Core Belief ?'s

[Dr T]

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

I don't mind if someone disagrees with my beliefs, as long as there's a reason beyond, "My pastor told me so."

[boyando]

When some one tears at the things that I hold dearest to my heart and it bothers me, I know that I must look very hard at what bothers me and decide if I really believe.

A long time ago, a good friend told me to gain a testimony of every aspect of the Gosple. Not all at once, but line apon line. I found it to be good advice. everytime I gain a testimony of a principle, it is like putting on the armor of God, so that others toughts and words can not hurt me.

I don't feel the need to lash out if I feel others, who attack me and my core believes, can not break my sheild.

[Traveler]

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

I have traveled to many places and met many diverse peoples - rarely (if ever) have I ever found that kind people vary that much (if at all) in core beliefs.

For sake of understanding - I define a kind person as someone that is kind when kindness is not thought to be necessary and is defiantly not expected.

In general I would say that if someone feels a need to differentiate their core beliefs from someone that is kind - I see only two possibilities. First - you are not what you think you are or Second - you have misunderstood the person you want to criticize.

The Traveler

PS. I am far more interested in someone willing to show me a better way that to tell me.

[prisonchaplain]

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

There is a sense in which the Good News is offensive. Some are chosen, others not. Some are "saved" others are not. Some go to heaven, others do not. Some are saints, others sinners. Even within a faith, such contention can become offensive. "Yes, you are a Christian...but are you 'Spirit-filled?'"

Part of the "offense" part depends on delivery. However, the receptor also chooses whether or not to be offended. In the U.S., my sense is that those who are confident in their core beliefs are much less likely to be offended than those who believe because that's what they're supposed to do.

[Ray]

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

How would you define being “offensive”?

According to the thesaurus I use, “offensive” means to be insulting, unpleasant, nasty, distasteful, disgusting, harsh, and hateful…

… and antonymns are nice, kind, pleasant, and polite… among other and even many good words.

And while some people are often offended by any hint at all they are “wrong”, I think there’s a nice way to simply share truth and point out that someone is “off”.

And btw, I've used the word “off” to suggest that some cannot see the Light which shares ALL of the truth… not intending to be offensive to those who can’t see that what they’re doing (or saying) is wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

And btw, I use the word “off” to refer to the Light which helps us to see ALL the truth… not to a person who really can’t see that what they’re doing (or saying) is wrong.

This may seem like a small point I'm about to comment on, but I think it addresses Dr. T's question. I'm almost positive that, minus your explanation of what you mean by 'off,' most receivers of that word would be offended. In fact, as soon as they heard that they were 'off' many, if not most, would not wait around for the explanation.

Communication itself is often difficult. Dialoguing about eternal core truths is especially delicate. The New Testament readily admits that there is a sense in which the message itself is "an offense." Yet, wise Christians will seek to share it in as non-offensive manner as possible.

IMHO, a key factor in overcoming communications difficulties is trust. If the receiver trusts you they are much less likely to take offensive at your wording or mannerisms. On the other hand, if they don't trust you, you can be as sweet as candy, and they'll assume you're being deceitful.

[Ray]

I agree with what you just said regarding my comment, Tommy, (see my revision) but personally, I don't think I am being offensive when I say or suggest that someone cannot see something they simply cannot see... even if someone gets personally offended by my thought or suggestion that they can't see something they believe they truly can see perfectly.

And personally, when I was told that I needed to wear glasses, I saw an eye doctor as soon as I could... and lo and behold I saw the world as all new not knowing what I couldn't see!!!

Heh, and btw, I later accepted lasik surgery procedures, and now I don't need to wear glasses.

[Dr T]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts so far. The more I look at this question, the more I wonder about someone’s core beliefs and their justification for them. I then think that anyone in opposition to them, no matter what motive they have for addressing such beliefs, would have a hard time not being offensive. I haven't done much reading/thought about relativism and I tend to out of hand dismiss it as “not my philosophy.” I wonder though about core beliefs such as sanctity of children. "Child abuse is wrong" or people's thoughts about same sex marriage. If we were to disagree with whatever topic that is opposed to someone's core belief, if we spoke up about it, aired out thoughts about it, it seems that it would be offensive (at the core) to that person? Like telling someone that the love of their life is “unfriendly” and “rude.” What about war, sexual perversion, cheating, lying, theft, religion, etc. When we speak up against it, wouldn't it offend people who base their actions/beliefs on some justification/rationalization about the appropriateness of that act/belief/behavior? Would we consider motive and then claim that “it is ok” to address? Do we hold out tongues and allow the opportunity to pass? I’m just looking for your thoughts.

