It's a daily struggle to chain my selfish interests and serve others with a sacrificial, Christ-focused love. This space is for any who wish to make the journey with me.
This guy's brain made the decision to believe in the Bible. He made the decision to interpret the Bible a certain way too. He's making just as much of a choice about his God as the Greeks, he just refuses to acknowledge it and acts like he is better than everyone else. To be honest, I think he's arrogant and not very smart.
Also, his portrayal of the Greeks is both inaccurate (they did not randomly create gods on a daily basis...) and highly offensive ("oh hey those people who disagree with us are idiots, let's make fun of their belief system by making up stories about them that aren't even true! let's laugh at them!")
I see your point, but you interpret the world around you constantly. You decide to be Christian, to trust that the Bible is God's word, to interpret the "word of God" the way you do. In the end, it ALWAYS comes back to our logic, opinions, and feelings. We can listen to others, be open-minded, and try to listen to the God inside us, but in the end WE are responsible for our decisions. WE are the ones choosing what to believe. Christians are no different than anyone else.
I have to say, I'm a little worried about the direction of this thread. It seems to have struck a nerve.
First, I'm sure Mr. Heck meant no offense to the Greeks. But, it wouldn't be the first time someone told him, "You just sound like a know-it-all," so I know he can handle it. Fortunately for him, sounding arrogant doesn't make his statements wrong. In fact, even if he made up a fictional culture and described a hypothetical story, it still lines up with what this generation of Christians AND non-Christians do often: provide an answer to the question of "Who God REALLY Is" based on their own preferences--not based on tests of reality.
Now, switching gears. Answering questions about God's character and morality with "I don't know" is not humility. It's not answering the question at all. And, there is no reason why we CAN'T know and answer those questions with confidence if we are being consistent with our logic.
If the choice "your brain" makes about what to believe is based upon tests of reality, then it's not just an arbitrary choice. After testing it, we eliminate reasonable doubt. And it is possible to eliminate doubt to the point that arguing it sounds crazy. That's the kind of logical progression to which I'm drawn. Prove to me that it makes more sense to believe THIS than to believe THAT, using definitions and statements of reality upon which we agree. (See my comment on "Can't Know Anything About God"" My point in that response is that reality is reality, even if we perceive it differently.)
Let's suppose someone asked us what color the grass is. ("Is it true that it's green?") Actually, I might say it's pretty brown right now. But, we'd still follow a process to answer the question. First, we'd have to make sure we both know what "green" is. Then, we would probably LOOK at the grass, to see if it lined up with our definition. In this case, we probably would answer the question quickly. But, what if we couldn't LOOK at the grass? Well, maybe we would interview other people or do research to figure out what color grass usually is at this time of year...etc, etc.
Anyway, at some point, we'd answer. Either it's green or it's not, and let's assume we decided that it is. What if someone was just SURE it was red? (Maybe he's colorblind or something.) His brain interpreted something differently than we did. So, is he equally right? Or, would it be our job to try and change his perception through the same proofs WE used to come up with our own answer?
What if the blind guy said we were arrogant for stating the grass is green? Or, what if he said, "Everything you used to test involves your brain! That's unreliable!" How does one respond to that claim? It's not only logically inconsistent (saying "you can't trust your brain" but using your brain to determine that statement), it's also practically impossible to live out. We don't doubt literally everything, even though our brains are required for literally every idea. And, if all concrete statements are deemed "arrogant," there is no way to engage in a rational discussion.
Unless you know Mr. Heck, you probably don't know what his intent was when he made fun of a different culture. Regardless of intent, it is in bad taste.
I believe we can talk about what we see, but who knows, maybe you and I are the ones who are colorblind.... this is my whole point. Just because you witness something doesn't make it right, it just means it's what you witness. It's not arrogant to say what you witness, but it is arrogant to claim it is the "correct" viewing and then make fun of people who view things differently. That's what's arrogant about Mr. Heck - he doesn't just say "This is how I see things" he claims his view of the world is God's. And there is absolutely no way for him to know that.
