Christian Hypnosis Secrets Revealed
December 6, 2005 8:07 PM Subscribe
I understand what right wing christians are upset about, but how do I get them to understand and not dismiss my beliefs?
Um...perhaps they don't really understand what you're talking about.
Try communicating more clearly.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:16 PM on December 6, 2005
Try communicating more clearly.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:16 PM on December 6, 2005
Do you understand them and not dismiss their beliefs?
posted by unknowncommand at 8:19 PM on December 6, 2005
posted by unknowncommand at 8:19 PM on December 6, 2005
Response by poster: I was a devout Christian for about 12 years, and then I became an atheist.
posted by bigmusic at 8:21 PM on December 6, 2005
posted by bigmusic at 8:21 PM on December 6, 2005
Right wing Christians, by defintion, will never accept someone else's beliefs. It's why they call it dogma.
As to what they are upset about, do you have a list?
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:26 PM on December 6, 2005
As to what they are upset about, do you have a list?
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:26 PM on December 6, 2005
I'm assuming you've already done the obvious -- for example, steering clear of this type of thing?
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:26 PM on December 6, 2005
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:26 PM on December 6, 2005
(Sigh. This is what happens when I mistake the post button for the preview one.)
My parents are right-wing Christians, but New Englanders; while they're literally right-wing Christians, they don't fit the stereotype exactly. I'm Christian, but I don't think you'd call me right-wing. Well, some people would, I guess.
Can you get them to consider something as an intellectual argument? "Well, if X, then would you be able to see Z or maybe Y?" This may work if they're interested in debating or seeing your POV. If they aren't, you may be better off leaving them alone.
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:30 PM on December 6, 2005
My parents are right-wing Christians, but New Englanders; while they're literally right-wing Christians, they don't fit the stereotype exactly. I'm Christian, but I don't think you'd call me right-wing. Well, some people would, I guess.
Can you get them to consider something as an intellectual argument? "Well, if X, then would you be able to see Z or maybe Y?" This may work if they're interested in debating or seeing your POV. If they aren't, you may be better off leaving them alone.
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:30 PM on December 6, 2005
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky. It depends on what beliefs you're talking about. What are you trying to convince them of? No one likes a self-righteous asshole (unless one agrees with him/her). I find it helpful to talk to Christians in terms of Christian beliefs that I can relate to. For example, I find that the idea of God (rather than man) being the ultimate judge is helpful in a lot of discussions. I like to find basic and broad ways in which I agree with people before discussing our disagreements.
posted by unknowncommand at 8:37 PM on December 6, 2005
posted by unknowncommand at 8:37 PM on December 6, 2005
The reasons that people have for beliefs are often more important than the beliefs themselves. Learn the reasons for those beliefs and learn to respect those. More importantly, learn when you agree with some of those reasons. Emphasizes the things you agree on, especially the reasons behind certain beliefs before you state your contrary beliefs.
I have productive conversations everyday involving mutual respect using these techniques. It also helps raise the level of debate.
posted by ontic at 8:51 PM on December 6, 2005
I have productive conversations everyday involving mutual respect using these techniques. It also helps raise the level of debate.
posted by ontic at 8:51 PM on December 6, 2005
how do I get them to understand and not dismiss my beliefs?
That's a fool's errand. Give it up. You'll be better off leading a horse to water and trying to make him do the backstroke.
Seriously. "Understand" and "not dismiss" are two totally different things. I can understand plenty of things and dismiss them totally, utterly, for perfectly logical reasons. Throw in a little misplaced "faith" and you've got an orgy of dismissal.
On the other hand, I can accept (not dismiss) many things that I really don't understand.
posted by frogan at 9:06 PM on December 6, 2005
That's a fool's errand. Give it up. You'll be better off leading a horse to water and trying to make him do the backstroke.
Seriously. "Understand" and "not dismiss" are two totally different things. I can understand plenty of things and dismiss them totally, utterly, for perfectly logical reasons. Throw in a little misplaced "faith" and you've got an orgy of dismissal.
On the other hand, I can accept (not dismiss) many things that I really don't understand.
posted by frogan at 9:06 PM on December 6, 2005
(a) You seem to be in accusation of the identical offense you are committing, no?
(b) According to scripture, it's not about what a person himself believes to be true, but what is written to be true. It's not about you, it's about the text. What you think is true, or what I think is true matters none, but what is.
What do you believe that they/we dismiss? Chances are you've only hear a few perspectives.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:07 PM on December 6, 2005
(b) According to scripture, it's not about what a person himself believes to be true, but what is written to be true. It's not about you, it's about the text. What you think is true, or what I think is true matters none, but what is.
