Why Do People Get Defensive About God?

Great Debates
481

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have posted no false statements.

I made an assumption that you were posting in good faith that you have now shown was not the case. Your statement was an out of context phrase that was not supported by the primary source.

Many days ago I did give you the benefit of the doubt in one exchange in which you deliberately misread my statements and continued to hold to your misreading after I had clarified the issue. Given your persistent misreadings and the haste with which you seek to make every discussion one based in animosity, I will no longer give you that benefit of the doubt.
[/QUOTE]

I must respond to your false statement that I am not posting in good faith.

I am posting in good faith. My quote was not out of context. It was very clearly my expression of disdain for this religion and anything it says due to what its founder is said to have said about himself and in direct reply to a conversation about that faith. “Out of context” is not the case just because you and **cosmosdan **mistakenly assumed I was quoting from **his **link. He admitted his misunderstanding, I clarified with a link, and we’ve moved on.

The quote was verbatim from the Wikipedia article about the founder of that religion. When asked, I provided the link. It is supported by the primary source, as is noted from that link where the words are **verbatim **in the primary source. (“Consider the hour at which the supreme Manifestation of God revealeth Himself unto men.” - Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 150-151)

If you wish to deliberately misread the primary source in order to conclude something other than what was apparently intended or you have some other opinion as to what was meant by that phrase, that’s just fine. I trust you understand that you are not the authority on this faith or what its founder said or meant. I also trust that you understand in a forum called GREAT DEBATES in a thread about religion, what is meant by a religious document is OBVIOUSLY up for interpretation and discussion and you are no judge of what Bahá’u’lláh meant! LOL

I simply provided that quote from Wikipedia about their religion’s founder’s apparent words.

If you feel that Wikipedia provides that quote out of context, take it up with them.

I did not deliberately misread anything nor can you know and impute motive. I have made no misreadings, I simply disagree with you on what’s meant.

The animosity is coming entirely from you. Even in the midst of a discussion between **cosmosdan **and myself in which you weren’t even participating.

You jumped in. You said I misread his link. You were mistaken, as you admitted.

Merry Xmas.

482

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Bah. It has been revealed unto me that My RIGHT Butt Cheek is the Supreme Manifestation of God. As is obvious to all but the hopelessly blind and lost to sin.

This can mean only one thing; HOLY WAR ! !

Or would that be A-Holy War ?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I should clarify as it turns out from re-reading a primary source that My Left Butt Cheek is the Supreme Manifestation of God in a Broad Sense.

Very, very broad. LOL

483

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You guys are just looking for an excuse to bump butt cheeks aren’t you?

It doesn’t matter what you name your new religion. I’m never going to communion there.
[/QUOTE]

ROFL Oh, come on. We’ll even throw in some science! :stuck_out_tongue:

484

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Your implication seems to be, “People have made bad predictions about how rapidly science will advance; so science has no predictive value.” What an utterly specious argument (i.e., just what we have all come to expect from you). Predictions about how fast science will advance in the future have long been made, and usually been wrong. But the fact that entirely vitiates your argument is that science does advance. Science has made enormous leaps in the past 40 years. And if you don’t think that the science of the mind has made similar leaps, just ask any dopers who manage their mental illnesses with the aid of modern psychoactive drugs. Science has made strides in the last 100 years that religion hasn’t made in the last 4,000. So once again, don’t talk bullshit about how science and religion are somehow equivalent. If science proceeded by religious methods, we’d still believe in the four bodily humors, and you ought to be able to recognize this fact.

And don’t get high and mighty on me. If you were too old for nonsense, your post count in GD would drop to zero.
[/QUOTE]

No need to improve on the core beliefs of Christianity, just a need to follow them. If the Dopers with mental problems did that a cure would be forecoming.

485

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No need to improve on the core beliefs of Christianity, just a need to follow them. If the Dopers with mental problems did that a cure would be forecoming.
[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christ, and you have the balls to accuse us of indoctrination? All the while saying, “No need to revise any of our beliefs; that will never happen.” I think it is pretty clear who is the dogmatist here. Merry fucking Christmas.

