Dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Actually, I seldom see Bravus being disrespectful in his presentation of ideas.

So... how *can* disagreement be phrased? Can't be rude, can't be polite either for fear of being called passive-aggressive.

Is it possible to disagree? Or is singing from the same hymn sheet the only allowable approach?

Of course, it is possible to disagree. What I think joeb is referring to is the *feigning* of politeness. "Polite" retorts that are so obviously hostile. That's passive-aggressiveness. The whole purpose of something like that is to jab someone. Doing it repeatedly is offensive. And childish. And some here are masters of it. And get coddled for it. Amazingly.

This thread was about dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God. I cannot figure out why this has been so difficult for so many to understand.

"Respect" shouldn't need to be defined. If it needs to be defined, then there is a bigger problem here than I thought.

However, "dealing respectfully" in this topic (IMHO) is:

- not trashing God

- not putting someone down because of his/her beliefs

- not attempting to disprove someone's belief system

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps social graces are passé nowadays.

[M. T. Cross]

"Respect" shouldn't need to be defined. If it needs to be defined, then there is a bigger problem here than I thought.

However, "dealing respectfully" in this topic (IMHO) is:

- not trashing God

- not putting someone down because of his/her beliefs

- not attempting to disprove someone's belief system

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps social graces are passé nowadays.

You make some good points, the only thing I would argue is that different people will find different things disrespectful.

The one I highlighted there is a bit ironic I think. The thread that started all of this was about dealing with those that had not experienced God ( note that it was not called dealing respectfully). Essentially "how do we prove them wrong?". So I ask Rudy, honestly because I really don't know your view, is evangelism disrespectful?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

"Respect" shouldn't need to be defined. If it needs to be defined, then there is a bigger problem here than I thought.

However, "dealing respectfully" in this topic (IMHO) is:

- not trashing God

- not putting someone down because of his/her beliefs

- not attempting to disprove someone's belief system

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps social graces are passé nowadays.

You make some good points, the only thing I would argue is that different people will find different things disrespectful.

That's why I put "IMHO"..

Quote:

The one I highlighted there is a bit ironic I think. The thread that started all of this was about dealing with those that had not experienced God ( note that it was not called dealing respectfully). Essentially "how do we prove them wrong?". So I ask Rudy, honestly because I really don't know your view, is evangelism disrespectful?

Interesting. I did not *ever* see the thread in question as "how do we prove them [those who have not experienced God] wrong." If that was the intent of that thread, it totally eluded me. It seemed more like a chance for God-bashing and ridicule. Whatever, I guess. The "other thread" actually has no bearing on this thread. Two different threads.

To answer your question, I don't think evangelism, in and of itself, is disrespectful. But I've seen and heard evangelism done disrespectfully. For example, the ridicule the Catholic Church takes from some SDA evangelists is awful. Linking the pope to Satan and declaring that link to Catholics is disrespectful of their beliefs. IMHO. I understand there are many who will not agree with me.

I have, perhaps, a different view on what constitutes "evangelism." I'm not a great fan of proselytizing. I didn't like when it was done to me as a pagan, and frankly, I don't know of anyone else who did, either. I most certainly did not become a Christian due to an evangelistic effort.

But evangelism doesn't have to be an "in your face" action -- just as disagreement with someone else's views doesn't need to be "in your face."

[debbym]

Quote:

Interesting. I did not *ever* see the thread in question as "how do we prove them [those who have not experienced God] wrong." If that was the intent of that thread, it totally eluded me.

I am also really stunned to read this. a resounding no, no one comes to know God by being argued out of their belief system.

God does not ask us to give up anything we hold dear. when we see he is more valuable and more wonderful them whatever we have we hold God more dear then anything else.

The story of the Pearl of great prioce for example.

we cannot judge anyone. we cannot see where anyone is at as far as their relationship to God. a person could be a total pagan, or Bhuddist and be closer to God then a person in church every week. religiosity never gave anyone points with God.

those that Jesus turned to and said come inherit the kingdom prepared for you said, when did we visit you in prison and when did we feed you or give you something to drink.

it was not those who said Lord Lord, it was those who found and did the will of God.

Jeus did great miracles for those who were outside of Kosher religious organization.

we are not given the call to evangelize the world because the world is so sinful and we need to fix their errors. this is a condition everyone has in common. every one has their errors. correct theology does not perfect Character. Tou can have it all correct and be really rotten through and through.

it is because we need as selfish human beings to be called out of our selfishness, and do something for others and find and do the will of God rather then live to please ourselves.

we have the provilege of casting our lives into the furrow of human need, where God is waiting to use us to bless others. because God loves everyone and wants to bless everyone. being involved in serving others is where it is at.

[JoeMo]

I find this thread to be disturbing and intreguing at the same time. It got me thinking about the difference between "political correctness" vs. "respect" vs. "commitment".