How do you KNOW that the Bible is God's word? What evidence do you have? Or do you just choose to believe it?
Side note: Because of medical discoveries, we can pinpoint why someone who is colorblind sees different. We can pinpoint why someone who is blind sees differently. When we're talking about religion, unless you are claiming some people are born with a God-sense, then I don't think we can pinpoint any real difference between your and my ability to perceive the world.
"It's not arrogant to state what you witness. It's arrogant to claim it is the correct viewing and then make fun of people who view things differently."
That, my friend, is a positive, absolute statement. You are claiming your view is correct--that you know it to be true. To say "there is absolutely no way to know that" is to claim you know something. Is that arrogant?
I can't offer any more points on the subject if a double-standard is in place. To recap, I'm seeking THE truth--reality as it really is. I want to know whether or not there is a God, what he/she is like and anything else I can know about reality. If I can make reasonably-confident statements about the grass, I can use the same brain to deduce logic-based spiritual beliefs. I'm not arguing I'll always get it right--I'm not saying I know everything.
But it IS possible to know some things. There are plenty of things we claim to know. And, using the same standards I use in drawing conclusions about the grass, I have arrived at conclusions about God.
There is no double standard here. You and I agree that either of us could be wrong. The guy in the video does not: He is making fun of another culture just because they do not agree with him. That is arrogant because it is flippantly disregarding the ideas of others without giving them fair consideration (especially since he is inaccurate and clearly does not actually know a lot about the Greeks). You and I agree that there are different possibilities of what could be Truth and that we are doing our best to figure out what that is.
I am still curious how you have logically concluded that the Bible is God's word.
Also, I do not disagree with "positive, absolute statements" as you call them.
I disagree with claiming to have a more objective perspective than someone else when there is no objective reason to. It comes back to my question about the Bible. Mr. Heck chooses to believe that the Bible is God's word. There is not objective proof this is true. I apply this to myself as well. I choose to believe in a God, but I do not claim I am "Right" that God exists because it's just my belief. I have no proof, it is just something I feel makes sense to me. I cannot logically conclude that God exists, I just choose to believe that given the logical conclusions that I can come to.
My argument that his is arrogant is based off a logical conclusion. He clearly does not know much about the Greeks, so he is in no position to judge them.
I fully intend to address these posts. But, we just got back from my first baby shower and I'm WIPED OUT. Also, tomorrow is Sunday, and Luke and I always spend the day together resting on Sunday.
So, brief hiatus! And I'll pick this up again on Monday! :)
Alright, I'm baaaaaaaack. And I think I'd like to start with an apology. I believe--in effort to address all your questions--I may have misunderstood your bottom line in the first place. After spending the weekend thinking about this and re-reading your posts, I think we agree on more than I realized...we're just calling it different things. You said, "this guy made the decision to believe in the Bible" and in another place, you said, "We use our brains to deduce things," which you called subjectivity. I took up issue with that word because you and I both agree that SOME things are right and SOME things are clearly wrong--so not everything can be subjective. But, what I think you meant by "subjective" is that everything takes a little faith, which is a statement I make all the time. Either God created the things we see here, or all of it happened by chance. We reason based on the evidence presented us (the findings of science, the probabilities of mathematics, the fact that we are incredibly complicated and everybody seems to have a moral compass of some kind, etc) and then we come to a conclusion: either their is a God or there isn't. But, ultimately, since no one SAW the beginning of time (and--even if someone did--a skeptic could come along and say, "But how do you know you can trust your eyes?!") then we have to rely on a little bit of faith. Usually, we accept the idea which requires the least amount of blind trust or faith. We eliminate as many doubts as possible and take the path which is easiest to believe. Sometimes it brings us to The Truth. Other times we miss the mark. But, it's not that things are subjective. In fact, we can eliminate enough doubt to call ourselves "sure" of LOTS of things. I'm sure I exist. I'm sure I'm hungry, etc. But, there are some things which, by nature, require more faith... (The events of history, the words of politicians, HA!) CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
(continued) Today, I saw a brief conversation on Facebook between my mom and a stranger. A mutual friend had posted a Bible verse about the fact that natural disasters, wars, and famines would become more common as time went on (and the closer we get to Jesus' return), and then the person asked the very legitimate question, "Are we ready" for this to happen? Then, a young guy jumped in with the statement: "This is crap. The Bible has nothing to do with natural disasters." Now, this guy is just stating his opinion, but he did it arrogantly. So, my mom said, "First of all, how rude. Second of all, how can you be so sure?" (Another legitimate question, I believe) This guy only said, "I'm certain."