What do you believe that they/we dismiss? Chances are you've only hear a few perspectives.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:07 PM on December 6, 2005
What is written you say, vanoakenfold ?
By whom? When? Which of the many extant versions of The Bible declaimed as the one true word are you supporting? How silly.
Since there is no such thing as The Bible, any belief system constructed on such a demonstrably flimsy pretext is inherently flawed. Therefore, subscribers to such a faith-based ideology are intrinsically un-open to reason. Were they reasonable in any way, they'd see the underlying untenability of their silly superstitions. They wouldn't then, subscribe to them.
The problem with every belief system ever constructed is that each is a wholly artificial agenda, constructed by those with ulterior motives. They are devised as a method of controlling the behaviour of the gullible.
You can't ever argue with these people so easily fooled by their own willing suspension of disbelief. Trying to do so is a complete waste of time.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:31 PM on December 6, 2005
By whom? When? Which of the many extant versions of The Bible declaimed as the one true word are you supporting? How silly.
Since there is no such thing as The Bible, any belief system constructed on such a demonstrably flimsy pretext is inherently flawed. Therefore, subscribers to such a faith-based ideology are intrinsically un-open to reason. Were they reasonable in any way, they'd see the underlying untenability of their silly superstitions. They wouldn't then, subscribe to them.
The problem with every belief system ever constructed is that each is a wholly artificial agenda, constructed by those with ulterior motives. They are devised as a method of controlling the behaviour of the gullible.
You can't ever argue with these people so easily fooled by their own willing suspension of disbelief. Trying to do so is a complete waste of time.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:31 PM on December 6, 2005
Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die
When I was (evangelical) Christian, the possibility that there might not be a God, that this Jesus thing might not be true, was the most terrifying thing I could think of. I would have dismissed your beliefs as untrue because anything else was almost unthinkable. There isn't room for other people's beliefs when you believe that Jesus is the ONLY way. Making room for you to believe something else is making room for it to be okay for you to go to hell. It's not really an option for many people.
You can't ever argue with these people so easily fooled by their own willing suspension of disbelief.
This implies that people choose to believe this way and that it is because they are gullible/stupid. It's not quite that simple. Many of us who have managed to get out of such systems didn't do so without a massive effort. There are good reasons for such beliefs, and for panicking when they are threatened, as outlined in the article linked above.
posted by heatherann at 9:42 PM on December 6, 2005
When I was (evangelical) Christian, the possibility that there might not be a God, that this Jesus thing might not be true, was the most terrifying thing I could think of. I would have dismissed your beliefs as untrue because anything else was almost unthinkable. There isn't room for other people's beliefs when you believe that Jesus is the ONLY way. Making room for you to believe something else is making room for it to be okay for you to go to hell. It's not really an option for many people.
You can't ever argue with these people so easily fooled by their own willing suspension of disbelief.
This implies that people choose to believe this way and that it is because they are gullible/stupid. It's not quite that simple. Many of us who have managed to get out of such systems didn't do so without a massive effort. There are good reasons for such beliefs, and for panicking when they are threatened, as outlined in the article linked above.
posted by heatherann at 9:42 PM on December 6, 2005
To begin with, I am the kind of person you're asking about. And almost all of my friends are the total opposites. My three best friends are all lefties and 1) agnostic borderline atheist b) Celtic Shaman and c) follows Christ, but doesn't call herself a Christian b/c of the innuendoes it brings with it. My friends and I are notorious for endless debates and arguments. It is what I do and usually a defining aspect of my best friendships. Most of my friends aren't Catholic (I am) due mainly to this fact: we have more differences and wider array of life experiences to draw from and I LOVE that.
THAT SAID, the two main facets of our debates I always see surface are a) we NEVER EVER seriously call eachother names during debates. No, really, it is simple as that. It just doesn't happen. This, above all else, has allowed discourse to remain at an intelligent level. b) We know we are not out to change the others opinions. That is not what is on our minds. Rather, I kind of think of it as someone I can freely speak my mind with with no fear of repercussions, and here is where it gets tricky. If I pose an idea or thought...say that Welfare is a bad idea b/c of x and y idea. They crutch of why we get along is how they reply. Usually, it is in the form of, "that is interesting. Here is why I love welfare for reasons z and a....and hence why I disagree with reasons x and y." Notice how they don't say, "I think you're wrong," or, "Stupid idea," or whatever. I might be wrong, and I might be stupid, but still, that's how we get along.
