Thank you Jehovah for answered prayers

by Annie Over 194 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BizzyBee

  Belief in purple dancing unicorns is often compared to belief in God. Is the comparison fair? No. In large measure due to the fact that such a huge segment of human society believes in God whereas only a tiny precentage believes in purple dancing unicorns. Both beliefs are due respect, however, simply because they are held by someone who is deserving of respect. A belief that is more popular is deserving of more respect. Respect does not equate to an evaluation of validity or value, so trying to use the expressions "respect as equals" and "deserving of respect" as synonymous is off the mark as far as my intent is concerned.

  Well, I think you lost a lot of constituents with that leap of logic! Are you kidding? By that reasoning, the more people who believe a falsehood, the more likely that it is actually true. Huh? Are you watering down the concept of respect? We should respect an opinion just.......because? What ever happened to respecting an opinion because it had merit as a logical premise?

  Belief in purple dancing unicorns is often compared to belief in God. Is the comparison fair?

  And what do the two have in common as regards logic? Lack of empirical evidence. Otherwise the two are equally valid. Gawd, Auld! I can't believe that you left this opening - you could drive a truck through it!
• 

  AuldSoul

  BizzyBee: By that reasoning, the more people who believe a falsehood, the more likely that it is actually true.

  You obviously ignored the entire point of the post. As I stated, neither the validity nor the value of the belief has anything whatsoever to do with the respect due. Respect for a person does not require agreement with the person. Neither does respect for a belief. Disdain and scorn are antonyms of respect. Incredulity is not an antonym of respect, but in this thread some have tried to indirectly make it an antonym.

  There is no hole in my logic on this point, BizzyBee. There is a hole in the logic of anyone who would think the expressions "respect as equals" and "deserving of respect" are synonymous.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  wonderwoman

  who came up with 'jehoobie"?
  it's hilarious.
  
  i seriously can't imagine annie actually thought the great and wonderful OZ helped her fetch her belongings.
  but, then i remember praying for crazy shit because i was seriously desperate...please let me not be pregnant, please don't let that check bounce etc...
  
  either way, she's here for a reason. she'll figure out which direction she wants to go on her own. she is slowly becoming that independant thinker we are all striving to be.
  good luck annie. we are here for you. and happy you got your stuff back.
• 

  ringo5

  There is no hole in my logic on this point, BizzyBee. There is a hole in the logic of anyone who would think the expressions "respect as equals" and "deserving of respect" are synonymous.

  
  I'm starting to see FunkyDerek's point about you loving a semantic argument. There can be respect for a person without respecting their outrageous ideas.
  
  This is because ideas are not sentient beings, and should only be respected on they're ability to withstand legitimate questions, not the current popularity of said view.
  
  I noticed you ignored my other point,

  It's not uncommon for believers to feel personally slighted when the power of their god is questioned (as if he can't defend himself), but not usually when it's intimated that his interests are in purses as opposed to people, as this shows him to have some pretty scewed priorities, and arguing that point of view just belittles that god, rather than elevate him.

  
  
  It has always seemed that religious ideas could not be subjected to the same logical questioning that all legitimate ideas, (say as in the scientific field) need to be to show their validity. I can only hope this changes, since this "idea" of god has got a lot of explaining to do.
  by the way, welcome wonderwoman, always loved that suit, rarrrr...
• 

  AuldSoul

  ringo5: This is because ideas are not sentient beings, and should only be respected on they're ability to withstand legitimate questions, not the current popularity of said view.

  Once again, you are using respected as though it is a synonym for value. That is only true in the most archaic sense of the word esteem. Respect has much more in common with consideration, regard, or concern. I ignored your other point because you once again tried to establish some sort of equivalency between respect and value. I had answered that argument earlier.