I would consider this person arrogant--but not because he states his opinion confidently. Ultimately, everybody thinks they're right, and it makes no sense to qualify every, single statement with "But I could be wrong." (Just imagine saying, "The grass is green; but I could be wrong.") No, the arrogance comes from another place. I think it's from an unwillingness to have a discussion, maybe. And, in this guy's case, from his decision to hijack another person's status update and use of the word "crap" didn't help. Anyway, I was eager to make the point that arrogance is not proof of being incorrect, but what I should have said was, "I'm sorry you were offended." My family does happen to know Peter, as a matter of fact, and I know it wasn't his intent to offend, either.
Now, I still happen to believe he was right about the Greeks. They had many, many gods, and history tells us a the more wealthy citizens would hire a sculptor to make a god for them--any size, any shape, any quality, as long as they had the money. Idol-making was a prosperous business because the Greeks believed the number of gods in existence was endless, so no one questioned you if you said, "Here's my statue, dedicated to (insert name you chose for your god). I believe he/she is the god of (insert idea)." And no one thought it was strange. But, Paul of the Bible preached to the Greeks, and--though he was certain and confident, he had ahumble attitude. He said to them, "I see that you are a very religious people" (implying he admired their faith--which he did). "But," he continued. "Let me tell you about the One True God, who defines Himself and exists with the same consistency whether a human makes a statue of him or not." [my paraphrase] BUT, my point is that Peter was speaking to a group of people who already believe the Bible, so he didn't start with proofs about why he believes the Bible to be true. It would be like telling your boss something about the grass and then saying, "You know, I believe it to be true because science has said this or that, and I know I can't trust everything I read, but I also saw the grass yesterday--and I trust my senses. Oh, I know--technically--I can't 'prove' once and for all that my eyes work. Actually, I can't even prove I exist. But, please don't be mad at me for making a definite, confident statement about the grass." :) (Continued on next post)
Anyway, perhaps it's my fault for posting the video without clarifying the audience for whom it was intended. After re-reading your posts, I can see that--all along--you've been asking for concrete reasons I believe in the Bible as God's Word, and this is the question you should have asked regarding Peter, too. Rather than saying, "You're arrogant for stating something as a fact," you could have asked the same question as my mother: "What makes you so sure?"
I was hesitant to list my reasoning because, if I was talking with a skeptic who claimed "There are many truths" every time I presented a good point, then there was no reason to keep going. No one is able to talk argue against questions over basic, human knowledge. (Or, if someone claims they have to see and touch everything in order to believe it, you may as well end the discussion, too. You can't prove God to those people--but you can't prove we landed on the moon, that there was a Jewish holocost, or that there has been an earthquake in Japan, either.)
SO, just for you, I have assigned a "guest blogger" to get us started on the topic of the Bible, and I will post her evidences when she sends them to me. Again, I'm sorry if the manner in which I've said anything has sounded arrogant, but I do not believe confidence in beliefs is the problem. Instead, it's an attitude with which you present the reasons for your faith. I'm excited to prove that faith in God and faith in the Bible as his word are not crazy, subjective decisions, but that there are solid reasons to put your faith in them...just like the grass. :) (Sorry for the long posts! That's what I happens after a "hiatus" I guess.)
Hi again Amanda. I appreciate how reflective and open-minded you are to where I'm coming from.