Here's another way to think about it: Do you ever argue in your head? I dunno if others do, but when I do, I tend not to call my other self stupid names, or call my own stupid rationale stupid, I might know it is, but instead of stating so, I simply proceed to the next step of stating why exactly my other self's beliefs are wrong and why it's wrong. And my response tends to sound more like an opinion. Sure, I base it in fact, but, I dunno, it just works out!
Where I'm headed in all of this is: Are you really trying to get people like me to understand your beliefs, or are you interested in getting me to believe in your beliefs. This is exactly why, while I can hold my own in arguments, I tend to abstain from the Blue. There are some people out there who have such contempt for my ideas that there is no longer civility surrounding them- from both the left and right (as I continue on, please note that IMHO, both sides here suck at keeping an even level of discourse). We are past that point of they actually are open to any positive ideas about Christianity or GWB. Notice, I say open. Not agree. Not concur. Not think I'm in my right mind. But be open to the idea that there is some truth beyond what you also hold. And this, I find sorely lacking in some of the more common posters and thus I ignore what they have to say --I say this not to anyone particular, and I know not all users are as such. I say it as no indictment on MetaFilter as a whole. However, there are a few people who bring down the whole discourse down to a level I don't care for. The exact thing is true in real life. If I'm engaging in an open discussion and there are a few asscracks and I can tell don't really care what I think (which honestly comes from Christians moreso than anyone else in my experience), I similarly clam up.
-When discussing issues, think of it as an essay you are writing to get into Yale. Are you going to use vulgarity, personal attacks, etc? I doubt it. Rather, I reckon you'll keep it in a civil & intelligent manner. If the other side stoops below you, ignore it (I know it's trite, but continue on the path of civility if you are serious about getting them to understand where you come from).
-Lastly, I think it also helps to understand where the other side is coming from. One of the reasons I can get along with my group of friends so well is because I understand and can argue their point (hell, my mom thinks I'm a flaming liberal simply because I enjoy debating against her). I may disagree and have reasons for it, but I still see the merits in their ideas.
Here's an example of how to keep things in control: My best friend is a social work major. She brings forth a whole lot of new ideas (usually what I guess is left-leaning) and they usually conflict with those I hold true to myself and a lot of our debate involves the poor and under-educated. Now think about it: A lot of where I go from here about discussing the poor is directly related to her calling in life of being a social work major. Thus, most likely a lot of what I'm going to say is going to be taken to heart. Thus, it would be like a slap in the face to say something along the lines of, "You (notice how I'm calling out HER) social work majors (notice how here I'm calling out that which is most important to you) are wrong here, here and here." Rather, if I keep it simply, "Hm, interesting, yo! I like your point about this, but I think this, this, and this." I get across the SAME EXACT points, but I do it without bringing attention to her and thus I leave the two of us and worry solely about the topic.
This all translates to arguing with anyone, including Christians. When arguing, don't call out their ideas being bad b/c they're a Christian or implicate Christianity in their false beliefs. You might damn-well be right, but reality of the situation is doing so will offend them more often than not. Rather, stick solely to the topic and leave the person themselves and God out of it if possible.
I hope that made some sense. I take this topic to heart to I tend to ramble on...
ON PREVIEW:
You can't ever argue with these people so easily fooled by their own willing suspension of disbelief. Trying to do so is a complete waste of time.
I don't want to derail, but it is EACTLY this kind of attitude that a) my friends and I NEVER bring into discourse (I say this not to make us look awesome or anything, but rather that we don't get pissed at eachother or yell and blah blah blah) b) I, once again IMHO, believe can be severely detrimental to an overall level of discourse.
posted by jmd82 at 9:46 PM on December 6, 2005
THAT SAID, the two main facets of our debates I always see surface are a) we NEVER EVER seriously call eachother names during debates. No, really, it is simple as that. It just doesn't happen. This, above all else, has allowed discourse to remain at an intelligent level. b) We know we are not out to change the others opinions. That is not what is on our minds. Rather, I kind of think of it as someone I can freely speak my mind with with no fear of repercussions, and here is where it gets tricky. If I pose an idea or thought...say that Welfare is a bad idea b/c of x and y idea. They crutch of why we get along is how they reply. Usually, it is in the form of, "that is interesting. Here is why I love welfare for reasons z and a....and hence why I disagree with reasons x and y." Notice how they don't say, "I think you're wrong," or, "Stupid idea," or whatever. I might be wrong, and I might be stupid, but still, that's how we get along.
Here's another way to think about it: Do you ever argue in your head? I dunno if others do, but when I do, I tend not to call my other self stupid names, or call my own stupid rationale stupid, I might know it is, but instead of stating so, I simply proceed to the next step of stating why exactly my other self's beliefs are wrong and why it's wrong. And my response tends to sound more like an opinion. Sure, I base it in fact, but, I dunno, it just works out!
