The most narrow minded ignorant thing you've heard a religious person say?

A christian preaching though shalt not worship any ICON/IDOL.
Whilst standing in front of a man on a cross.:splat:
I'm sure moses never heard of christ.:tempted:
 
Miles:Evolutionist do not claim that the eye appeared where there was none before. An animal without what we would call an eye, but with an ability to recognize the difference between light and dark, would have an an advantage. Over a few million years, by natural selection, the eye would develop in stages.
Click to expand...

That is high up there on the list.:cool:
 
clusteringflux said:
lol, cuz you're an athiest? but today it's nice that people would take time out to think of you at all. Btw, I hear hell is nice this time of year.
Click to expand...

"i'll pray for you" is nice except in the cases when it's like, "i'll pray for you [so that you will convert to christianity because you are dead wrong]!"
 
Orleander said:
being an atheist I hear "I'll pray for you" a lot. I hate that!
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: I know what you mean. I hear that a lot, especially if it is someone who knows someone I know! I try to look at the sentiment rather than the words. Even as an atheist, and I believe that all or most atheists believe in thinking positively.

I just thank them, all the while I believe they're thinking they just saved my soul. Maybe it made them feel good. At least they were thinking positively by their own concept of positivity.

Usually these people are so long-winded, and I don't like to be trapped in that situation. It's really hard for me to say "get lost" when I feel that they are trying their hardest to be sincere.
 
I once asked my pastor when I was younger if a kid in india dies and has never known about christ so he doesnt get a chance to accept him as his savior if he would go to hell. his response: yes
 
Leo Volont

I do actually read a lot, some days 5+ hours. I don't write elegantly with literary prowess because firstly I'm an Aussie, and secondly because its not the 18th century Elizabethan era.
 
Hi

I Know as a new christian i used to get fired up. And guilted into answeringh all kinds of things that I haven't read in the Bible. I should have been reading first than debating. I'm not excusing the people you met. I don't know how heated it got talking to them, but they probably didn't mean to get you angry.
Regardless you brought up agood point i'm not offended by the idea that the 4.67 billion years the earth was here. I was taught that in Genesis ch.1 in the first to verses nobody knows what the Earth was like before God started creating. So why not 4 billion or more.
There is alot of people in Christendom that have discouraged me too, I think my brain needs to be dusted off sometimes too.
There are issues we face that the bible doesn't speak to for me when christians speak ppresumtuosly we look uninformed. Like mental illness or abortion for instance these are things that are contovercial here.
Anyway have a good day
 
Some lady once told me that since I am "living in sin" my children would not have souls and just be empty shells that demons could posses, so that they could escape from hell. Then she said why do you think the world is so evil these days? Its because there are so many empty headed women like me. I didn't even know how to respond to that so I didn't, you shouldn't yell at the elderly and senile.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
How often we all confuse our thoughts for what we feel and believe and give off as vibe.
Click to expand...

I think some things (or perhaps even all) cannot be said or thought without there being particular feelings or vibes present.

For example, I cannot call someone a liar or a hypocrite or think of them as such, unless there is anger and meanness present in my mind.
Nor can I think of someone as beautiful or lovely without there being a desire for their company present in my mind.
 
greenberg said:
I think some things (or perhaps even all) cannot be said or thought without there being particular feelings or vibes present.

For example, I cannot call someone a liar or a hypocrite or think of them as such, unless there is anger and meanness present in my mind.
Nor can I think of someone as beautiful or lovely without there being a desire for their company present in my mind.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. Let me come up with an example. OK. You are 'antiwar', you think violence should be a last resort. These are your beliefs. And yet, after 9/11 or whatever, you have this tremendous anger at random foreign peoples and, if you had the courage, you would notice that you are secretly pleased whenever some of them are blown up by the military you think you are (simply) against.

Or you are anti-racist. You are open to people who are not like you. Your afroamerican coworker, however, notices that you tighten up whenever you are around him, and disagree with his suggestions at meetings, only to agree to the same ones suggested by a white person.

In neither case am I making the claim that the person is actually the opposite of what they think they are. I would assume it is complicated. But in each case they are confusing what they think with what they are and feel (and think). They have a restricted experience of themselves.

Noticing your thread on Christians I think this is something one finds a lot with some religious people. They often use the word 'love' and they are being honest but the vibe is not right.

Bible says love my neighbor. I believe in the Bible. I now think 'I love him' even though he is very annoying and doesn't mow his lawn enough. I love him.

As if the little fluffs of dandelion seeds in the air were the whole lawn and front yard. (metaphor)
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
You are 'antiwar', you think violence should be a last resort. These are your beliefs. And yet, after 9/11 or whatever, you have this tremendous anger at random foreign peoples and, if you had the courage, you would notice that you are secretly pleased whenever some of them are blown up by the military you think you are (simply) against.

Or you are anti-racist. You are open to people who are not like you. Your afroamerican coworker, however, notices that you tighten up whenever you are around him, and disagree with his suggestions at meetings, only to agree to the same ones suggested by a white person.

In neither case am I making the claim that the person is actually the opposite of what they think they are. I would assume it is complicated. But in each case they are confusing what they think with what they are and feel (and think). They have a restricted experience of themselves.
Click to expand...