I think what bothered me about the man in the video is that he was making fun of another religion. He wasn't sincerely discussing it, he was proposing Greek culture in such a way as to make people laugh at it. And that's arrogant. He is *so* confident in his perspective that he thinks he can put down other perspectives. As you say, it all takes a little faith. Greeks did not *flippantly* create Gods everyday, its that their perception of God is very different than yours. So I disagree with making an entire culture sound flippant. But I think you are right that I should have said he wasn't willing to discuss (or show respect) for other perspectives. That's what I really meant. Maybe he did not mean to seem disrespectful, but his approach was.
You haven't offended me, and the man in the video hasn't personally offended me either (I'm not Greek, etc). I just get really annoyed when people flippantly compare completely different cultures. I understand the context of his argument, but I think it's still arrogant behavior. I think there is a way to get across the same message without joking about another civilization without taking seriously their perspective. I think this is what leads to a lot of conflict in the world.
No to belabor the point, but I wonder how much people in the audience know about the Greeks. I wonder if they will walk away with a skewed perception of other cultures. I wonder if they will mirror that behavior, except in "mixed company" where the audience is not the same. So this is what I mean about creating conflict. Maybe he didn't offend anyone in the room, but I don't think practicing that kind of rhetoric ever does anyone good.
I've been thinking a lot lately about how people of very different perspectives can relate to one another. I've been trying to understand where conservative Christians are coming from in particular, partially because it's a sizable population and partially because I am so bewildered by that outlook. (Not to say that all conservative Christians think the exact same way... that couldn't be further from the truth!)
I want to see our world become a better place, and I think that learning how to communicate with others (and know what kind of ground rules we can/should set) is crucial. I don't think everyone will come to the table (and that's fine, we live in an imperfect world), so my aim isn't to include everyone (but who do you categorize as too extreme?). I just think that political/social discourse in our country is horribly lacking and that we need to find some kind of ways of interacting. I think both sides of the aisle are bad at this. I'm basically trying to make sense of our country and figure out how we might move forward.
I wanted to be upfront about this because if I were you, I would wonder why this anonymous person keeps commenting on your blog. If I become argumentative, it is because I am trying to delve and maybe am not sure how to go about it.
This guy's brain made the decision to believe in the Bible. He made the decision to interpret the Bible a certain way too. He's making just as much of a choice about his God as the Greeks, he just refuses to acknowledge it and acts like he is better than everyone else. To be honest, I think he's arrogant and not very smart.
ReplyDeleteAlso, his portrayal of the Greeks is both inaccurate (they did not randomly create gods on a daily basis...) and highly offensive ("oh hey those people who disagree with us are idiots, let's make fun of their belief system by making up stories about them that aren't even true! let's laugh at them!")
I see your point, but you interpret the world around you constantly. You decide to be Christian, to trust that the Bible is God's word, to interpret the "word of God" the way you do. In the end, it ALWAYS comes back to our logic, opinions, and feelings. We can listen to others, be open-minded, and try to listen to the God inside us, but in the end WE are responsible for our decisions. WE are the ones choosing what to believe. Christians are no different than anyone else.
I have to say, I'm a little worried about the direction of this thread. It seems to have struck a nerve.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm sure Mr. Heck meant no offense to the Greeks. But, it wouldn't be the first time someone told him, "You just sound like a know-it-all," so I know he can handle it. Fortunately for him, sounding arrogant doesn't make his statements wrong. In fact, even if he made up a fictional culture and described a hypothetical story, it still lines up with what this generation of Christians AND non-Christians do often: provide an answer to the question of "Who God REALLY Is" based on their own preferences--not based on tests of reality.
Now, switching gears. Answering questions about God's character and morality with "I don't know" is not humility. It's not answering the question at all. And, there is no reason why we CAN'T know and answer those questions with confidence if we are being consistent with our logic.
If the choice "your brain" makes about what to believe is based upon tests of reality, then it's not just an arbitrary choice. After testing it, we eliminate reasonable doubt. And it is possible to eliminate doubt to the point that arguing it sounds crazy. That's the kind of logical progression to which I'm drawn. Prove to me that it makes more sense to believe THIS than to believe THAT, using definitions and statements of reality upon which we agree. (See my comment on "Can't Know Anything About God"" My point in that response is that reality is reality, even if we perceive it differently.)