Can we become so "politically correct" and "respectful" that no one can figure out our position on a given issue? Is EmptyCross correct when he says "the only way that it [respect]is accomplished is by saying "Yes you are right"? If memory serves me right, Pam used to have a statement in her signature that said something like "I am NOT politically correct". Bonnie is definitely less than politically correct. Yet, in most cases, these members leave no doubt as to their position on different issues. Is challenging someone's position being "disrespectful" (short of personal attack)? I have had many occasions (as you may have also) of carefully wording a post to avoid sounding aggressive, yet the response comes back to me accusing me of being such.

I stated in a previous post that we should accept each other where we are, regardless of which side of the fence we/they are on. People are individuals; and individual personalities need to be handled differently. For example, I respond to Woody differently than I respond to CoAspen; I respond to Gail differently than I respond to bonnie; and I respond to EmptyCross differently than I respond to Ig. I'd like to think it is because I am considering each as a different personality, rather than each has a viewpoint.

Another thing I thought about is "God/god bashing". Is that in the eye of the beholder? When I make a statement like "God is a fun guy", is that showing disrespect to the office of "God? Some might think so. If I state "IMO Jesus made wine at Cana for people who were already drunk" am I bashing God? Some might find that sacrelidge; yet that is what the Bible says to me.

I know this post is a bit rambling (sorry about that)

I also apologize to Bonnie for my tantrum yesterday.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

If memory serves me right, Pam used to have a statement in her signature that said something like "I am NOT politically correct". Bonnie is definitely less than politically correct. Yet, in most cases, these members leave no doubt as to their position on different issues.

And your point is???? What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Quote:

Is EmptyCross correct when he says "the only way that it [respect]is accomplished is by saying "Yes you are right"?

**sigh** This seems to becoming another repeated mantra on this thread. I have responded to it numerous times. RESPECT IS NOT ACCOMPLISHED BY SAYING 'YES, YOU ARE RIGHT"!!!! Is there some sort of disappearing cyber-ink being used in this thread??

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God

egads, people. What is so hard to understand about that????

What is wrong with stating, "I understand what you're writing/saying, but I don't agree with it"????

What is wrong with stating, "I may be wrong, but this is how I see/understand [a certain issue]"???

What is wrong with stating, "That may be true, but what about [another point]"???

I can understand when someone has tried REPEATEDLY to clarify a point and no one seems to "get it" - one gets tired of trying be polite because it seems to be lost on those efforts, and resorting to bluntness is the only alternative.

Why must there be petty, juvenile spamming of someone's thread?

And finally, why has this turned out to be so much of a "disturbing" thread - when the only issue was

Dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God

Apparently, dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God is a very difficult concept for some...

[bonnie]

Can we become so "politically correct" and "respectful" that no one can figure out our position on a given issue? Is EmptyCross correct when he says "the only way that it [respect]is accomplished is by saying "Yes you are right"? If memory serves me right, Pam used to have a statement in her signature that said something like "I am NOT politically correct". Bonnie is definitely less than politically correct. Yet, in most cases, these members leave no doubt as to their position on different issues.

[M. T. Cross]

To be clear, I do not think Stans thread that I referred to was intended to mean talking people out of their beliefs. But that is certainly the impression I got from some peoples posts. Not others. I did find the term "dealing" disturbing and odd.

I think that in answer to Rudy's question..... there is no answer really. What might seem respectful to one might seem disrespectful to others. I think that was Joe's point about the pc stuff. For instance if I chose to I could see some of the posts made in this thread as very aggressive and rude. I don't because I try to look at what the person is actually saying. However that is me. Others might find it that way. Point is we all measure things like politeness and respect in a different way.

Bonnie is right when she says that most people here have been great to me. There is a portion that think the fact that I am even allowed here is an atrocity. They are just clever enough to keep that to sending me messages about it LOL.

Rudy is also correct when she says

Quote:

But evangelism doesn't have to be an "in your face" action -- just as disagreement with someone else's views doesn't need to be "in your face."

What is wrong with stating, "I understand what you're writing/saying, but I don't agree with it"????

What is wrong with stating, "I may be wrong, but this is how I see/understand [a certain issue]"???

What is wrong with stating, "That may be true, but what about [another point]"???

The ideas there are great. But the point I was trying to make in an earlier post was that sometimes emotions cloud things, we get carried away (all of us) we post using all caps, we make blunt retorts, we in short get testy. Sometimes that comes across as disrespectful. I think that we should all look at this thread - and yes I know its not what its about - and realize it points out something bigger than its set topic. That is that we all assume that everyone will understand exactly what we mean when we post something. Thing is sometimes how we "hear" something in our head is not how it always comes across.

[M. T. Cross]

Or imagine anyone being a pagan in this day and age

Off topic I know, but that is one that I would love to answer anytime.

[fccool]

Dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God

egads, people. What is so hard to understand about that????

