aurelian and the raindog, you have obviously suffered a mutual misunderstanding of your positions, but the discussion is not going to move forward if you get caught up in a “you hit me back first” quarrel.
Stick to clarifying what you mean and spend less time worrying about how you believe you have been misrepresented in older posts.
[ On preview I see that the raindog has taken a step in that direction. Misunderstanding will happen, particularly when positions are perceived though filters of other perceptions. Let’s try to work toward understanding, OK? ]
I think there are some beyond any convincing. Even with those I would try to at least explain the ideal of supporting their rights by supporting others. Other than that , a little blunt language doesn’t need to be too offensive. We work to maintain our democratic republic and let the votes fall where they may.
We can also try to support leaders who have the courage to speak bluntly and honestly {waaayyy to ideal isn’t it?} and try to get our national media to do their part as well.
Something else we can and should do is to remind those who persist that, no they do not speak for me (or anyone else), and their assumption that they know better than I what God wants is pure hubris, a powerplay or both. At that point, whatever claim of spiritual roots their ideas have fly right out the window. I have as much right to receive spiritual direction and act on it as they do, meaning that we need to come to a compromise.
Amen…and right on.I agree with you whole heartedly. I’m glad to see groups like Sojourners stand up and speak. Reminding them that many people who love Christ and study the Bible completely disagree with their idea of “the will of God” and they have no more claim to spiritual guidence than anyone else. At that point we can compare their claims with the the teachings of Christ and see what actions are closer to love thy neighbor.
I guess I could be called a former fundamentalist. I used to argue against evolution and homosexuality among other things. Yeah, I’m a little embarrassed.
What converted me to a listener was the desire to understand other viewpoints. It was initially etched in my mind that my goal was to go and convert people to Christianity, then I could pat myself on the back for “saving them.” But I finally reached a point where I began asking how people can have a different perspective. When it changed from two people trying to convert each other into two people just trying to understand each other, all of the nasty stuff vanished from the discussion. That’s when I found myself becoming strong enough to question myself.
To this day, I find myself fascinated with the differences between one person and the next. I also realize that my perspective on the world is almost entirely unique to me, and that my opinions are not “the standard.”
And, I’m a firm believer in evolution (I also believe it does not conflict with the Bible), and I don’t believe in limiting gay rights (though I actually know why some people do).
I’m not quite sure why my name in particular came up here, and I’m flattered if I’m Mr. Prominent SDMB Atheist 2006, but I’ll confirm that I was a devout Christian until the age of 16, when I became far more interested in and convinced by natural explanations than supernatural ones. I’ve never read the bible all the way through: maybe half, I guess, but I certainly know the background and context to most of the verses which fundamentalists often point to in support of their more backwards positions. If that still counts as a “zero”, so be it.
I realise this is a complete hijack, but for me, this is the most interesting thing in the whole thread; what meaning, if any at all, is conveyed in the sentence:
His (correct) guess is that I haven’t read every single word of the bible. His premise is that I therefore don’t have an accurate understanding of the bible says about hell, reincarnation, homosexuality etc.. I reject this premise.
I’m just curious as to what statement was being made, indeed can be made by such a statement;
I would imagine most housholds contain zero fireplaces, maybe not
I would imagine most apples contain several worms, maybe none
And so on; it’s a statement that appears to assert something (i.e. “I think Sentientmeat has never read the Bible at all”), but is worded in such a vague way as to be unchallengable, or at least redefinable at the later option of the person who said it.
I picked on this because, IMO, it’s a microcosm of a couple of the most significant problems in debate with fundamentalists; poor initial definition and weaselling under scrutiny.
It didn’t appear that way at all to me. The OP is about communicating with fundamentalists. raindog suggested that meeting them on their own ground with a decent working knowledge of the Bible as one way. You may or may not agree. He guessed incorrectly that SM may not be familiar with the Bible. it seems clear to me and doesn’t constitute any weaseling I can see.
I don’t know; the statement about SentientMeat is actually self-negating and thus completely meaningless to proper analysis, and yet, as you say, it represents an opinion about something. My point though is that it is expressed in such a way as to incorporate a ready-made “I didn’t actually say that” argument. He didn’t actually say that, because he didn’t actually say anything at all, because the assertion was self-negating.
Hmm, I think it was mere clumsiness on raindog’s part actually, Mange, but you’re right in pointing out the sheer perversity of many fundamentalist interpretations of either the plain text of the bible or the plain facts of scientific study (whichever is easier to twist so as to avoid a contradiction, I guess). I once discussed the Genesis account of creation, specifically God making grass before the sun (!) with a JW. It was truly a wonder of sophistry to behold as he flitted around the bible via the most tenuous of links. Truly, he could have heard Revelations in white noise.