Let's suppose someone asked us what color the grass is. ("Is it true that it's green?") Actually, I might say it's pretty brown right now. But, we'd still follow a process to answer the question. First, we'd have to make sure we both know what "green" is. Then, we would probably LOOK at the grass, to see if it lined up with our definition. In this case, we probably would answer the question quickly. But, what if we couldn't LOOK at the grass? Well, maybe we would interview other people or do research to figure out what color grass usually is at this time of year...etc, etc.
Anyway, at some point, we'd answer. Either it's green or it's not, and let's assume we decided that it is. What if someone was just SURE it was red? (Maybe he's colorblind or something.) His brain interpreted something differently than we did. So, is he equally right? Or, would it be our job to try and change his perception through the same proofs WE used to come up with our own answer?
What if the blind guy said we were arrogant for stating the grass is green? Or, what if he said, "Everything you used to test involves your brain! That's unreliable!" How does one respond to that claim? It's not only logically inconsistent (saying "you can't trust your brain" but using your brain to determine that statement), it's also practically impossible to live out. We don't doubt literally everything, even though our brains are required for literally every idea. And, if all concrete statements are deemed "arrogant," there is no way to engage in a rational discussion.
Unless you know Mr. Heck, you probably don't know what his intent was when he made fun of a different culture. Regardless of intent, it is in bad taste.
ReplyDeleteI believe we can talk about what we see, but who knows, maybe you and I are the ones who are colorblind.... this is my whole point. Just because you witness something doesn't make it right, it just means it's what you witness. It's not arrogant to say what you witness, but it is arrogant to claim it is the "correct" viewing and then make fun of people who view things differently. That's what's arrogant about Mr. Heck - he doesn't just say "This is how I see things" he claims his view of the world is God's. And there is absolutely no way for him to know that.
How do you KNOW that the Bible is God's word? What evidence do you have? Or do you just choose to believe it?
Side note: Because of medical discoveries, we can pinpoint why someone who is colorblind sees different. We can pinpoint why someone who is blind sees differently. When we're talking about religion, unless you are claiming some people are born with a God-sense, then I don't think we can pinpoint any real difference between your and my ability to perceive the world.
ReplyDelete"It's not arrogant to state what you witness. It's arrogant to claim it is the correct viewing and then make fun of people who view things differently."
ReplyDeleteThat, my friend, is a positive, absolute statement. You are claiming your view is correct--that you know it to be true. To say "there is absolutely no way to know that" is to claim you know something. Is that arrogant?
I can't offer any more points on the subject if a double-standard is in place. To recap, I'm seeking THE truth--reality as it really is. I want to know whether or not there is a God, what he/she is like and anything else I can know about reality. If I can make reasonably-confident statements about the grass, I can use the same brain to deduce logic-based spiritual beliefs. I'm not arguing I'll always get it right--I'm not saying I know everything.
But it IS possible to know some things. There are plenty of things we claim to know. And, using the same standards I use in drawing conclusions about the grass, I have arrived at conclusions about God.
There is no double standard here. You and I agree that either of us could be wrong. The guy in the video does not: He is making fun of another culture just because they do not agree with him. That is arrogant because it is flippantly disregarding the ideas of others without giving them fair consideration (especially since he is inaccurate and clearly does not actually know a lot about the Greeks). You and I agree that there are different possibilities of what could be Truth and that we are doing our best to figure out what that is.
ReplyDeleteI am still curious how you have logically concluded that the Bible is God's word.
Also, I do not disagree with "positive, absolute statements" as you call them.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with claiming to have a more objective perspective than someone else when there is no objective reason to. It comes back to my question about the Bible. Mr. Heck chooses to believe that the Bible is God's word. There is not objective proof this is true. I apply this to myself as well. I choose to believe in a God, but I do not claim I am "Right" that God exists because it's just my belief. I have no proof, it is just something I feel makes sense to me. I cannot logically conclude that God exists, I just choose to believe that given the logical conclusions that I can come to.
