Oh, thanks for clearing that up. One is taking God who gave us life and using his name as a curse word full of hate, and the other is directing the same hate towards people. Yes, I can see how my fervor has blinded me to how it’s infinitely whose to insult people. Forgive me. (and I actually rate them equally stupid, truth be told)
And the idea to swear at someone who says this, however kindly meant, translates “No, I think I’m better than you, and I know it, so I can do what I want since I’m the most important person in my world”. And surely swearing would be just as good if no one heard it.
That said, and all sarcasm aside, I was in McDonald’s where someone was begging for money. A lady in front of me said “I usually just offer to pray for them.” I asked her if it worked, and she said she didn’t know. That kind of showed me that quite possibly it’s a catch phrase instead of being pious. I was actually going to ask who she was praying to, but I left it.
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” — Jesus
Yes, she probably strolls the streets looking for people to ‘pray for’
Although I fail to see how it’s an issue of forgiveness, the first part should be done in the whole context, as it is one of the two most misquoted verses in the Bible. The other about loving God and your neighbour, althogh Libertarian use of it was apropos.
If you don’t believe religion exists, then I’ll just have to pray the spirit of stupidness off you. Religion can be with or without God.
It hasn’t? So why are all those Irishmen blowing each other up? And those Middle Eastern chaps?
And for the record, billions of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide would say that, no, blaspheming the name of God is about the most offensive thing you can do.
Obviously, not everyone in the world feels the same, but looking down on a person for his/her “fervor” (calling their opinions pathetic) is as unfair as the lady from the OP looking down upon a person in regard to his foul language, assuming that he needs ‘help’ and all that jazz.
This thread should be testament that offensive words are nothing but subjective.
Common sense. Being condescending toward others, using profanity-- these things that are apt to offend. Just because we can say them, doesn’t mean we should.
Is it any wonder that God despises religion? Just like business and government, religion is infested with politicians who seek control over the lives of others for the purpose of benefiting themselves. Who can blame those who reject the pitiful god that is presented to them by Christendom? It is a nasty and petulant creature who waits by the gates of hell in order to snare those who hover too close. It is a god of petty querulousness, reckless vindictiveness, and arbitrary laws that are impossible to obey. They who rule the churches are the seven-fold demons who have returned to the Temple to re-establish its marketplace and damn as many souls as they can.
I believe stpauler’s statement was more along the lines of you can’t prove that a Creator figure exists. Want proof that racial discrimination exists? Read up on the history of slavery. Want proof that sexual discrimination exists? Visit Matt Shepherd’s grave. Now prove to me that your God – or any other – exists. Can’t be done. I’m sure you can offer me gobs of proof that you believe He exists, but it’s not the same thing. To hear a person say “goddamn!” on the street may offend you, but it’s essentially that person voicing the fact that they don’t agree with your belief system should your system have a thing against taking God’s name in vain, and to rebuke them for it really does come across as an attempt to display some kind of moral superiority, no matter how it is intended. To hear someone say “goddam fucking faggots!” is different in the fact that it’s not directed against an idea, it’s hate directed against a group of people. If the example was, for instance, “goddamn fucking Christians!”, the principle would be the same, as the focus has shifted from what the person believes to the person. Is the difference a bit more clear now?
As for the idea that people should be able to go outside and not have to deal with foul language, please, try to have some perspective. The world is not your television or Clean-flix. Ideas, words, and actions that you don’t like are not going to be blipped out to spare your delicate sensibilities, nor should they be. Some things are worth taking action against, but really, spending your time getting riled up over something as small as a stranger’s foul mouth in a conversation that doesn’t even concern you isn’t going to do anything except stress you out (and possibly get you Pitted ).
Back to the OP:
It depends on the tone, really. If it’s someone genuinely trying to make me feel better or trying to express that they care by saying that they’ll pray for me, I try to be nice about it, though, I do have a problem with those who only offer up prayer to friends in crisis when they’re capable of doing more. Prayer is a nice gesture, but action gets things done a lot faster.
In a stituation similar to the OP’s, my response would have been, “No, thanks.” I’ve got my own relationship with the universe and I don’t need anyone to speak to it on my behalf, thanks very much.
No, the term “nigger in the woodpile” is middle 19th to early 20th slang for a hidden or undiscovered problem. It’s hard to trace the phrase’s history, but it first seems to show up in the 1840s or 1850s. It’s likely it started out as a punchline to a joke, but that’s speculation. It’s not used anymore, of course.
Such behavior is unacceptable for the same reason that coming up to someone in a department store dressing room and interrupting their discussion about their weight with a testimonial for the great diet drug you took is unacceptable. It is rude to eavesdrop, even in a public place. It is rude to interrupt someone else’s conversation, unless you have something that really needs to be added, and even then you should apologize for interrupting. It is horrifically rude to imply that someone else’s way of doing things is inferior to your own.
Given the situation described in the OP, I’d have smiled very demurely and said, “Why thank you. I’ll pray that you’re helped to stop eavesdropping and interrupting conversations that don’t involve you.”