What is wrong with stating, "I understand what you're writing/saying, but I don't agree with it"????

What is wrong with stating, "I may be wrong, but this is how I see/understand [a certain issue]"???

What is wrong with stating, "That may be true, but what about [another point]"???

Here's the thing Pam. There's a difference between

"I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it".

and

"I understand what you are saying, but here's why I don't agree with it".

[Naomi]

I have read this thread for what seems like many days and agree with some of the thoughts presented. However, I submit that if we truly love our fellow humans we will make every effort to remove ego self from our responses (both in print and in person) and carefully choose our words with care to love, honor and respect those to whom we are addressng.

In almost any conversation we can both be right and disagree; we can both be wrong and disagree! Nothing is ever accomplished by arguments, insults, "sde-ways insults" and vailed attempts to be insultingly funny.

Whatever your belief you surely will agree that we will all have to account for our words and actions ... one way or another

Have a beautiful day, you are loved!

[Bravus]

::Like::

[bonnie]

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Dealing respectfully with those who HAVE found God

egads, people. What is so hard to understand about that????

What is wrong with stating, "I understand what you're writing/saying, but I don't agree with it"????

What is wrong with stating, "I may be wrong, but this is how I see/understand [a certain issue]"???

What is wrong with stating, "That may be true, but what about [another point]"???

Here's the thing Pam. There's a difference between

"I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it".

and

"I understand what you are saying, but here's why I don't agree with it".

Please note, I also wrote, "What is wrong with stating, 'I may be wrong, but this is how I see/understand [a certain issue]'?" It doesn't hurt anything to state one may be wrong in one's views. It allows the other person to maintain some semblance of dignity, which, unfortunately, is sorely lacking in so much that has been written here.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

I have no doubt that you would:))

However that was not meant as a sincere question but as a jab.Not expecting anything to be gained by it but to stir the pot a little [/quote']

Oh I know the point you were trying to make, and its one that almost every pagan I know has run into. But still I would answer it anytime.

[bonnie]

Oh I know the point you were trying to make, and its one that almost every pagan I know has run into. But still I would answer it anytime.

Personally I think anyone that does that in the way it has been done here is not worth the time it takes to answer.

It isn't done out of a sincere desire to understand where another is coming from.It is done to mock.

Something I learned as a child,even if someone is doing that on your behalf,don't trust them.It is only a question of time before they curry favor with others when convenient and it is as meaningless.A honest adversary does not have to stoop so low.They can stand up straight and say what they have to say

That is why for me I have far more respect for a outspoken,honest,adversary than I do for the type that make "innocent remarks"

[Naomi]

I have no doubt that you would:))

However that was not meant as a sincere question but as a jab.Not expecting anything to be gained by it but to stir the pot a little

Perhaps I missed something, but why do you wish to stir the pot a little?

[bonnie]

Perhaps I missed something, but why do you wish to stir the pot a little?

Perhaps you did miss something. A few comments have been made in the shout box. The only purpose behind those comments was to mock and "stir the pot a little. Had another label been used it would not have received such a enthusiastic "Like" by others.

Instead of ,Can you imagine anyone being a legalist in this day and age" it had read "can you imagine anyone being a pagan in this day and age" it would have been seen as disrespectful to the pagan members here and without any purpose other than to mock someone.

Those that throw legalists around have never answered exactly who they mean. Is it those that truly feel they can work their way to heaven with good works and obedience or those that feel that all ten of the commandments have relevance today for our lives.

[Naomi]

Well, perhaps I did, guess when I read it I mentally filed it away as okay, that is their opinion. However, you may be well within your right to 'stir the pot'

FWIW, in my opinion, in view of the big picture, does it really matter? And, is it really important enough to continue the discourse?

It is a rare individual who is 100% anythng ... legalist, pagen, liberal, etc. Usually there are things which we can agree upon and respect each other for our differences and sameness.

Just thinking out loud ..............

[Tom Wetmore]

I have said it before and I think it bears repeating here. When we read, we read the words on the screen/page in our own voice. That may diminish only to the extent we actually know and have heard the writer themselves speak.

So why is that of any importance? What it says is that the words filter through our own state of mind. The attitude/tone that we tend to attribute to the writer is actually more likely to be reflective of our own. And any nuances/ambiguity or differences of meaning in the actual words used are filtered in similar manner through our own POV.

It takes a skillful writer to accurately convey tone and attitude that is clearly their own and avoid the imprinting tendency of readers. Few of us possess that skill.

[debbym]

Quote:

And any nuances/ambiguity or differences of meaning in the actual words used are filtered in similar manner through our own POV.

It takes a skillful writer to accurately convey tone and attitude that is clearly their own and avoid the imprinting tendency of readers. Few of us possess that skill.

absolutely true! 90% of communication is inflection and non verbal cues, body language etc., all absent in textual communication.

we think about 10% of what we know, and we communicate about about 10% of what we think about also.