Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

[wynn]

Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

If it later turns out that they taught the other person wrongly in any way, do the theists believe they will face negative consequences?

Or is it all simply caveat emptor, and all the responsibility is with the people who listen to theists?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Yes , Just as much as you are responsible for what pours out of your mouth or my mouth . WE own what we say and it all has an impact. People don't seem to realize this . I call it the planting. It is surprising as hell how far in society the planting can travel. If it resonates with the populace then it can travel the world in a short order. So preacher Man spouts shit about bombing abortion clinics . Some young Kid is raised in the rhetoric and bamo! The kid learns how to make a bomb and all hell brakes loose. WE are individually responsible for what we say even when the rhetoric is anonymous .. for if it is and someone takes it to heart and acts on it ?

 

[Adstar]

Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

If it later turns out that they taught the other person wrongly in any way, do the theists believe they will face negative consequences?

Or is it all simply caveat emptor, and all the responsibility is with the people who listen to theists?

Yes to both. But the negative effect could come in this life or in eternity. The greater negative will fall upon the one decieving (teaching) in this life. But while some loss may happen in eternity it may not be the ultimate loss. Of ones salvation (for a Christian)


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Yazata]

Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

Doesn't everybody have responsibility for everything they say?

(And isn't that one reason for the popularity of groups like this one, where people can post anonymously, seemingly without any consequences for anything they write? Which leads to behaviors that I don't think that we'd see from the same people in real-life.)

If it later turns out that they taught the other person wrongly in any way, do the theists believe they will face negative consequences?

I can agree with where you seem to be going with this in the case of children. I think that some of the religious indoctrination that parents subject their children to can only be considered child abuse.

But in the case of adult-adult communication, we need to remember that hearers have responsibilities too, if only to themselves. They mustn't be too credulous for one thing. They must't surrender their native powers of judgement.

Or is it all simply caveat emptor, and all the responsibility is with the people who listen to theists?

I think that some forms of high-pressure evangelism are simply assholism. The syrupy "love" style of evangelism is even worse, because of its two-faced hypocrisy. If you let the "loving" evangelist know that you're already committed to a non-Christian path and aren't interested in converting to Christianity, then suddenly they become stony-faced, they don't "love" you any more and will try to prevent their kids from talking to you.

But while I don't like it the least bit, I don't feel victimized by it. I still retain the ability to make up my own mind and I can always just turn and walk away. It's ultimately my choice.

 

[wynn]

But in the case of adult-adult communication, we need to remember that hearers have responsibilities too, if only to themselves. They mustn't be too credulous for one thing. They must't surrender their native powers of judgement.

We are talking about theism, though - the Absolute Truth, the one thing that is so unpeccably true that one would do right even if one were to follow it blindly.

"If it is for the right thing, it doesn't matter whether you follow blindly or with informed consent."

Moreover, in the case of theism, and theism has a unique position in this regard, the hearer per definition is not able to know for themselves whether what they are hearing is the truth or not.
In matters of theism, the hearer's judgment is per definition useless.

 

[Lori_7]

We are talking about theism, though - the Absolute Truth, the one thing that is so unpeccably true that one would do right even if one were to follow it blindly.

"If it is for the right thing, it doesn't matter whether you follow blindly or with informed consent."

Moreover, in the case of theism, and theism has a unique position in this regard, the hearer per definition is not able to know for themselves whether what they are hearing is the truth or not.
In matters of theism, the hearer's judgment is per definition useless.

that's not true. you can and should always go to the source. the source being god of course. and if there is no source, then regardless of what religion or the religious say, you're just pissing in the wind anyway.

iow, it does matter if you're blind.

 

[gmilam]

We are talking about theism, though - the Absolute Truth, the one thing that is so unpeccably true that one would do right even if one were to follow it blindly.

"If it is for the right thing, it doesn't matter whether you follow blindly or with informed consent."

Moreover, in the case of theism, and theism has a unique position in this regard, the hearer per definition is not able to know for themselves whether what they are hearing is the truth or not.
In matters of theism, the hearer's judgment is per definition useless.

No offense intended, but how f'ing gullible are you?

 

[chimpkin]

Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

That's why I don't necessarily insist I'm right for anybody but me. Possibly not even right for me, but I'm wired to find my own answers.
Take everything I say on your own recognizance and all that...and I still try to play it pretty cautious.

But I read about a case in West Texas...this woman had postpartum psychotic depression. Her minister told her that antidepressants were evil, and that "all she needed was prayer."

She chopped her baby's arms off with a hatchet and the child bled out.
Just lovely.

My thought: We need something like ministerial malpractice lawsuits if someone is actually injured by religious advice.

Moreover, in the case of theism, and theism has a unique position in this regard, the hearer per definition is not able to know for themselves whether what they are hearing is the truth or not.