The thrust of my resonse to the OP was that to effectively reach/reason with a fundamentalist you must endeavor to understand the world through their eyes.
For many fundamentalists, the basis of their reasonings is the bible—and their understanding and interpretation of it’s contents. For others, it may be a long established [undefined] belief or tradition. (or other things, like simple bigotry)
If the basis is the bible, it is my contention that one must be adequately equipped for the task of reasoning with someone who holds the bible as holy.
Now I’ve been around here long enough to know that making fun, or trashing fundamentalists is a near Olympic level sport. (FTR, I don’t identify myself as a fundamentalist, and don’t care if I’m identified as one by someone else. I have no stake in the name, or any part of the OP)
My caution is that the common charge here at SDMB that fundamentalists are stupid, ignorant, mis-informed, homophobic, bigoted and bible-ignorant may be big fun, but not universally true. Bible ignorance is pervasive, and (imo) equally distrubuted among Christians, Non-Christians, liberals, conservatives, men, women, homosexuals and heterosexuals. I know the denizens of SDMB would like to think that we’re all basking in the soft, warm, diffuse glow of enlightment, but the fact is (once again, imo) that for every Diogenes, Polycarp, Tomndebb or Friar Ted theres 500 people posting pure drivel.
My advice was that to be effective one must start on “common ground”, if it exists, and to be equipped for the task. (read: informed)
As part of developing that thought I asked cosmosdan about reading the bible. Diogenes could see where I was headed, and asked* " How many times is sufficient?"* as part of a broader point that it was not absolutely necessary to have read the complete bible as a means of 'attacking" the problem; that bible reading alone would give only a superficial knowledge. I disagree with the severity of that assesment, although I agree with his larger point—which is it is necessary to consider other sources to have a fuller understanding of the bible.
You can read his complete thought in Post 35. His thoughts were concise and thought out—and it is clear that he understood where I was headed: how to effectively reason/deal with a fundamentalist.
I answered the narrower question, " How many times is sufficient?", essentially, by saying, “It depends…”. It depends on how one wishes to represent themself, their interests and motivations; the reason they may have for becoming knowledgeable about the bible.—SM, as an example, has shown contempt for organized religion, and is an avowed atheist. He may have no interest in the bible (and certainly wouldn’t have one for religious reasons). It is conceivable that, for SM, the answer to the question " How many times is sufficient?"is zero; that it is not necessary in his view to read the bible for his purposes, interests and motivations. Diogenes, OTOH, while also an atheist, has a tremondous interest in the bible, so it is incumbent upon him to read it ; to understand it, if he wishes to represent himself as knowledgeable and to effectively debate with people about the bible----something he clearly enjoys.
Here are my words again:
No where does that statement say, explicitly or implicitly, "His premise is that I therefore don’t have an accurate understanding of the bible says about hell, reincarnation, homosexuality etc… " It says, that for some—including maybe SM (but maybe not)----there may be no need to have read the bible any “times”; at all. It makes no statement about what you know or don’t know—it speaks to your [potential] motivation, or lack thereof, to read the bible. Nor was I guessing whether you had read it or not. What you know, or don’t know, was not germaine to that point.
As an example, Diogenes, unlike SM, represents himself as an authority, if not an expert, on the bible. Because of his interest and motivations —and how he chooses to represent himself ---- he has a greater “burden” to be highly informed about the bible. (in my view he has clearly met that burden, and he is a very effective debater here)
It is my view that aurelian has a similar burden, whether she chooses to accept it or not. She created an OP that asks, “How can I talk to the fundamentalist who believes homosexuality is evil (because the Bible says so, whether it does or not) about civil rights, equality and fairness when these categories are effectively meaningless to them? It makes me feel stuck.”
In response, I would simply ask her, “What do you hope to accomplish?” If you’re content with hurling some indiscriminate insults on an internet message board, we do not lack for tutors here. OTOH, if you wish to affect positive change,* to be effective*, to “talk to the fundamentalist”, you must understand what does have meaning for them.
If the bible does have meaning for them—and it is being manifested through their behavior in ways that trouble you----you must come to understand the bible in such a way that you can reason/communicate with them in ways that they can appreciate. Or you can reject that outright and keep talking about “fairness” and “equality.” Don’t be surprised by the blank stares.
