Use of, "God",'s name........

[RowanRavyn]

Originally posted by rtobiejr

Yet interestingly enough, people with no religious affiliation often do what they accuse religious people of doing when it comes to various matters. Secular people often have a "see it as i do or you're a fanatic" attitude-- and I believe that to be just as destructive as the "see it as i do or you're a heretic" way of seeing things.

 

Neither way allows for enlightenment, in my humble opinion.

 

 

Well put.

[Mr Spock]

I always find that people with no religious affiliation are more open and tolerant to different POV's-they are less tolerant when people use religion as a sheild to mask bigotry.

[Mustard Bomb]

For me, it boils down like this:

 

1.If you want the scholarly and reasonable religious position on almost any issue, Dyer is always the one to ask. He is completely unique in my experience of religious people, and I trust and respect his words completely. If he does not know, he does the research; but it's rare he does not know.

 

2. If you want the passionate, sometimes zealous, belief and the letter of the doctrine law from one particular sect, Moose is the one to ask. He won't do the research, but he will speak emotionally, which many people enjoy.

[Mr Spock]

I think they're both equally full of sh*t.

[johan]

Originally posted by Mr Spock

I think they're both equally full of sh*t.

 

I agree with Mustard Bomb's assessment of the two. But I don't agree they are equally full of crap. Assuming they are both equally right or wrong on facts, Moose's emotional position leaves him more prone to hypocrisy. It has come out at least once that I know of, and he openly admitted it. That makes him somewhat more full of crap in my opinion. I'm glad to have him here on the board, but I'm more likely to skip his zealous posts.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Obviously it isn't........grow up.......stop reading into this what you want, and take it for the opinions they are.

Don't make the mistake of thinking opinions are harmless. I can seperate my feelings toward you as a person, and my feelings of animosity towards your opinion. I think your opinion is damaging to Christianity as a whole--I think people take your opinions, magnify them, and use them as a reason to avoid Christianity.

 

I'm not trying to save you from yourself, I'm just working damage control by doing my best to show people that there's another Christianity out there.

This thread was started because a couple of us responded to what we thought was a plea for God's help.

I hope you've sharpened your English skills, and won't make the same embarrassing mistake in the future--for your own sake.

why is it so hard to recognize that using God's name in a way that's offensive to others not a given to most people?

Er... I guessed you haven't learned it at all. There is a difference between the secular word "god" as a figure of speech, and the word "God" as a name for a divine controller.

 

It would be like recongizing that "bitch" is offensive as a rap lyric, but not in the context of a discussion on dog breeding. \

 

If you wish to make an effort to understand where I'm coming from, try to imagine if someone posted a rant about how offensive people on a dog-breeding forum were being to women, by using the word "bitch".

 

You would think, "Gee, that's ridiculous, why can't this person understand the difference between two words?"

[Moose]

I'm not trying to save you from yourself, I'm just working damage control by doing my best to show people that there's another Christianity out there.

 

You can't save the entire world. I think people get the idea that there are many forms of Christianity, they don't need your help. Besides, what damage do you think you're in control of anyway?

[Pocky]

Besides, what damage do you think you're in control of anyway?

 

It appears as though Dyer is trying to make a point that not all Christians regularly take on a superior-pompous attitude regarding "their" religion. And in reality, Christianity wasn't the first religion to create the concept of God so maybe you should consider how your consistent use and claims of ownership of the word could be offensive to others.

[moimeme]

The issue is, I think, the problem of people not understanding the difference between their own point of view versus the points of view of the general public. It is not yours alone, Moose. Many people tend to think 'If I think X, then so does (everybody else/every other Christian/every other (insert whatever you are here))'. It's a failure to recognize when and if your view represents the views of many people or just you. It's common on other threads as well.

 

and why people choose to ignore the fact that it's offense to some Christians.

 

I am a Christian. I have known many Christians, including a few fundamentalists. You are the first and only one I've heard of to object to people using 'God' in expressions.

 

Afterall, you never know when a Christian is in your presence. Why not show respect for everyone by avoiding offensive remarks?