Dr. T

[Traveler]

I believe it was Benjerman Franklan that said, "Only a fool would be offended by someone that did not mean the offence - but it takes a bigger fool to be offended by someone that did mean the offence.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I wonder though about core beliefs such as sanctity of children. "Child abuse is wrong" or people's thoughts about same sex marriage. If we were to disagree with whatever topic that is opposed to someone's core belief, if we spoke up about it, aired out thoughts about it, it seems that it would be offensive (at the core) to that person?

Dr. T

I thought to comment on this core belief of sanctity of children. One of the interesting things I have observed is that when there is no incentive we cannot expect the outcome to follow. For example, water flows down hill because gravity gives incentive for water to flow down hill. The only way to get water to flow uphill is to over come the incentive of gravity with another incentive (like a pump).

Darwin realized the incentive in sanctity of children (natural offspring) and realized that when a species loses its incentive to care and sacrifice for children that the species will eventually become extinct. This he called survival of the fittest. I agree and have a core belief that when a society decides to no longer recognize incentive for couples to sacrifice their desires, passions and wants for the sanctity of children (natural offspring) - that society will eventually become extinct.

I have posted this thought before and upset a lot of people.

The Traveler

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

Do any of you think that it is possible to speak against someone’s core beliefs and not be offensive?

I don't mind if someone disagrees with my beliefs, as long as there's a reason beyond, "My pastor told me so."

LOL.

[Dr T]

Hi Traveler,

Good example. It's hard for me to see how something like that offends. If possible, please help me understand their offense.

Thank you

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler,

Good example. It's hard for me to see how something like that offends. If possible, please help me understand their offense.

Thank you

Someone once told me that when personal pleasure is involved there is no effort for reason. The pleasure becomes the only effort at reason. I am not sure I understand this kind of thinking any more than you do except that being offended may be their only possible method for justification.

The Traveler

[Ray]

Hi Traveler,

Good example. It's hard for me to see how something like that offends. If possible, please help me understand their offense.

Thank you

Not that I'm speaking for Traveler, because he has his own way to share His words, but I've given the answer to this question before, and will now use some other words.

Some people don't like to hear anyone suggest the idea or possibility that they are or could be wrong, or "off", or should be doing or thinking in ANY way differently in whatever it is they do. And it's not just because they don't like to hear that idea, but because they're opposed to change, in any way or shape at all, even if that change would be for the better of themselves or society as a whole.

Or in other words, many people rejected the words of our Savior, when He appeared in the flesh on Earth, because He was telling and showing them a different way to be, and they only liked to be what they were.

And it's the same old song and dance now. It's just that it's our turn to be the players. And not long from now we'll be leaving this stage, and I hope we'll go on to be better. :)

[Dr T]

So we are offended by God telling us we do "fill in the blank". Is that the same way we react between people and people or is it different?

[Ray]

So we are offended by God telling us we do "fill in the blank". Is that the same way we react between people and people or is it different?

Heh, I'd be careful about using the word "we", because not all of us are offended by God as He helps to show us a way to be better, just as not all of us are offended by others as they help to show us a way they believe to be better. And to be offended by someone who is helping to show us a way they believe to be better, is what I believe has been called a fool by good old Ben and others. :)

[pushka]

<div class='quotemain'>

Hi Traveler,

Good example. It's hard for me to see how something like that offends. If possible, please help me understand their offense.

Thank you

Someone once told me that when personal pleasure is involved there is no effort for reason. The pleasure becomes the only effort at reason. I am not sure I understand this kind of thinking any more than you do except that being offended may be their only possible method for justification.

The Traveler

Hi Traveler,

Please forgive me if I'm mistaking you for another poster, but I seem to recall that your theory regarding humans losing their incentive for creating children was attached to your attitudes regarding society accepting homosexuality, and that the more this is accepted the less children would be produced, thus bringing down society? I think it was the references to the homosexuals causing the downfall of the human race that possibly offended some posters. Other posters did offer the choices of homosexuals adopting children that needed families and such, but this didn't appear to be acceptable to you as you felt that a 2 parent (one male, one female) would be the only one acceptable.

Once again, if I've mistaken you for another poster and this isn't what you were referring to, then please forgive me.

I do feel it is very difficult to argue/debate core beliefs with people when one person thinks that the opinions of the other are morally wrong. It must be very difficult to walk away from that debate just agreeing to disagree.

[Ray]

Heh, thank you, pushka, for providing an example for discussion.