486

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The quote was verbatim from the Wikipedia article about the founder of that religion. When asked, I provided the link. It is supported by the primary source, as is noted from that link where the words are verbatim in the primary source. (“Consider the hour at which the supreme Manifestation of God revealeth Himself unto men.” - Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 150-151)
[/QUOTE]
And because you were in such haste to rush back with insults, you did not bother to notice that nothing in the primary source quoted actually says that the “manifestation” is the prophet rather some future theophany of the god. The phrase in not “supported by the primary text.” The words in the text speak of the god, throughout, with no reference to the prophet. Whatever the “manifestation” might be in some future theophany, there is no indication in that text that it refers to the prophet. That is the sort of cherry-picking and phrase mining that the posters on both extremes of the “god” debate use to display their own prejudices and unreasoning hatreds to such eloquent effect.

487

[QUOTE=lekatt]
No need to improve on the core beliefs of Christianity, just a need to follow them. If the Dopers with mental problems did that a cure would be forecoming.
[/QUOTE]
Christianity IS a mental problem, so no. It’s vile, and stupid and destructive, and unlikely to do anything for someone with mental problems but make them worse. Or make them refuse treatment.

488

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Christianity IS a mental problem, so no. It’s vile, and stupid and destructive, and unlikely to do anything for someone with mental problems but make them worse. Or make them refuse treatment.
[/QUOTE]

I especially love the suggestion that all we have to do to cure schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is be better Christians. Every time I think **lekatt ** has posted the stupidest thing I have ever read in GD, he goes and lowers the bar by another several feet.

489

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Jesus Christ, and you have the balls to accuse us of indoctrination? All the while saying, “No need to revise any of our beliefs; that will never happen.” I think it is pretty clear who is the dogmatist here. Merry fucking Christmas.
[/QUOTE]

Better reread the posts, you have mixed up your methphors, or something like that.

490

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
I especially love the suggestion that all we have to do to cure schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is be better Christians. Every time I think **lekatt ** has posted the stupidest thing I have ever read in GD, he goes and lowers the bar by another several feet.
[/QUOTE]

No, I didn’t say that at all. I am talking about the core beliefs, or the teachings of Jesus, it has nothing to do with Christianity. Even psychologists are using spiritual principles now to help their clients.

What you belief about yourself and the world about you is very important to your mental health and well-being. Beliefs determine whether people are happy or sad all the time. People project their beliefs and feelings onto others falsely thinking they are describing the behaviour of others instead of themselves. In order to be free of mental problems people need to love, but if they don’t love themselves first they can’t love others. Learning to love ameliorates a lot of ailments, both physical and mental. What has anyone to lose, but their problems.

491

lekatt, this is the part of your post to which I originally responded:

So this …
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Evolution or not makes no difference concerning God. I don’t know how the world and man came into existence, and don’t really care. It means little to my life or any other person’s life.
[/quote]
… is just back-pedalling and this …

… is more misrepresentation and misdirection and this …

… busted my irony meter.

Evolution and which diseases are caused by which microorganisms are scrutinized by the same fundamental reasoning. I can see why you back-pedalled away from your “[n]one of which can be proven, all of which is only theory” position. It’s ridiculous and, if you’ve ever used antibiotics or pursued hygiene in order to prevent disease, hypocritical.

492

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I never said it was a verbatim quote from the link you provided.
[/QUOTE]
noted. It is bad form to introduce new information without providing a link. Compounded by the fact that I asked you a direct question about your use of supreme and you avoided answering. If you like those kind of games for the sake of entertainment that’s your call. That kind of posting has side effects.

At least until you could play “gotcha” with someone.

The original subject was whether or not religion could embrace science. The Bahai do.