I, too, think the act of presenting oneself as a particular person is often complicated.
So for a number of reasons: there might be an inconsistent hierarchy of values, a clash of internal interests, a guilt-complex, a hidden agenda, influences that one is not aware of ...

But I think one is justified to make assessements about such things only when it comes to oneself.

Because -
Noticing your thread on Christians I think this is something one finds a lot with some religious people. They often use the word 'love' and they are being honest but the vibe is not right.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that this is just their specific idea of love.

"I'm beating you because I love you" - who's to say it isn't so?

Key here might be to be decidely selfish and not apriori assume that others have the same definitions of love (and of everything else) as oneself, and also not assume that others can unilaterally obligate one in any way.
A radical approach like that can be extremely alienating, though.
 
If we look at Bateson he considered the verbal only one of various channels of communication. I can't see a reason to ignore the other channels, even if that opens up a can of worms. As far as I can tell that can of worms is open. In the case with the Christians it is not simply that I see what they call love and think it is not love. It is that I see other things that do not fit, for example, the way they love their families or their dogs. I get conflicting messages from them. And, I believe, at least some Christians, for example, acknowledge layers and 'feeling it in your heart' as opposed to just your head and so on.

I understand or guess that you want to be more 'careful' than me. But I think that 'careful' in 'interpreting' is dangerous. Almost a kind of pretending, at least it would be for me. 'I did not see that'.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
If we look at Bateson he considered the verbal only one of various channels of communication. I can't see a reason to ignore the other channels, even if that opens up a can of worms. As far as I can tell that can of worms is open.
Click to expand...

Ideally, I agree, even though my life experience has been one of being trained to focus on the verbal. - Not that I like that, mind you.
However, I also notice how the verbal is usually the weakest spot in communication and experience, it is the spot where I am most vulnerable. There could be many reasons for that.


In the case with the Christians it is not simply that I see what they call love and think it is not love. It is that I see other things that do not fit, for example, the way they love their families or their dogs. I get conflicting messages from them.
Click to expand...

Point taken.
It has actually been my exprience that some of my Christian friends would claim we are "very good friends" and will be "friends forever" - and then I found that "forever" means 2 weeks, or that I am not on their gift list, while other friends of theirs were.

I think to many Christians, non-Christians are second-class people. And those Christians are convinced they are doing the non-Christians a great favor just by talking to them at all, and that the non-Christians should be eternally happy and obliged for that.

And if the non-Christian is someone easy to succomb to guilting, they will fall prey to those Christians, believing that the Christians are justified in treating them so poorly, and that thus, it is okay if the Christian says "we're good friends" yet gives one nothing for one's birthday or New Year's, while to other friends they do.


I understand or guess that you want to be more 'careful' than me. But I think that 'careful' in 'interpreting' is dangerous. Almost a kind of pretending, at least it would be for me. 'I did not see that'.
Click to expand...

You're right.

P.S.
Here's a good post that I've been reminded of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1641588#post1641588
 
greenberg said:
Ideally, I agree, even though my life experience has been one of being trained to focus on the verbal. - Not that I like that, mind you.
However, I also notice how the verbal is usually the weakest spot in communication and experience, it is the spot where I am most vulnerable. There could be many reasons for that.
Click to expand...

Weakest in what sense? My guess would be: to attack, for example. But I'm not sure.
Point taken.
It has actually been my exprience that some of my Christian friends would claim we are "very good friends" and will be "friends forever" - and then I found that "forever" means 2 weeks, or that I am not on their gift list, while other friends of theirs were.
Click to expand...
I think one could hold a mirror up to their attitudes - or vibe, tone of voice, role in relating - and ask if it they are treating others as they would like to be treated. Of course it is easy for them to be slippery. I am not suggesting this as a way to change Christians' habits, but to reiterate that there is something 'on the surface' that does not fit and not simply something in the 'depths' that one is guessing about. A contrast could be made between their relating to you and their relating to other believers while in both cases using the word love to describe their attitude. But maybe I made this clear already. Just clearing it up for me.

I think to many Christians, non-Christians are second-class people. And those Christians are convinced they are doing the non-Christians a great favor just by talking to them at all, and that the non-Christians should be eternally happy and obliged for that.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can get rather smarmy. And the surprise when, for example, they meet anger, when they were simply spreading God's word or being loving is.....I don't know, part of the problem. The lack of awareness.

Of course I think this is true of many intellectual non-religious who see the Christians, especially fundamentalists as second class citizens.

And if the non-Christian is someone easy to succomb to guilting, they will fall prey to those Christians, believing that the Christians are justified in treating them so poorly, and that thus, it is okay if the Christian says "we're good friends" yet gives one nothing for one's birthday or New Year's, while to other friends they do.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a pattern you see in many families and romantic relationships.
How unpleasant. Because to bring it up, well, it feels shameful somehow. Like a victim to link to the other thread. And greedy or needy or materialistic. And then the response back is likely not to be satisfying. Like, Oh, gosh, I can see how you feel about that. It's a different kind of friendship, but here's what I really appreciate about you....with real feeling. I would expect something indirect, not quite getting it, at best. Worse a direct guilt trip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top