Where I'm headed in all of this is: Are you really trying to get people like me to understand your beliefs, or are you interested in getting me to believe in your beliefs. This is exactly why, while I can hold my own in arguments, I tend to abstain from the Blue. There are some people out there who have such contempt for my ideas that there is no longer civility surrounding them- from both the left and right (as I continue on, please note that IMHO, both sides here suck at keeping an even level of discourse). We are past that point of they actually are open to any positive ideas about Christianity or GWB. Notice, I say open. Not agree. Not concur. Not think I'm in my right mind. But be open to the idea that there is some truth beyond what you also hold. And this, I find sorely lacking in some of the more common posters and thus I ignore what they have to say --I say this not to anyone particular, and I know not all users are as such. I say it as no indictment on MetaFilter as a whole. However, there are a few people who bring down the whole discourse down to a level I don't care for. The exact thing is true in real life. If I'm engaging in an open discussion and there are a few asscracks and I can tell don't really care what I think (which honestly comes from Christians moreso than anyone else in my experience), I similarly clam up.
-When discussing issues, think of it as an essay you are writing to get into Yale. Are you going to use vulgarity, personal attacks, etc? I doubt it. Rather, I reckon you'll keep it in a civil & intelligent manner. If the other side stoops below you, ignore it (I know it's trite, but continue on the path of civility if you are serious about getting them to understand where you come from).
-Lastly, I think it also helps to understand where the other side is coming from. One of the reasons I can get along with my group of friends so well is because I understand and can argue their point (hell, my mom thinks I'm a flaming liberal simply because I enjoy debating against her). I may disagree and have reasons for it, but I still see the merits in their ideas.
Here's an example of how to keep things in control: My best friend is a social work major. She brings forth a whole lot of new ideas (usually what I guess is left-leaning) and they usually conflict with those I hold true to myself and a lot of our debate involves the poor and under-educated. Now think about it: A lot of where I go from here about discussing the poor is directly related to her calling in life of being a social work major. Thus, most likely a lot of what I'm going to say is going to be taken to heart. Thus, it would be like a slap in the face to say something along the lines of, "You (notice how I'm calling out HER) social work majors (notice how here I'm calling out that which is most important to you) are wrong here, here and here." Rather, if I keep it simply, "Hm, interesting, yo! I like your point about this, but I think this, this, and this." I get across the SAME EXACT points, but I do it without bringing attention to her and thus I leave the two of us and worry solely about the topic.
This all translates to arguing with anyone, including Christians. When arguing, don't call out their ideas being bad b/c they're a Christian or implicate Christianity in their false beliefs. You might damn-well be right, but reality of the situation is doing so will offend them more often than not. Rather, stick solely to the topic and leave the person themselves and God out of it if possible.
I hope that made some sense. I take this topic to heart to I tend to ramble on...
ON PREVIEW:
You can't ever argue with these people so easily fooled by their own willing suspension of disbelief. Trying to do so is a complete waste of time.
I don't want to derail, but it is EACTLY this kind of attitude that a) my friends and I NEVER bring into discourse (I say this not to make us look awesome or anything, but rather that we don't get pissed at eachother or yell and blah blah blah) b) I, once again IMHO, believe can be severely detrimental to an overall level of discourse.
posted by jmd82 at 9:46 PM on December 6, 2005
It's not right-wing christians that are the problem. It's idiots. Idiots come in left, right, christian, athiest, or whatever belief happens to be fashionable. It's possible to be a reasonable, intelligent, and open minded right wing christian. You could also use the term Bigot. Bigots come from either side of the spectrum. They're not bigots because of their religion, Christ was open and accepting of everyone. They're bigots because they're idiots. Treat them as you would treat anyone with those issues, whether they be athiest or muslim or umm, scientologist. I'm saying this as a fairly conservative christian who is sick and tired of a few wackos giving me a bad name. Bad science is not christian. Bigotry is not christian. Close mindedness and hate are not christian. Anyone who displays those characteristics and calls themselves a christian is #1 a liar, and #2 in no way christian.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:23 PM on December 6, 2005
posted by blue_beetle at 10:23 PM on December 6, 2005
blue_beetle is dead on. I'm a Christian, but not an idiot (at least I try not to be). But I know many who are. I try to avoid them; fighting with them is useless, because whatever they believe is right and just and arguing is completely futile. I would advise you to save your strength.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:59 AM on December 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:59 AM on December 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
b) Celtic Shaman
The Celts, as we think of them in a unified culture sense, never actually existed. Pull that one out for your friend.
posted by The Michael The at 6:02 AM on December 7, 2005
The Celts, as we think of them in a unified culture sense, never actually existed. Pull that one out for your friend.
posted by The Michael The at 6:02 AM on December 7, 2005
"The problem with every belief system ever constructed is that each is a wholly artificial agenda, constructed by those with ulterior motives. They are devised as a method of controlling the behavior of the gullible."