You’ve been provided with the primary source. It’s pretty hard to read that and declare it clearly points to the founder isn’t it? Either way, it appears to me you’re eager to find a reason to piss on a religion you know very little about. My point was never to declare every facet of their religion correct. It was to give an example of a religion that IMO has much more mature teachings{specifically embracing science} and less dogma.

493

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
As for where I get my information from, I’m fine with an outside source like Wikipedia, thanks. If I want to read self-serving crap from a religious belief’s OWN sites, I’ll laugh myself to sleep.

[/QUOTE]

If you’re going to engage in any discussion of a particular religion’s teachings then their own web site and statements of belief is certainly a valid source. To dismiss it as self serving crap is a stunning example of bias. Reliable outside sources are fine as well.
I’m usually okay with Wikki as a relatively unbiased source which is why I made the effort to check out the phrase you quoted. In this case the primary text doesn’t appear to support the authors conclusion. That’s been clearly pointed out to you and yet you still make this kind of statement. Pretty revealing.

494

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
noted. It is bad form to introduce new information without providing a link. Compounded by the fact that I asked you a direct question about your use of supreme and you avoided answering. If you like those kind of games for the sake of entertainment that’s your call. That kind of posting has side effects.

At least until you could play “gotcha” with someone.
The original subject was whether or not religion could embrace science. The Bahai do.

You’ve been provided with the primary source. It’s pretty hard to read that and declare it clearly points to the founder isn’t it? Either way, it appears to me you’re eager to find a reason to piss on a religion you know very little about. My point was never to declare every facet of their religion correct. It was to give an example of a religion that IMO has much more mature teachings{specifically embracing science} and less dogma.
[/QUOTE]

You can impute motives of playing gotcha, playing games, etc. if you feel the need.

Those were not my motivations, as I’d hope you’d know by now. If you don’t believe me, then so be it.

The original subject is why people get defensive about god. Ironic.

I haven’t been “provided” with the primary source, I quoted from it verbatim.

Hard to read that and see that it points to the founder, you say? Wiki did that. So it must not be that hard. Perhaps you should file a complaint with Wiki.

As for eager to find a reason to piss on religion, what I typically do when presented with statements by religions is look into where it came from, what their founders say, and what their mission statement is. That is simply what I routinely do when I hear of statements being made. I’ve done it with SGI, Mormonism, Islam, and now this little religion. You can call that pissing if you’d like, but I simply call it looking into from whence this stuff is springing. And what I typically find is the same thing that Wikipedia found and stated. Grandiose claims.

I understand that your point was never to declare every facet of the religious teaching correct. I didn’t say that it was your point.

In fact, in my first reply I congratulated them for including science in their dogma but said that it’s regretful that it comes from a source such as that with other teachings such as the supreme manifestation one as Wikipedia reported, which casts doubt, IMO, on the motivation of the rest of what they have to say.

As for science itself, I already have thoughts on it without their religion so as far as I’m concerned all they’re doing is including something valid – like science – and mixing it in with dubious and bizarre claims about manifestations of god in order to enhance THEIR credibility. Common cult tactic.

Which I found regrettable.

In any case, I regret that when an incorrect assumption is made about something I’ve said or done, you feel the need to turn the tables and accuse me of playing gotcha. I was doing no such thing. I was simply expressing my disdain for other thoughts that came from that “religion” which undercut their credibility, IMO.

I’ve heard some profound and wise things from schizophrenics. But I consider the source when evaluating as a whole.

None of which – any of our back and forth convo. above over the last day – is or was intended or expressed as any kind of hostility against YOU and I sincerely hope you didn’t take it that way.

Merry Xmas, cosmosdan! :wink:

495

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If you’re going to engage in any discussion of a particular religion’s teachings then their own web site and statements of belief is certainly a valid source. To dismiss it as self serving crap is a stunning example of bias. Reliable outside sources are fine as well.
I’m usually okay with Wikki as a relatively unbiased source which is why I made the effort to check out the phrase you quoted. In this case the primary text doesn’t appear to support the authors conclusion. That’s been clearly pointed out to you and yet you still make this kind of statement. Pretty revealing.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t believe the primary supports the Wikipedia article. I do. It hasn’t been “pointed out” to me as if those that are doing the pointing are somehow agreed to be the authorities about it and are right. “Pointed out,” indeed.

