I've actually been quite well received for the most part and this is the last post that brings me to the crux of where two of us were going. She is trying to justify her faith's intrusion into public life, and I want to answer her very carefully. I know I can make a good argument for her to understand why this one extra step of actually interfering in secular society by bucking evolution and so forth is wrong. Before I get into it though, I'd appreciate some advice on how to best approach this. I've seen people argue well against this here before but I've never personally been at this stage of the argument and I want to make this good.
I'm K. Partington btw
K. Partington,
And this is what I think we are actually talking about here: But to suggest or even worse, INFLUENCE society
by voting against secular laws and preventing contrary views to be judged by a humanistic society working together just because you believe it is not "the right way", is irresponsible.
As I have mentioned, the entering of the Holy Spirit into a person's life brings with it a changed world view. That influences our entire lives not just Sunday activities. So, when we see something encroaching on our territory, we must respond. We are told to raise up our children for Him. In our society we are not removed to some sort of cloister but are right here with the people. When laws are being looked at that might adversely affect our children, we must speak up or we are being less than honest with our faith. There are many examples to choose from but let us take something simple like the creation/evolution debate. I believe in creation though I started as a devout evolutionist. When the state says the children must be taught that evolution is the way and allows no provision for another view, I must speak up. Otherwise I am condoning my children being taught not only what I believe is a lie evolution) but that I as the parent have presented them with the lie of creation. This is not helpful to the children and it does away with your whole idea of giving folks a choice as you keep talking about. This, of course, extends into many other sections of life including the victimless crimes you mention.
By the way, I believe that sex is far more than a mere bodily function, it is a binding together of two people in an incredible bond of emotion and physical and spiritual unity, not to be taken lightly. And that too is a different perspective.
So, we come full circle. I started this by offering 1 and 2 Corinthians where we are told that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man and cannot be understood without the awakening of the Holy Spirit in the dead soul of the person. I think our little discussion has fairly well "proven" that. There is nothing I can say to convince you and that is indeed not my place. My job is to live my life in such a way that others can see Christ and to be ready with an answer if anybody asks. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to wake people up. Until then, it is understandable that you would see no difference in the belief sets, they are all just personal belief after all.
And I will continue to be amazed that people choose only to see what they call "the meanspirited, judgemental, selfish god" of the OT. Not realizing that He is also the just and loving and creating God Who holds their very molecules together so they can stand there and refuse Him. You see the book as portraying an ugly god with a few feel good passages. I see the Book as an incredible love story filled with the pain and frustration and joy that comes from loving people who will not hear, and yet He continues to love and make it possible that we can love Him in return. A different perspective.
I have enjoyed our time of discussion and hope to see many more comments from you on world blog. You can also know, many years from now, if the Lord chooses to open your eyes to the Truth, that a little old lady was praying for you...
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
In my own opinion, I don't see how you can convince her that her religious activism is wrong. She's obviously in an already strong state of delusion, dismissing evolution or anything contrary to her belief as lies. You want her to realize the problems of her own justifications? You've got to shake her out of her own retarded mentality.
Note her repeated use of "I believe" arguments and ask her to substantiate them. Explain that it is okay for the school to contradict the parent's teachings if the parent's view is a load of bullshit. If you want to be polite, form an analogy with a white racist parent. For example, a redneck teaches his son that them uppity niggas should stay out of white schools. Ask her if she still believes the state should not teach differently. Of course, she will respond that Creation is correct while racism is wrong, so you might want to preemptively ask her to provide evidence. I don't know if that's the direction you want to turn the discussion, though.
I assume you've pointed out multiple times the atrocities of the Bible and she hasn't listened, but there's no harm in bringing them up one last time to attack her last point, where she says that she sees a beautiful story of pain and frustration and lesbians.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
While only a detail, just point out that the example of creationims vs evolution has no bearing as being taught in a scientific setting, since creationism is inherently unscientific.
And if we ARE going to teach christian creation anywhere, we should include other forms as well, such as the Hindu, Shinto, Teutonic, etc. creation myths. We can't just play favorites with the Judeo/Christo/Islamic faiths can we?
Ryushikaze wrote:While only a detail, just point out that the example of creationims vs evolution has no bearing as being taught in a scientific setting, since creationism is inherently unscientific.
And if we ARE going to teach christian creation anywhere, we should include other forms as well, such as the Hindu, Shinto, Teutonic, etc. creation myths. We can't just play favorites with the Judeo/Christo/Islamic faiths can we?
At which point, she'll simply point out that since the nation is majority Christian (Even though JFF is in Toronto I'm betting she's American and even if she's not isn't Canada still majority Christian? Even if only nominally.) and a democracy, and consequently the people should decide. Which just starts down a whole other path of debate over who's qualified to decide what science is and what should be taught, or whether religion(in this case, read, Christianity) should intrude upon public life etc., etc.
It's not entirely pointless however. Convincing her is unlikely, but reasonable people who, for whatever reason, are undecided on the issue will be swayed.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
Thanks all. I tried to get most of that across. Took me a few posts. No response yet, but at least we're debating and not screaming at each other. She isn't a rabid fundie at least.
At which point, she'll simply point out that since the nation is majority Christian (Even though JFF is in Toronto I'm betting she's American and even if she's not isn't Canada still majority Christian? Even if only nominally.) and a democracy, and consequently the people should decide.
Yes....I had an argument with someone and this was the biggest part of his argument in the end. He didn't like the appeal to popularity fallacy and claimed that it was still anti-democracy and there is no better way. He said even if it's wrong, the majority should be respected.
Of course I tried to give examples against such idiocy like slavery in the south, but he kept trying to throw the onus of a better system on me. I don't remember where I was at that point in the discussion, but I'm not even certain now what is the "ideal" way to deal with these issues from a political perspective.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
Try throwing out a hypothetical in this case- IE: Christians are not in the majority. Would she still want only the majority's deity to be respected.
Not sure how much it might help, but one of the federalist papers (#10 I believe) has a rather good argument against unchecked popular (defined as mob) rule. The idea is that one must do what is best for everybody, not merely the majority.
Actually, scratch that, since I can already see their reply "Obviously, Jesus is best for everyone." Of course, you could still go in this direction and ask your opponent to show how Jesus is best for everyone, but I see that argument taking a turn for the inflammatory rather quickly.
If she brings up the "we live in a democracy and the majority rules in democracy" argument, you should remind her we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. A democracy is mob rule, where the majority decides everything and the minority has no rights whatsoever. A constitutional republic has specificly laid-out limits on what rules the majority can make in order to protect the rights of the minority from abuses by the majority. The founding fathers recognized that, when in power, people naturally serve their own interests. Since the majority is likely to work to benefit themselves at the expense of the minority, the framers put consitutional limits on what the majority can do in order to prevent abuses. Sure they were afraid of abuses by government, but they were also afraid of abuses by the majority (as you can see by the different ways in which the number of senate seats and house sets are allocated to states, as an example).
To quote Benjamin Franklin:
A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.
-Richard Dawkins