 

It offends me seriously when people bastardize the Bible to support their prejudices, particularly against homosexuality, yet I understand that I am in a very small minority in that. I pray that some day my view will be shared by a majority of people, but until it is, I would be foolish to expect that people will avoid doing so just to save my feelings. Certainly, Moose, you will not.

 

If this thread was dubbed, "Use of the, "F" word..........", everyone, Christian or no would agree it's a very offensive word no matter how it's used.......compare that to the same way I feel when people use God's name as a figure of speech.

 

And right there is the crux of it, Moose. You are right that the - the 'F' word isn't acceptable is a universal standard - at least in the sense that it is still generally (read 'by the majority of people') considered offensive. OTOH, the use of 'God' offends exactly one person that anybody knows of. Therefore you, like most humans on the planet, don't get your way.

 

You don't get to demand that the entire rest of the planet conform to your point of view - which comes right back to people's (particularly dyer's) problems with how Christianity is portrayed by fundamentalists. One of the most serious flaws of fundamentalism is that it demands that everyone acknowledge its particular interpretation of Christianity is not only the only right one, but that anybody who doesn't fall in line is doomed to hell. Demanding that the rest of the planet honour your particular irritation is just one more example of this.

 

BTW, lousy grammar also drives me up the wall.

may not of noticed

Just about nobody, it seems, comprehends that the phrase, although it sounds like 'not of' is actually 'not have'. We say 'would've' as an abbreviation for 'would have' as a past construction but people think the 've' is 'of' so then we have 'we might of' And, while I'm at it, 'best friend' is still two words. These things bug the butt off me but, again, my pet peeve is (sadly) not shared by the majority so I have to suck it up. I suggest, Moose, you do the same.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

You can't save the entire world.

I think you misunderstood me. My point about 'saving' people was only to point out that I'm not concerned with changing your way of thinking, as much as I'm concerned with showing people that your views do not represent the whole of my faith, just a radical minority that ought to be laughed at when they're being ridiculous.

I think people get the idea that there are many forms of Christianity, they don't need your help.

The thing is, they look at Christianity and see Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the crazy fundamentalists who use Christianity as a tool for their own glamour. If people looked at it and saw what I saw, they wouldn't have such an aversion to it. I'm not saying they'd convert, I'm saying they wouldn't have that hatred. They wouldn't look at us and think, "You're a Christian, you must be stupid."

 

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying that this entire tangent, this entire way of looking at things is really, really stupid.

[moimeme]

The thing is, they look at Christianity and see Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the crazy fundamentalists who use Christianity as a tool for their own glamour. If people looked at it and saw what I saw, they wouldn't have such an aversion to it. I'm not saying they'd convert, I'm saying they wouldn't have that hatred. They wouldn't look at us and think, "You're a Christian, you must be stupid."

 

EXACTLY. It's the same as people looking at Al-Quaida and equating all Muslims with that. It's stupid of them to do, but since they do it in droves, you have to constantly combat the impression that fundamentalists represent the majority. Sadly, they're the vocal, obnoxious minority that give everyone else a bad name.

[RowanRavyn]

Originally posted by dyermaker

 

I think you misunderstood me. My point about 'saving' people was only to point out that I'm not concerned with changing your way of thinking, as much as I'm concerned with showing people that your views do not represent the whole of my faith, just a radical minority that ought to be laughed at when they're being ridiculous.

 

The thing is, they look at Christianity and see Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the crazy fundamentalists who use Christianity as a tool for their own glamour. If people looked at it and saw what I saw, they wouldn't have such an aversion to it. I'm not saying they'd convert, I'm saying they wouldn't have that hatred. They wouldn't look at us and think, "You're a Christian, you must be stupid."

 

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying that this entire tangent, this entire way of looking at things is really, really stupid.

 

 

Well put Dyer.

 

Many Christians feel that it is their duty to point out the wrongness of anothers way of thinking. So when there is a thread on paganism or pagan worship, they will enter that thread, and begin to express their views, which could be very offensive to the pagan.

 

They don't apologize because they are "instructing" them in God's love.