As I’ve said before, that’s how Wiki understood it. I agree with Wiki. You don’t.

We can agree to disagree. I’d say it was pretty revealing that you’d take the side of your interpretation over that presented by Wiki, obviously, but why bother?

That would be a religious debate over interpreting primary documents of religion. :wink:

496

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
You can impute motives of playing gotcha, playing games, etc. if you feel the need.

Those were not my motivations, as I’d hope you’d know by now. If you don’t believe me, then so be it.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll take your word for it. Just to be clear, here’s where the doubt came in.

post 411
I linked to the Bahai website which described their beliefs
post 420
you made the supreme manifestation comment which is not on my link. You neglected to provide a link for your comment.
post 426 I commented after having misunderstood post 420.
post 427 and 432 you repeat the supreme manifestation comment and still haven’t provided a link to support your point.

post 436

I asked you a direct question about where supreme came from that you failed to answer. It’s not a claim that you made a mistake.

post 452 you clear up my misunderstanding and repeat the comment. This is the first time you use quotes. Still no cite provided.
post 458 Tom claims you misread the linked text.
post 466 Having been accused of an error you now provide a link showing the phrase in question correcting Toms mistake.

You don’t post anything about not providing a link before or how Tom’s call is understandable given that fact. Instead you just seem to be enjoying catching someone.
post 473 you claim you never intended to link to it, although you did so quickly to catch someone in a mistake.

You can probably see how this could be seen as a game. If you say it’s not I’ll accept that and assume this won’t be a repeated pattern from you.

Um, No. This has nothing to do with being defensive about god so irony does not apply.

You linked to Wikki which is not the primary source. You, like the author there, pulled one phrase consisting of four words out of context. The primary text was linked to by **Tom ** and contains the context from which the phrase is drawn from. Most reasonable folks would consider context pretty valid in determining meaning.

I don’t know exactly how Wiki operates but they do not have strict scholarly academic standards do they. The fact that they accpeted it says zero about my comment.

That all seems pretty reasonable to me. It also seems very contrary to calling their web site, which offers the items you listed, “self serving crap”

I now call it contradicting yourself. The link I provided contains plenty of “what the founders say” quotes. You dismiss that. Yet you’ll embrace a sentance from an author on Wiki without knowing the scholastic background or the context. Hardly a fair examination.

By embracing science and teaching people to embrace it as a path to the truth they are inviting their beliefs to be examined objectively. The comment is made that something can’t be scientifically false and religiously true. A fairly startling statement from a religion. They speak clearly of dispelling myth and superstition from religion in order to focus on advancing mankind.
With all the discussions on the boards about how awful religion is and how incompatible it is to science and logic I find their teachings pretty interesting and refreshing.

I repeat, I’ll take your word for it. Noting that you never verified that the phrase you quoted meant what you represented it to mean.

As you should. There are some brilliant wacky people and some religious ones, who have made major contributions. That one phrase taken out of context is hardly a comprehensive take on what Bahai is all about.

I did not. Nor did I intend any.

497

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
You don’t believe the primary supports the Wikipedia article. I do. It hasn’t been “pointed out” to me as if those that are doing the pointing are somehow agreed to be the authorities about it and are right. “Pointed out,” indeed.
[/QUOTE]
What’s been pointed out is that the original text linked to by Tom doesn’t clearly indicate that the phrase in question refers to the founder of Bahai. Perhaps it does, but that is not clearly indicated in the chapter from which the page was listed. I don’t see how any reasonable reader could claim that it definitely does without other resources. Perhaps the author had those. Perhaps you do. Please provide any information you have to indicate that quote refers to the founder Bahá’u’lláh. Or, you might explain exactly how the primary text provided supports the Wiki article.