My argument that his is arrogant is based off a logical conclusion. He clearly does not know much about the Greeks, so he is in no position to judge them.
I fully intend to address these posts. But, we just got back from my first baby shower and I'm WIPED OUT. Also, tomorrow is Sunday, and Luke and I always spend the day together resting on Sunday.
ReplyDeleteSo, brief hiatus! And I'll pick this up again on Monday! :)
Alright, I'm baaaaaaaack.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think I'd like to start with an apology. I believe--in effort to address all your questions--I may have misunderstood your bottom line in the first place. After spending the weekend thinking about this and re-reading your posts, I think we agree on more than I realized...we're just calling it different things.
You said, "this guy made the decision to believe in the Bible" and in another place, you said, "We use our brains to deduce things," which you called subjectivity. I took up issue with that word because you and I both agree that SOME things are right and SOME things are clearly wrong--so not everything can be subjective. But, what I think you meant by "subjective" is that everything takes a little faith, which is a statement I make all the time.
Either God created the things we see here, or all of it happened by chance. We reason based on the evidence presented us (the findings of science, the probabilities of mathematics, the fact that we are incredibly complicated and everybody seems to have a moral compass of some kind, etc) and then we come to a conclusion: either their is a God or there isn't. But, ultimately, since no one SAW the beginning of time (and--even if someone did--a skeptic could come along and say, "But how do you know you can trust your eyes?!") then we have to rely on a little bit of faith. Usually, we accept the idea which requires the least amount of blind trust or faith. We eliminate as many doubts as possible and take the path which is easiest to believe. Sometimes it brings us to The Truth. Other times we miss the mark. But, it's not that things are subjective. In fact, we can eliminate enough doubt to call ourselves "sure" of LOTS of things. I'm sure I exist. I'm sure I'm hungry, etc. But, there are some things which, by nature, require more faith... (The events of history, the words of politicians, HA!) CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
(continued)
ReplyDeleteToday, I saw a brief conversation on Facebook between my mom and a stranger. A mutual friend had posted a Bible verse about the fact that natural disasters, wars, and famines would become more common as time went on (and the closer we get to Jesus' return), and then the person asked the very legitimate question, "Are we ready" for this to happen? Then, a young guy jumped in with the statement: "This is crap. The Bible has nothing to do with natural disasters." Now, this guy is just stating his opinion, but he did it arrogantly. So, my mom said, "First of all, how rude. Second of all, how can you be so sure?" (Another legitimate question, I believe) This guy only said, "I'm certain."
I would consider this person arrogant--but not because he states his opinion confidently. Ultimately, everybody thinks they're right, and it makes no sense to qualify every, single statement with "But I could be wrong." (Just imagine saying, "The grass is green; but I could be wrong.") No, the arrogance comes from another place. I think it's from an unwillingness to have a discussion, maybe. And, in this guy's case, from his decision to hijack another person's status update and use of the word "crap" didn't help. Anyway, I was eager to make the point that arrogance is not proof of being incorrect, but what I should have said was, "I'm sorry you were offended." My family does happen to know Peter, as a matter of fact, and I know it wasn't his intent to offend, either.
Now, I still happen to believe he was right about the Greeks. They had many, many gods, and history tells us a the more wealthy citizens would hire a sculptor to make a god for them--any size, any shape, any quality, as long as they had the money. Idol-making was a prosperous business because the Greeks believed the number of gods in existence was endless, so no one questioned you if you said, "Here's my statue, dedicated to (insert name you chose for your god). I believe he/she is the god of (insert idea)." And no one thought it was strange. But, Paul of the Bible preached to the Greeks, and--though he was certain and confident, he had ahumble attitude. He said to them, "I see that you are a very religious people" (implying he admired their faith--which he did). "But," he continued. "Let me tell you about the One True God, who defines Himself and exists with the same consistency whether a human makes a statue of him or not." [my paraphrase] BUT, my point is that Peter was speaking to a group of people who already believe the Bible, so he didn't start with proofs about why he believes the Bible to be true. It would be like telling your boss something about the grass and then saying, "You know, I believe it to be true because science has said this or that, and I know I can't trust everything I read, but I also saw the grass yesterday--and I trust my senses. Oh, I know--technically--I can't 'prove' once and for all that my eyes work. Actually, I can't even prove I exist. But, please don't be mad at me for making a definite, confident statement about the grass." :)
(Continued on next post)
Anyway, perhaps it's my fault for posting the video without clarifying the audience for whom it was intended. After re-reading your posts, I can see that--all along--you've been asking for concrete reasons I believe in the Bible as God's Word, and this is the question you should have asked regarding Peter, too. Rather than saying, "You're arrogant for stating something as a fact," you could have asked the same question as my mother: "What makes you so sure?"
