*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[skepticalbip]

In other words, if a stranger on the street politely tells you that Jesus loves you, would you conclude she is rude and even insincere and is really gloating over you?

If a stranger on the street politely tells you one of either "Trump rules!" or "Bernie rules!" (whichever you most disagree with) would you conclude she is rude and is really gloating over you?

But to directly answer your question, I think proselytization is rude and would even if I agreed with what is being pushed.

 

[bilby]

In other words, if a stranger on the street politely tells you that Jesus loves you, would you conclude she is rude and even insincere and is really gloating over you?

If a stranger on the street politely tells you one of either "Trump rules!" or "Bernie rules!" (whichever you most disagree with) would you conclude she is rude and is really gloating over you?

Technically 'Trump rules' is a mere factual statement.

Which highlights the real problem with human communication - people don't communicate with simple facts. As Margaret Thatcher observed, being powerful is like being a lady; If you have to tell people you are, then you aren't.

The statement 'Trump rules', or 'Jesus loves you' is indicative of the fact that the speaker is concerned about your failing to share their opinion. They either believe that you don't know some important fact, or that you don't agree that it is a fact at all.

Nobody bothers to tell other people things that are obvious and clearly agreed upon, other than to build intimacy in close relationships. You might sigh, turn to your wife, and say 'It's raining', when what you really mean is 'the rain will affect our plans or mood'. But you would be considered slightly crazy if you approached a stranger and told them such an obvious fact.

If someone makes a simple factual claim, there's almost certainly a subtext. Nobody thinks you are unaware of the fact that Trump is President; If they say 'Trump rules!', they are seeking to convey their pleasure at this fact, not the fact itself.

Limiting our responses to the assumption that others have no subtextual meanings behind their statements is just stupid. Assuming that their subtext is benign is nice, but not necessarily safe.

Both 'Trump rules' and 'Jesus loves you' are most likely to signal a deep insecurity - a very real concern on the part of the speaker that their claim might be untrue, or undesirable - and is either a plea for confirmation, or a challenge to dare rebut the speaker's belief.

 

[Brian63]

I see those as very viable possibilities, bilby, though would add others. Saying "Jesus loves you" can be moreso a reflex reaction, in that we have been conditioned to say it reactively given a set of circumstances (like a friend who just suffered some tragedy). It would be moreso a socially accepted and convenient expression of sympathy, even if they really do not hold the belief to be true, or even care if it is true. It would not be a reflection of the speaker's anxiety about the claim being untrue or undesirable. It is just a simple phrase to say and considered to be consoling in our culture.

 

[skepticalbip]

I see those as very viable possibilities, bilby, though would add others. Saying "Jesus loves you" can be moreso a reflex reaction, in that we have been conditioned to say it reactively given a set of circumstances (like a friend who just suffered some tragedy). It would be moreso a socially accepted and convenient expression of sympathy, even if they really do not hold the belief to be true, or even care if it is true. It would not be a reflection of the speaker's anxiety about the claim being untrue or undesirable. It is just a simple phrase to say and considered to be consoling in our culture.

But then if I were in a hospital and my family or friends (those who know me) 'comforted' me with an expression like "Jesus loves you" or "I'll pray for you" my only conclusion would be, "Oh shit, the doctors have told them that there is no hope."... hardly comforting.

 

[Brian63]

Why would you conclude that? That they have more dire information about your health situation than you do. You can feel that way, but it is just as viable that they meant it only as a common social expression, a means of conveying their well-wishes to you. It is not that have been secretly chatting with your doctors.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why would you conclude that? That they have more dire information about your health situation than you do. You can feel that way, but it is just as viable that they meant it only as a common social expression, a means of conveying their well-wishes to you. It is not that have been secretly chatting with your doctors.

Apparently, I live a different reality than you. In my world, someone in a hospital would be told to hurry the fuck up and get over it. There is something like a camping trip (or some other plans) that they are expected to be at. Maudlin appeals to supernatural powers are not called on. Even funeral wakes in my family are drinks and funny stories about the deceased with no one claiming that the deceased is in heaven. I expect my wake to be a kegger.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's probably best to simply ignore and avoid religious behavior when it is observed. It is strictly emotional, like crying over something that happened in a romance novel. Throwing emotions at emotions only ever makes situations worse and solves nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would you conclude that? That they have more dire information about your health situation than you do. You can feel that way, but it is just as viable that they meant it only as a common social expression, a means of conveying their well-wishes to you. It is not that have been secretly chatting with your doctors.

He did specify 'people who knew him.' It seems a very logical conclusion.