Why do you agree with them? What about the original text points to the founder. Be specific. Is it just that you have complete trust in Wiki as a source? Knowing how they operate I’d say too much reliance on Wiki as very reliable is not wise. In fact, I was checking on how to submit a correction per your recommendation and noticed that this article is rated B . According to their rating system that means

Did you check that before useing it as a source? How does that effect your assessment of the article?

In what world should I accept something posted in Wiki without any research or thoughts of my own? Do I have any reason to believe the authors view of this religion is vastly superior to my own.

I don’t even have a definite interpretation of that text. I merely pointed out, as Tom did, that a reading of the chapter from which the phrase is listed and the page given in the Wiki article, does not* clearly* indicate the founder.
That means it’s open to further investigation, rather than being stated as an established fact. I also noted that the phrase is not used on the Bahai web site I linked to. Why is it you agree with the articles take on it?

It’s a minor point at best. The Bahai site seems to clarify their view on the founder. He is not seen as a diety of any sort but is presented as one divine teacher among others.

498

**I’ll take your word for it. Just to be clear, here’s where the doubt came in.

post 411
I linked to the Bahai website which described their beliefs
post 420
you made the supreme manifestation comment which is not on my link. You neglected to provide a link for your comment.
post 426 I commented after having misunderstood post 420.
post 427 and 432 you repeat the supreme manifestation comment and still haven’t provided a link to support your point.

post 436

I asked you a direct question about where supreme came from that you failed to answer. It’s not a claim that you made a mistake.

post 452 you clear up my misunderstanding and repeat the comment. This is the first time you use quotes. Still no cite provided.
post 458 Tom claims you misread the linked text.
post 466 Having been accused of an error you now provide a link showing the phrase in question correcting Toms mistake.

You don’t post anything about not providing a link before or how Tom’s call is understandable given that fact. Instead you just seem to be enjoying catching someone.
post 473 you claim you never intended to link to it, although you did so quickly to catch someone in a mistake.

You can probably see how this could be seen as a game. If you say it’s not I’ll accept that and assume this won’t be a repeated pattern from you.**

I really don’t want to go over this ad infinitum, no disrespect intended.

I “claim” that I never intended to provide a link, and I didn’t intend to provide one at the time I referenced the verbatim expression from the primary document.

I provided the link not, as you suggest, to “enjoy catching someone” but in defending myself from a false accusation by Tom that imputed motive of “deliberately” misreading something. I hope you can understand that if I feel (as I did) that I’m being set up and accused of “deliberately misreading” something, I have to then defend myself from that false accusation. Tom had made that accusation once before in another thread and had been proven wrong. To me, it seemed he was on a warpath and trying to build a case for me continuously “deliberately misreading” things in order to lead to my eventual banning. (And I have good reason to believe that from private accusing emails he’s sent me).

So, my reason for providing a link was to defend against a false accusation.

I’m afraid I don’t see there was any “pattern” of behavior as you state; to me, that implies some kind of motive or strategy on my part and there simply was none.

You appear not to believe me. Maybe I’m wrong. Either way, I am not lying, wasn’t lying, and wasn’t engaging in any pattern of gotcha conduct. It doesn’t even make any sense because you never made any false accusation to me about which “gotcha” could even have been played, nor did I have any reason to think you would. You handled yourself, as far as I can tell, with honest confusion which was ultimately cleared up. If I was playing some game of “gotcha” then I’d have had to expect that you were going to jump in with some false accusation that I could then “get” you about. You didn’t, I didn’t think or expect you would, and doing something that stupid and pointless was never my intention. That’s just the truth.

499

Quote:
Hard to read that and see that it points to the founder, you say? Wiki did that. So it must not be that hard. Perhaps you should file a complaint with Wiki.

I don’t know exactly how Wiki operates but they do not have strict scholarly academic standards do they. The fact that they accpeted it says zero about my comment.