ReplyDeleteI was hesitant to list my reasoning because, if I was talking with a skeptic who claimed "There are many truths" every time I presented a good point, then there was no reason to keep going. No one is able to talk argue against questions over basic, human knowledge. (Or, if someone claims they have to see and touch everything in order to believe it, you may as well end the discussion, too. You can't prove God to those people--but you can't prove we landed on the moon, that there was a Jewish holocost, or that there has been an earthquake in Japan, either.)
SO, just for you, I have assigned a "guest blogger" to get us started on the topic of the Bible, and I will post her evidences when she sends them to me. Again, I'm sorry if the manner in which I've said anything has sounded arrogant, but I do not believe confidence in beliefs is the problem. Instead, it's an attitude with which you present the reasons for your faith.
I'm excited to prove that faith in God and faith in the Bible as his word are not crazy, subjective decisions, but that there are solid reasons to put your faith in them...just like the grass. :)
(Sorry for the long posts! That's what I happens after a "hiatus" I guess.)
Hi again Amanda. I appreciate how reflective and open-minded you are to where I'm coming from.
ReplyDeleteI think what bothered me about the man in the video is that he was making fun of another religion. He wasn't sincerely discussing it, he was proposing Greek culture in such a way as to make people laugh at it. And that's arrogant. He is *so* confident in his perspective that he thinks he can put down other perspectives. As you say, it all takes a little faith. Greeks did not *flippantly* create Gods everyday, its that their perception of God is very different than yours. So I disagree with making an entire culture sound flippant. But I think you are right that I should have said he wasn't willing to discuss (or show respect) for other perspectives. That's what I really meant. Maybe he did not mean to seem disrespectful, but his approach was.
You haven't offended me, and the man in the video hasn't personally offended me either (I'm not Greek, etc). I just get really annoyed when people flippantly compare completely different cultures. I understand the context of his argument, but I think it's still arrogant behavior. I think there is a way to get across the same message without joking about another civilization without taking seriously their perspective. I think this is what leads to a lot of conflict in the world.
No to belabor the point, but I wonder how much people in the audience know about the Greeks. I wonder if they will walk away with a skewed perception of other cultures. I wonder if they will mirror that behavior, except in "mixed company" where the audience is not the same. So this is what I mean about creating conflict. Maybe he didn't offend anyone in the room, but I don't think practicing that kind of rhetoric ever does anyone good.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking a lot lately about how people of very different perspectives can relate to one another. I've been trying to understand where conservative Christians are coming from in particular, partially because it's a sizable population and partially because I am so bewildered by that outlook. (Not to say that all conservative Christians think the exact same way... that couldn't be further from the truth!)
I want to see our world become a better place, and I think that learning how to communicate with others (and know what kind of ground rules we can/should set) is crucial. I don't think everyone will come to the table (and that's fine, we live in an imperfect world), so my aim isn't to include everyone (but who do you categorize as too extreme?). I just think that political/social discourse in our country is horribly lacking and that we need to find some kind of ways of interacting. I think both sides of the aisle are bad at this. I'm basically trying to make sense of our country and figure out how we might move forward.
I wanted to be upfront about this because if I were you, I would wonder why this anonymous person keeps commenting on your blog. If I become argumentative, it is because I am trying to delve and maybe am not sure how to go about it.