Really????
To that I would say this: what does the person claiming to know the truth act like? Who are they? Look at what they do.

 

[spidergoat]

Do theists have a responsibility for what they preach?

If it later turns out that they taught the other person wrongly in any way, do the theists believe they will face negative consequences?

Or is it all simply caveat emptor, and all the responsibility is with the people who listen to theists?

It depends. They certainly have the right to free speech, and if some nut wants to follow them, that is their business. I think their opponents can certainly call them out as an influence over their followers, but this could not extend to any kind of real legal responsibility.

 

[wynn]

No offense intended, but how f'ing gullible are you?

It has nothing to do with gullibility. It has to do with the nature of a closed system and how new elements (in this case, new members) can be added to it - or not.

 

[wynn]

Doesn't everybody have responsibility for everything they say?

(And isn't that one reason for the popularity of groups like this one, where people can post anonymously, seemingly without any consequences for anything they write? Which leads to behaviors that I don't think that we'd see from the same people in real-life.)

If we posit that the theists are right, then they have responsibility, online or IRL. It's not like (in the theist view) internet exchanges would be exempt of God's justice.

 

[Lori_7]

It has nothing to do with gullibility. It has to do with the nature of a closed system and how new elements (in this case, new members) can be added to it - or not.

If we posit that the theists are right, then they have responsibility, online or IRL. It's not like (in the theist view) internet exchanges would be exempt of God's justice.

the only thing that "closes the system" is you. god is just as available to you as he is to everyone else. but you're not looking to god. do you think that will exempt you from god's justice? it won't. you can not pass that buck.

 

[wynn]

My thought: We need something like ministerial malpractice lawsuits if someone is actually injured by religious advice.

That is an interesting idea!

Really????
To that I would say this: what does the person claiming to know the truth act like? Who are they? Look at what they do.

This doesn't really apply, as the theist can simply make the argument "You are just not advanced enough to realize that the behavior of this theist is not wrong. You are not advanced enough to realize that this is a spiritually advanced person who is superior to you."

This line of reasoning is unassailable, at least as long as one is not sufficiently advanced to actually know better (as opposed to just presuming to know better).

 

[wynn]

the only thing that "closes the system" is you. god is just as available to you as he is to everyone else. but you're not looking to god. do you think that will exempt you from god's justice? it won't. you can not pass that buck.

Whatever I can conjure up as at attempt to "look to God" appears to be a recipe for insanity.
Like jumping out of the window, telling myself "There is a net there, I just don't see it, but there is a net there that will catch me, I just don't see it, that doesn't mean it isn't there."

A religious system, like most systems of beliefs and practices, is a closed system.

 

[Lori_7]

Whatever I can conjure up as at attempt to "look to God" appears to be a recipe for insanity.
Like jumping out of the window, telling myself "There is a net there, I just don't see it, but there is a net there that will catch me, I just don't see it, that doesn't mean it isn't there."

A religious system, like most systems of beliefs and practices, is a closed system.

why in the hell are you even remotely interested in religion if you don't believe there's a god?!?!?!

 

[wynn]

Yes to both. But the negative effect could come in this life or in eternity. The greater negative will fall upon the one decieving (teaching) in this life. But while some loss may happen in eternity it may not be the ultimate loss. Of ones salvation (for a Christian)

Can you list some of those negative effects that befall those theists who were instructing people wrongly?
How can those negative effects be recognized as being the consequence/punishment for instructing people wrongly, as opposed to being consequence/punishment for something else?

 

[wynn]

why in the hell are you even remotely interested in religion if you don't believe there's a god?!?!?!

I find it is a strange (and prevalent among atheists) idea that one first needs to believe (or prove) that God exists, and then one goes into what God is like.

As if it would be possible to know the existence of something without having any idea what said thing is like.

 

[Lori_7]

I find it is a strange (and prevalent among atheists) idea that one first needs to believe (or prove) that God exists, and then one goes into what God is like.

As if it would be possible to know the existence of something without having any idea what said thing is like.

you would HAVE TO believe in the possibilty of something existing before you would ever attempt to seek it. but if you seek, you will find, and when you find, you'll know what it's like.

rocket science, i know.

 

[wynn]

If I go to wait at the bus station, I do so because I believe that buses exists, that they stop there, and that they are willing to transport me.

I have no specific, useful beliefs about what God can, should or would do for/to/with/about me.

I also see no way of acquiring such beliefs.

 

[wynn]

you would HAVE TO believe in the possibilty of something existing before you would ever attempt to seek it. but if you seek, you will find, and when you find, you'll know what it's like.

rocket science, i know.

You know what this you say above is? It is mundane reasoning applied to divine matters.

Which has got to be patently wrong, if there is to be any significant difference between the material and the spiritual.