The reason it does have more than ‘zero’ to do with your comment is because, as I understood your comment, you were suggesting – as was Tom – that it had been “pointed” out to me that it’s seemingly PLAIN what is meant by the ‘supreme manifestation of god’ phrase in the primary text.

All I’m saying is that if Wikipedia and I **both **(and yes, I did read the primary source before posting it – the primary source is linked right from the Wiki quote) disagree with you and Tom, then it’s **not **“hard to read that see that it points to the founder.” You and I disagree on the meaning. You may very well be right, you know more about the faith than I do. But don’t say it’s “hard” to read it the way I did as if it’s completely unimaginable that any “reasonable” person could come to that conclusion. Wikipedia came to the same conclusion I did!

That doesn’t mean I’m right. It doesn’t mean Wikipedia is right, obviously. I’m simply stating that it shows that it’s not true that it’s completely ludicrous or “hard” to come to the conclusion that it refers to the founder and the fact that Wiki came to the same conclusion demonstrates that it must not be THAT hard to come to that conclusion.

So, in closing, I’m not saying that I have the ultimate interpretation of that phrase. I’m simply defending against the idea that it’s obvious what’s meant or that it’s “hard” to come to the conclusion that both Wiki and I did. I think it’s a reasonable conclusion to come to, and so does the article.

And, by the way, regardless of whether it’s referring to the founder or a coming theophany as Tom intereprets it, it still makes me conclude that it’s lunacy so my larger point remains unchanged.

I expect Tom to pile-on now (I don’t think you were piling on, I think you were just clarifying your understanding), but I’ve no interest in continuing this hijack.

I’m only responding to you to clarify that there was, as I see it, no “pattern” of conduct here at all. I did nothing wrong at all and when I was accused of “deliberately” misreading something, I clarified it.

Your confusion about that is understandable. My quotes were to indicate I wasn’t paraphrasing, not to imply the quote came from your link. I regret the confusion.

Take care.

500

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
What’s been pointed out is that the original text linked to by Tom doesn’t clearly indicate that the phrase in question refers to the founder of Bahai. Perhaps it does, but that is not clearly indicated in the chapter from which the page was listed. I don’t see how any reasonable reader could claim that it definitely does without other resources. Perhaps the author had those. Perhaps you do. Please provide any information you have to indicate that quote refers to the founder Bahá’u’lláh. Or, you might explain exactly how the primary text provided supports the Wiki article.
Why do you agree with them? What about the original text points to the founder. Be specific. Is it just that you have complete trust in Wiki as a source? Knowing how they operate I’d say too much reliance on Wiki as very reliable is not wise. In fact, I was checking on how to submit a correction per your recommendation and noticed that this article is rated B . According to their rating system that means

Did you check that before useing it as a source? How does that effect your assessment of the article?

In what world should I accept something posted in Wiki without any research or thoughts of my own? Do I have any reason to believe the authors view of this religion is vastly superior to my own.

I don’t even have a definite interpretation of that text. I merely pointed out, as Tom did, that a reading of the chapter from which the phrase is listed and the page given in the Wiki article, does not* clearly* indicate the founder.
That means it’s open to further investigation, rather than being stated as an established fact. I also noted that the phrase is not used on the Bahai web site I linked to. Why is it you agree with the articles take on it?

It’s a minor point at best. The Bahai site seems to clarify their view on the founder. He is not seen as a diety of any sort but is presented as one divine teacher among others.
[/QUOTE]

I never claimed it “clearly” indicates the founder. It seems to, to me, and to Wiki.

I’m not suggesting you should accept Wiki without doing your own research. You can believe whatever you’d like about it, I was simply mirroring your phrasing.

I’ll take your word for it that he’s seen as a “divine” teacher. Still weird, to me, and the view of the founder of a religion is not, in my assessment, a minor point.

As to deeper readings with other ‘resources’ beneath and adjunct to the primary source to attempt to divine or interpret deeper meanings of that, I’m just not that deeply interested. My view of any religion with a “divine” teacher is what it is.

I do respect your choice to believe what you do. I don’t respect that faith.