than sorry.
Why does “Oriental” offend some Asians? Probably because of baggage that has become attached to the term.
Why does “may God comfort you” offend some atheists? Probably because of the baggage of intrusive proselytization, though that isn’t my conscious** reason.
But, more to the point, it’s offensive simply because I don’t like it. This ain’t a universal truth; it’s my truth. That’s why it doesn’t bother me when people who don’t know me bless me; there aren’t disrespecting my wishes. And why it does bother me when people who do know my wishes act in contravention to my wishes, particularly when they are purportedly trying to make me feel better.
And I don’t see a compelling (or indeed any) reason to justify this. Another analogy time. My RL name is Vince. I don’t like being called Vinny. When people who don’t me well call me Vinny, I’m not bothered. When people who do know me well call me Vinny, I get irritated, because they know I do not like the nickname, yet insist on acting against my wishes.
No need for a huge debate about my psyche, or the reasons I don’t like Vinny, or the intrinsic value of the nickname. You know me, you know I don’t like being called Vinny, you either don’t call me Vinny or you stop being my friend.
Same with “may God comfort you.” You know me, you know I don’t like that, don’t say that to me if you want to remain my friend.
Just like, when you come over to my place, if you don’t like broccoli, and I know that, I won’t serve you broccoli. Simple respect. This ain’t about religion; it’s about respect.
Sua
Sua wrote:
Okay, fine. And as you said before, if you know that I’m Jewish and keep kosher, you won’t serve me pork chops. But if I visited your house, would you refrain from using colorful metaphors that are variations on “Christ”?
Certainly. 'Course, that doesn’t mean that I won’t use them here, because here I’m not talking to you (or just to you).
Sua
—It’s heartening to see that there are atheists here, you and others, who can appreciate that our faith is not an accessory — it is a part of our deepest nature, our actual life experience.—
Well, I think you’ve got it worse off than most theists in this particular situaiton, because, if i understand it right, your faith includes not only the existence of a God who one recognizes and knows can grant blessings, but your expression of sympathy and concern IS, in some sense, an expression of your God.
So, in one theist case, “God Bless” can more easily be separated into two parts: I care about you, and therefore I appeal to the best comfort I know to bless you. The real message for the atheist, that they have to “read out” of “God Bless” is the former part: the latter is sort of extraneous: it’s like how I described the difference between simply your concern and your preference for how to MEET that concern (“Anything my child grows up to be is okay with me… as long as it’s in the infield.”) It can potentially be left off without any dimunition in meaning recieved.
But in another case (possibly yours?) it can’t be separated like that: the “caring about you” is in some sense the same thing as the God part.
Perhaps the problem is with the word “God.” I mean, it could mean so many different things to different people. I once had a really good discussion with a Tolland-esque pantheist about this problem. They have a fairly esoteric understanding of their god (ex. they have no belief that it, all-existence, is, in toto, a thinking, personal being, but THEY relate to IT personally: it’s a proper noun to them) and though I mostly agree with their usage, it makes things hard. If you look at all the different things that have been called gods over history, you get to a point where it can include virutally anything (doesn’t have to be good, doesn’t have to be powerful, doesn’t have to have created anything, etc.): which means that when the person says “I believe in a god” you learn almost NOTHING from that introductory statement: all the intelligible meaning comes from following up on what they actually believe in. So, if someone doesn’t know what you believe very well, it could be very ambiguous to speak of God.
I think, also, that Sua’s focus on offense is wrong. I mean, offense is not necessarily the problem: that’s one personal reaction that some people have. The problem is more “do you really appreciate and respect me, or are you trying to pull a fast one over on me, or prosleytze me?” Not because one or the other is necessarily offensive (I mean, I don’t think it’s offensive that someone prosletyzes me anymore than someone tries to argue that I should vote differently).
The more basic problem, common to all, is avoiding confusion, which can be especially bad when times are hard, emotions are raw, and grief striken people might be primed to lash out (which usually does them more harm than anyone they lash out at), and finding ways to get some idea of what mutual respect would involve.
As my funeral example demonstrated, I’m not sure that this is possible in ALL criteria. Our memorial gathering, for instance, was good because it didn’t ceremonially place religion at the center, but was perfectly open to, and enriched by, it if anyone wanted to put it there for a while. But for some people, not putting religion ceremonially at the center is not good enough. Some people wouldn’t feel right UNLESS there was a priest or preacher leading a service who’s sole intent was to encourage people to contemplate a particular god. And maybe that makes those people’s wishes mutually exclusive with those who’d like a unified gathering in which no particular metaphysical opinions are demanded or presumed. But that doesn’t necessarily make such an exclusivist wish wrong. It just makes an ideal of common society that much harder.
Likewise with a common way to wish someone well. Our cultures, our languages, our ways of speaking and expressing, rarely if ever developed with the idea of being compatible with other views they might have never even considered. That makes them unweildy: but we also can’t just discard them, because it is precisely them that we want to be attached to in the first place.
How could it be wrong? I’m an atheist, in the circumstances described, I take offense.
Ergo, for at least some (one) atheist(s), the issue is offense. 
Sua
–How could it be wrong? I’m an atheist, in the circumstances described, I take offense.—
I meant that it is the wrong SCOPE for this discusison. Because it’s too limited a focus. That is, not every non-believer would “take offence,” in the way you describe it, but for some people, saying “God Bless” to them STILL might not have the effect or the meaning the theist desired in the first place.
Yes, some (you) take offense. But I think the key issue is that… and more.
Very well, Sua. I still wonder if you would respect the Catholic by praying for them should they be hurting.
Of course, if it is your truth, we don’t have to respect that. That “IMO” sword cuts both ways. But I understand your thrust. No worries, though you’ve spawned an apparent contradiciton, Eris has kept you sane. (Man, am I begging for it there or what?)
[sub]Eesh, a lawyer named “Vince” who doesn’t like “Vinny”… any particular time in history you wished you were dead? :**D[/sub]
I’m an atheist; here’s my take on offers of prayer on my behalf:
If someone offers to pray for me at a time of sadness or worry in my life, I thank them for their sympathy. This applies to strangers and acquaintences as well as the few theists whom I know well. It doesn’t bug me to be prayed for even by those who know I’m an atheist; their intent is motivated by concern for my happiness & health, not my soul or afterlife. They feel as though they can help me in some small way & I’m grateful that they want to, even though I don’t believe that they can help with prayer.
If, on the other hand, the prayer is offered in hopes that my heathen soul will be redeemed, I get inwardly annoyed, but respond by firmly but sweetly assuring the person that I appreciate their concerns, but I’m comfortable with my belief system.
The proselytizing thing happened to me once: A former acquaintence of mine is a (perfectly tolerant) born-again Christian. She wanted me to see her perform in her church’s Christmas pageant last year, so I went.
Many churchgoers who saw me asked if I was new to their congregation. When I said that I had come to see my friend in the pageant, they inquired whether I had accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I responded carefully, but truthfully, saying that while I respect their right to believe as they do, I don’t share their beliefs. Then came the “I’m going to pray for you” comments. I simply smiled and said that if they felt the need to do so, that was fine. It wasn’t worth having an argument that no one would win.