(PB is tons of fun at parties.)
You aren't entering the debate with this attitude are you bigmusic? I assume you aren't. As a Catholic I can give you this advice: don't assume that they have an irrational belief system that is somehow leading them astray. Many non-religious types make this mistake. The assume that their humanist position is somehow better because they think they came to it through rational (and therefore superior) reasons. Christians (really all religious people) can sense this and they react accordingly. Basically, you'll never have a productive conversation if you start it with the assumption that your antagonist is wrong.
Finally, make sure that you are willing to change your mind (and make them aware that your are so willing). If others don't think you are willing to change your mind they are much less likely to engage you in a reasoned and open discussion.
posted by oddman at 6:31 AM on December 7, 2005
(PB is tons of fun at parties.)
You aren't entering the debate with this attitude are you bigmusic? I assume you aren't. As a Catholic I can give you this advice: don't assume that they have an irrational belief system that is somehow leading them astray. Many non-religious types make this mistake. The assume that their humanist position is somehow better because they think they came to it through rational (and therefore superior) reasons. Christians (really all religious people) can sense this and they react accordingly. Basically, you'll never have a productive conversation if you start it with the assumption that your antagonist is wrong.
Finally, make sure that you are willing to change your mind (and make them aware that your are so willing). If others don't think you are willing to change your mind they are much less likely to engage you in a reasoned and open discussion.
posted by oddman at 6:31 AM on December 7, 2005
Thank you to jmd82 for great advice and a thoughtful post from a perspective that is too often scared into silence (or blustery over the top and offensive) on MeFi.
posted by raedyn at 7:41 AM on December 7, 2005
posted by raedyn at 7:41 AM on December 7, 2005
Really, bigmusic, what's the problem? Just tell them that you'd have a much easier time respecting their beliefs if they returned the favor and leave it at that. Repeat as necessary. Unless you're running for political office or it's your significant other/parents/parole officer, you really don't need to do anything further.
posted by boaz at 8:15 AM on December 7, 2005
posted by boaz at 8:15 AM on December 7, 2005
I want to second raedyn's praise for jmd82's excellent comment, and I want to single this out as particularly important:
But be open to the idea that there is some truth beyond what you also hold.
Or as Cromwell said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
If more people grasped that basic concept, discourse (and the world at large) would be a lot more civilized.
posted by languagehat at 9:11 AM on December 7, 2005
But be open to the idea that there is some truth beyond what you also hold.
Or as Cromwell said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
If more people grasped that basic concept, discourse (and the world at large) would be a lot more civilized.
posted by languagehat at 9:11 AM on December 7, 2005
Christians (really all religious people) can sense this and they react accordingly. Basically, you'll never have a productive conversation if you start it with the assumption that your antagonist is wrong.
I'm going to take the liberty of expanding this a bit: just about everyone can sense when you start with the assumption that you are smarter and better than the other person. Communication is only possible between equals. If the right wing Christians of your query think they're so much better than your hellbound ass, you're not going to get anywhere. Ditto if you approach the other person with contempt for their goat-herder devotion to a magical skypal.
I don't think you or your conversation partner have to be willing to change your mind about anything. You just have to be willing to compare their experiences to your own and be interested in the similarities and differences. So, basically, you can't get the monolithic "them" to accept you, because "they" are a stereotype and don't exist as a unit. But you can come to terms with the person in front of you, if both of you are willing.
posted by Errant at 2:12 PM on December 7, 2005
I'm going to take the liberty of expanding this a bit: just about everyone can sense when you start with the assumption that you are smarter and better than the other person. Communication is only possible between equals. If the right wing Christians of your query think they're so much better than your hellbound ass, you're not going to get anywhere. Ditto if you approach the other person with contempt for their goat-herder devotion to a magical skypal.
I don't think you or your conversation partner have to be willing to change your mind about anything. You just have to be willing to compare their experiences to your own and be interested in the similarities and differences. So, basically, you can't get the monolithic "them" to accept you, because "they" are a stereotype and don't exist as a unit. But you can come to terms with the person in front of you, if both of you are willing.
posted by Errant at 2:12 PM on December 7, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by kindall at 8:12 PM on December 6, 2005