  Ideas are not sentient beings, however the sentience and ego of sentient beings are largely (if not entirely) defined by ideas. That is, the self of every sentient being is comprised almost entirely of ideas. Therefore, to disrespect ideas is to disrespect the individual.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  funkyderek

  AuldSoul:

  So, I have a hard time giving a crap about your intention, because your throwaway comment was thoughtless, callous, insensitive, insensible and ridiculing, and your later "argument" was even more demeaning (ridiculing) of a broader group than perhaps you were aware. But if you think you did nothing wrong, I am willing to let the matter rest.

  I do think I did nothing wrong, but on reflection, my initial comment is far from my best work. I don't think it was terrible, but it didn't really take into account Annie Over's feelings. But then, she didn't take other people's feelings into account when she made her post. My comment was born of frustration at what I saw as gullibility and thoughtlessness on her part. But other people had already highlighted that, and perhaps I was just taking unnecessary potshots.

  However, I don't see anything at all regrettable about my later comments. They were - if I may say so myself - intelligent, well-written, thought-provoking and polite. I clearly explained my view that belief in an invisible sky-god who intervenes in trivial matters is no different from belief in invisible elves who do the same. Those who believe in the invisible sky-god may be offended at that and may feel demeaned or ridiculed, but that is a problem with their perception, not with the statement itself.

  The more popular an opinion is the more deserving of respect it is, because the holder of the opinion is less deserving of ridicule and/or disdain for having arrived at the opinion and the opinion itself is less deserving of ridicule and disdain because it is held by a large percentage of the poulation.

  So Catholicism is more deserving of respect than Protestantism? Islam more than Judaism? Is it just global or does relative respect apply locally? Is Hinduism more deserving of respect in India than in England? Should Creationism be respected more than evolutionism in Alabama, but less in Europe? Do I need to take a vote on this message board to decide how worthy a given opinion is of my respect? (If so, Annie wouldn't fare too well.)

  Does unbelief count? The belief that Jesus was not God is more popular than the belief that he was/is. Is it therefore more deserving of respect?

  To be honest, I'm at a complete loss to understand why you think popularity should affect respect (even with your idiosyncratic definition of the word). I can agree that someone who simply holds the default beliefs of their community is in some small way less worthy of disdain than someone who latches on to a similar but less popular belief because their intellectual failing is more due to laziness than gullibility, but beyond that very narrow difference I just don't get it. You seem to be saying that there should be some sort of deference to the majority opinion, whatever that happens to be. That sort of thinking results in intellectual stagnation and witch-hunts.
• 

  kid-A

  who came up with 'jehoobie"?
  
  it's hilarious.

  I claim full responsibility for the term "Jehoobie" and my patent is pending!!!! LOL
• 

  kid-A

  "Therefore, to disrespect ideas is to disrespect the individual".

  Wow. Now this crosses a very dangerous line. I'm really not sure what kind of Orwellian "Group-Think" philosophy you are promoting here Auld. Are you actually advocating that ideas should be immune to criticism and empirical dissection in order to spare the delicate sensitivities and feelings of the holder of said ideas? I think you are far too hung up on the nebulous concept of "respect", IMHO. Respect for an idea is something that is earned, not something that is doled out a priori. I can respect the right of an individual to hold a specific idea, I am in no way obligated to respect an idea I find patently absurd. Respect is not a homogenous entity.
• 

  LittleToe

  Ironically we tend to be perfectionists about responses as well as initial posts. Gawd we're becoming mundane nit-pickers! Maybe Paul had a point when he talked about disputes over words.

  While the initial thread title and many of the responses may have found offense from one person or another, generally speaking we're all singing from a similar hymn sheet in that we hold that one or more of the following are true:

  • If there is a God, He's probably not pedantic about the mundane (or is He? Matt.6);
  • Use of the name "Jehovah" on an exJW site isn't prudent;
  • People deserve respect but their beliefs are open to scrutiny;
  • The phrase "Picking our battles" suggests that there are times when such scrutiny isn't worthwhile or meaningful, but it's a lifelong lesson in balance.

  To that end I apologise for any offense my comments may have caused
• 

  LittleToe

  Kid:
  I would suggest that no idea is unassailable, but there are times when it's okay to let it go