There is no argument for* ignorance*, if a specific task requires knowledge.
Mangetout:
I’ve been around here for a while. My interests in GD are fairly narrow and focus mostly on the bible. (vs doctrine or dogma) That has put me many times on a collision course with Diogenes as we have similar interests, and varying opinions. (while we have agreed on many things in whole or part)
I consistently develop my thoughts, and when commenting on biblical texts I have a long history of citing the bible to buttress my arguments. The texts are quoted and cited and are open to challenge and comment. As my time and energy allows I respond to challenges and criticisms, and I have never hidden behind tradition. I have responded to almost all challenges and don’t engage in drive by posting. Among the posters here who identify themselves as theists, there would less than a handful who have shown a similar propensity to quote and cite their positions to the extent that I do.
Further, I am on record *many times *here in saying that any poster should not take my word for it; and that they should read the accounts for themselves.
From time to time things will get ‘spirited’ or heated and I have been willing to apologize for injuries, real or imagined. When asked to clarify or defend a position, I have.
It is my view that your comment *“I picked on this because, IMO, it’s a microcosm of a couple of the most significant problems in debate with fundamentalists; poor initial definition and weaselling under scrutiny” * is a cheap shot and neither fair or accurate.
Whether you choose to offer it or not, in my view an apology is in order.
I took this to mean that, having not read every word, I cannot accurately understand
I disagree, but don’t really care enough to press the point. (Although I’d just point out that I am interested in what the bible says, especially since so many people take it so absurdly seriously).
Well, this sounds treacly, but so must the fundamentalist - there must be some common/ middle ground, yeah?
I’m not sure what I hope to accomplish - well, I am certain that “hurling some indiscriminate insults” isn’t it, although it’s pretty clear I don’t live up to my own expectations in that regard. It is an emotional issue for me, given that I have seen my family rended in part due to fundamentalist (JW) beliefs (once one leaves the JW’s, whether by choice or by force, one is effectively shunned by the congregation and family). It’s an emotional issue in that it is frustrating, akin to banging one’s head against the wall. It’s also difficult to verbalize.
But I have to insist that it’s more than just “understanding what has meaning for them”; as with the example of the birthday celebration, one must not only (a) know the Biblical verses in question but also (b) know the particular interpretation. It gets hairy when I lack (b), as the fundamentalist will simply say I am wrong, end of discussion. (This is why I argued against the necessity of having read the Bible in the first place.) And this is where we seem to be talking past each other, the raindog: you cite your habits of citation, that you back up what you say with Bible verses, for example. But it’s more than just the Bible verse that’s in question, right? It’s also the interpretation that one makes, that the exact same verses could mean that we ought not celebrate birthdays to one Christian while another sees no such imperative. And I have *no idea how to get past that point.
While I’m aware that this is a childish plaint, why is the burden wholly on me to abandon (temporarily) my values? Rejection? That’s far more violent than what I am hoping to tease out.
I mean, it sounds like you’re saying (and correct me if I’m wrong) that I must “adopt” the fundamentalist viewpoint to be able to communicate with them, putting aside foreign concepts like “fairness” and “equality.” But what do I have left after putting aside my own values? Why are “fairness” and “equality” not fair criteria? I mean this in all sincerity, the raindog, I would have no idea how to start to convince you that the JW take on birthdays in incorrect. I moved away from it because I had not really thought about whether or not it made sense to me, and once I did, it didn’t. The premises just don’t add up.
Where I’m left is that this whole idea of convincing is a dead end; I’m not looking to convert someone, I just want (if it’s even possible) to be able to move beyond superficial tolerance: a fundamentalist may be willing to listen to me, but they will still believe, underneath it all, that I am apostate/ going to hell/ deluded. To my mind, that is not respect, and is at the root of the fundamentalist’s disdain for this world.
I was of the opinion that your statement “I would imagine that for SentientMeat the answer may be zero. (or maybe not)” was poorly/misleadingly contructed/defined. I still hold that opinion.
I was of the opinion that your attempts to defend/explain that statement could be described as ‘weaselling’. I still hold that opinion.
I was of the opinion poor definition and weaselling are two factors that significantly dog many debates with fundamentalists, I still hold that opinion.
I don’t consider my opinions in this matter either unreasonable or unsupportable, but I am sorry if they upset you.
Bleh. If you’re not upset, quit pouting and demanding apologies then. I have good reasons for the opinions I hold on this subject; I’ve spent a lot of time and effort on these issues, from both sides of the fence, as it happens.