Most of the time, though, I try to ignore that sort of rudeness altogether. It’s often difficult though. Like the former friend who told me that my marriage wouldn’t be childfree very long, because she’d talked to God for me about it. It was incredibly hard not to slap her upside the head and yell, “Bitch, God knows I don’t want kids! Mind your own damn business!” I felt that such a response would probably put a damper on the lovely shower my aunt had planned for me, so I restrained myself.
(For the record, this incident isn’t why we’re no longer friends. We’d grown apart years before because she started treating me like an alcoholic whore, conveniently disregarding her drinking habits and three out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Interestingly enough, two of those pregnancies happened after she found Jesus.)
Whoa, so since we just proved God exists, can we now hold him accountable for all the horrors that have been done in his name and by his word for the last few thousand years?
The human ear is designed to pick up sound in a certain radius. So to say that she was eavesdropping may not be accurate. But again, I too think it’s silly for a lady to ask a man to ack like a gentleman. The nerve.
And darkprince, do you know how often that line of reasoning even if it isn’t true? It is true that man has used religion for political gain. Nazi Germany had “God with us” engraved in German on the belts of Nazi soldiers. America said, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” The law may even allow you to start the Christian Nazi Party, if you so desire. You can become a “reverend” for a few dollars through the tabloid classifieds and then further your political agenda with the world’s blessing, no matter how much it smears the name of Christ. Jesus tells us in John 16:2,3 that there will be some who, in their error, commit atrocities and murder in the name of God: “The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service.” However, He informs us that these are not true believers: “And these things will they do to you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” (See also 1 John 3:15.) Jesus told His followers to love their enemies. So if a man puts a knife into someone’s back in the name of Christianity, something obviously isn’t right. If we human beings can detect it, how much more will God? He will deal with it on Judgment Day." I know that the Lord is always on the side of right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I—and this nation—should be on the Lord’s side." Abraham Lincoln
Not necessarily not God means “possibly God.” And 5, the Law of Excluded is controversial or so i’ve heard from UMBC math buffs. And it doesn’t seem you have proven the validity or consistency of the system of logic you are using. I suppose ultrafilter or Dr. Matrix could help with this.
The issue is that while the OP wasn’t running up in her face spouting profanity, she happened to overhear it and got confrontational in a coincidentally offensive manner, interjecting herself into a conversation which she was not a part of. I would be offended by any negative, uninvited comment on my mannerisms or choice of words; the fact that it was a religious comment just makes it more personally offensive because it lends an air of perceived “holier-than-thou” superiority to it.
Svt4Him:
She “can’t” say it because one simply does not walk up to strangers randomly thrusting their own personal opinons and judgements upon them. It is rude at best, personal self-endangerment at worst. If I spent all day attempting to inform people of that which I find personally offensive, I would be forever consumed with trying to anti-evangelize the fellows passing out pamphlets on the streetcorner, telling overweight people in perilously undersized clothing that they’re offending my personal sense of aesthetics, telling scantily clad women to put on some bloody clothes already, and telling young thugs to pull their pants up. I find all these things to be personally offensive, as to be honest I don’t much like looking at people even wearing shorts, but I don’t go 'round foisting my personal desires on other people regardless of how offended I am or not. Perhaps my use of the phrase “goddamn it” makes your delicate ears bleed, but if you should say something to me about it when I am simply having a conversation with a friend, I will feel free to share my personal thoughts about you.
I would suggest to the woman in the OP that if she cannot let some profanity roll off her back and ignore it, without feeling the need to make rude comments to potentially dangerous strangers, then perhaps she is not ready to sally forth into the big, scary Real World and should stay at home and continue to shelter herself from any and all Offensive Content [sup]TM[/sup].
Honestly, the fact that my use of the phrase “goddamned” personally offends you means precisely all of diddly and squat to me. It I were in a position that it did matter, I would probably not be speaking that way. Thus the very suggestion that another person would pray for me creates the assumption that I am perceived as a Godless Heathen. Please, gentle do-gooder – if you are offended by my language, you may politely request that I abstain while within earshot. But to shove religion into it, is doubly inappropriate, and you may be assured that I am well aware I’m on the fast track to Hell and enjoying every foul-mouthed moment of it.
No materialist logician who has examined the proof (and its many variants) has ever suggested that it is invalid. There’s a difference between invalid and unsound.
Cool link, thanks Lib. I won’t say I understand modal logic now, but more than I did before.
For those interested there’s a long discussionin this thread Despite several attempts I get horrible headaches trying to read it. IIRC the logic is valid, but the assumptions are debated.
How do you define G so it matches reasonably with our idea of God and justifies the assumptions? I’m out of my depth here, but I remember hearing that Godel tried to formalize this argument (the definiton was something like “some properties are defined as ‘positive’. G says tehre exists something with all positive properties”) but that someone later showed his proof had various problems, including showing that all possible worlds were the same.
Libertarian’s proof is valid, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true as well. Is it sound (i.e., are the premises true)? That depends on your opinion of modal logic. If modal logic is consistent, there is some possible world where the premises are true.
On the other hand, it’s a pretty weak victory. “The greatest possible existence exists” is a pretty far cry from “The God of the Bible exists and is like this:…”. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
As far as what I tell the people who say they’re going to pray for me? I tell them “Thank you”, and I mean it in exactly the same spirit as they mean to pray for me.
Religion can be with or without God.
).