In this example some people have been told, by Traveler, (and now me) that God considers being homosexual to be morally wrong, and not only have those people been told that God considers homosexuality to be morally wrong, but they have also been told one of the harmful consequences that inevitably follows people who choose to be homosexual… ie, NOT PRODUCING CHILDREN… and that consequence follows people who not only CAN’T produce children but from people who CHOOSE to not produce children… which then results in the decay of society as a whole as society then has fewer people who choose to produce children and create families… the way God intended and still intends people to create families… with parents who CHOOSE to produce children and then teach their children about God and His way for all families to be.

But… instead of looking at NOT being homosexual as a better way to be, people who either choose to be homosexual, who CAN’T produce children, or support the rights of other people who CHOOSE to not have children, only see they are being told they are wrong and that they should be different than the way they want to be… ie, by being people who CHOOSE to produce children and create good families in society… which is not what they want to hear because that is NOT the way they want to be.

Heh, so yeah, they get offended… because they don’t like being told they are wrong… and the only way they’ll ever learn to NOT be offended is by accepting the will of God concerning families.

And btw, I applaud all people who adopt or support children and teach them how God wants them to be, but people who CHOOSE to not have children are not like God wants them to be... not counting exceptional cases like where child birth might kill a mother who is trying to have children.

(My wife was told by a good doctor that having more children could actually kill her during childbirth, so we're waiting until LATER when we can have them)

[pushka]

Hi Ray, thanks for your reply. I respect your opinion on homosexuality, and the opinion of others, even tho I do not agree with them. I am not homosexual, btw.

I feel that people who think that homosexuality is going to be the cause of the 'decay' of society are overreacting. I think it has previously been posted that there is no shortage of children in the world. There are still many women becoming pregnant, for whom the only option they can see is to put their child up for adoption. Also, I do know of homosexuals who want children, if they do not wish to adopt a child, they are willing to father a child to a woman who chooses to give birth for them, and I see nothing wrong with this.

I hope I managed to disagree with your core beliefs without offending you Ray..I wasn't offended, btw! :)

[Ray]

But do you want me and you to disagree on this point, or do you want us to come to agreement?

I feel that people who think that homosexuality is going to be the cause of the 'decay' of society are overreacting.

I’m not suggesting that we all panic like chicken little while saying “society is falling, society is falling”, but it is clear, at least to me, that society is falling... because ONE of the indications that society is falling is in seeing society disagree with God who has commanded and still commands ALL of His children to replenish (meaning fill) the Earth with children and create good families with all of us doing only what is good.

And while YOU seem to be saying that society is okay because there are still plenty of us who do produce children, society as a whole and in specific individuals BEGINS to decay when even some of us do not agree with God on ONE issue.

OR, from another perspective:

the more children we produce, the more society flourishes,

the fewer children we produce, the less society flourishes... or in other words, the more society “decays”

So if you can’t agree with God, just do the math. Either way, society really is decaying.

And btw, I'm awarding you 1000 points for being so graceful, even though we do not agree. :)

[pushka]

Thanks for the points Ray...you can have some yourself too, for the same reason :)

I would love to agree with everybody on this earth, but I fear that isn't possible as we all have our own minds and opinions.

I've done the math and considered your comments about God's commandments, however as you know I'm not sure whether or not I actually believe in God, so I cannot be ruled by his Commandments, unless of course I agree with them, some of which I do...to agree with some of the commandments of the Bible doesn't mean that I have to believe in God, the same as I might agree with some of the commandments in the Q'uran and other religious scriptures.

As far as the math is concerned. I agree that it is good to continue to replenish the earth with children, however we need to be aware of our ability to look after the number of children that we are producing. It is no good just producing more and more children, without thinking about catering for their basic needs, therefore I still believe that homosexuality is not the reason for any decay in society.

Still smilin' :)

[Ray]

If you don't agree with God, you are going "down" smilin. And you will go with other people like you.

While people who trust God and accept everything He says receive every good thing He can give them... either personally or through members of His church. :)

And btw, I never said homosexuality or homosexuals were "the" reason for decay in society, and I believe Traveler never said that to anyone either, so you are either misunderstanding what we are trying to say, or you are deliberately "twisting" our words by trying to make it appear that is what we are saying when we never have used those words.

[Dr T]

Ray,

Sometimes your posts just make me smile. :) My head is shaking but I'm smiling.

[Ray]

Should I take the "but" to mean you're shaking your head:

"nuh uh"

or

"what is really up with this guy"

???

Which way is your head shaking, Doc? Just share all your feelings.

You certainly won't do any worse than some others here.