When grandpa Glenn died, he had not attended church in many years. The pastor who spoke at his memorial had never met him, knew only that he self-identified as a methodist.
She said 'his faith got him thru the big loads.'
Utter tripe. His lethal sense of humor got him thru wars, a daughter's death, The Depression.
That was okay, though, that was her job. And she was a stranger. Verbal reflex.
If his daughter said that, we would have been upset. That would not have been about grrandpa....

 

[Brian63]

He did specify 'people who knew him.' It seems a very logical conclusion.

Why? It may easily have been the only thing they know how to say. They can say it in 99% of the cases where certain circumstances are present (someone receives a bad medical diagnosis, a personal tragedy, loss of a job, family troubles, etc.). Saying "I'll pray for you" can be what they have been conditioned to say. It is not a result of deep reflection of the recipient's own philosophical beliefs and all the potential impacts and fallout that may result from saying it, and it is not a result of them actually vowing to make a prayer for you. Maybe they will go home later and never make any prayer at all, much less for you specifically. It is just a quick gotta-say-something response that is often promoted. As was pointed out in the other "I'll pray for you" thread:

"Hanlon's Razor.

Some people do things that are thoughtless and automatic, and aren't looking at it through a rationalist lens. It's just something they do."

It is easier to utter such religious expressions and then walk away, than to really think about all the likely consequences and fallout from our word choices. There may not have been anything evangelistic intended. Just an easy and friendly way to try and keep each other's moods up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He did specify 'people who knew him.' It seems a very logical conclusion.

Why? It may easily have been the only thing they know how to say.

That's exactlyhis point. My hospital visitors will ask about 'what do the doctors say?' And about the food. And talk about work I have missed, am missing, will miss.

If they suddenly start talking to ME about Jesus, i can only conclude that they are scared, which in that situation implies bad news from the doctor.

They can say it in 99% of the cases where certain circumstances are present

But not to me. Not the people WHO ARE CLOSE TO ME.
Because they know, or should know, or could reasonably be expected to know that i will not react well to that.

Saying "I'll pray for you" can be what they have been conditioned to say.

that is not a trait found among the people I consider close.
Trust me on this if nothing else.

 

[Brian63]

Because they know, or should know, or could reasonably be expected to know that i will not react well to that.

Their religious instincts can easily override any such forethought though, and they can still resort to using religious language because it is a conditioned expression of sympathy. If somehow they did hear negative news from the doctors (that you did not, and you are still having casual conversations with them!), they just do not know how to escape from the awkward place they find themselves in. They know your condition is dire, but they want to chat more than just about the food or weather or sports. Saying "I will pray for you" is a convenient and culturally-programmed escape mechanism. They do not say it out of evangelism, just out of wanting to avoid this very bad situation they find themselves in without wanting to also hurt you. Something's gotta give though, and "I"ll pray for you" seems to them like a reasonable compromise. Even if you would throw a tantrum from hearing such a remark, their ingrained religious instincts overrule. If they really wanted to hurt you, they could just tell you "Keith, your doctor told us this is your deathbed and that you should enjoy it for the next 24 hours. It's your last." They want the best for you, and religious utterances are easy softball ways of acknowledging some very dire circumstances.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because they know, or should know, or could reasonably be expected to know that i will not react well to that.

Their religious instincts can easily override any such forethought though, and they can still resort to using religious language because it is a conditioned expression of sympathy

Look, i understand that.
I realize that 1eye might come to my hospital room and say he will pray for me and it's about as significant as having a lisp.
But if he has thst sort of speech impediment, i will not become close to him.

They know your condition is dire, but they want to chat more than just about the food or weather or sports.

Then they'll bring up Stoh-vo-kor.
Not Jesus.

Saying "I will pray for you" is a convenient and culturally-programmed escape mechanism. They do not say it out of evangelism, just out of wanting to avoid this very bad situation they find themselves in without wanting to also hurt you. Something's gotta give though, and "I"ll pray for you" seems to them like a reasonable compromise.

You are to the point of writing fanfiction about my life and family. Putting your ideas into a setting you are not actually familiar with....
It is getting ludicrous.

 

[skepticalbip]

Because they know, or should know, or could reasonably be expected to know that i will not react well to that.

Their religious instincts can easily override any such forethought though, and they can still resort to using religious language because it is a conditioned expression of sympathy. If somehow they did hear negative news from the doctors (that you did not, and you are still having casual conversations with them!), they just do not know how to escape from the awkward place they find themselves in. They know your condition is dire, but they want to chat more than just about the food or weather or sports. Saying "I will pray for you" is a convenient and culturally-programmed escape mechanism. They do not say it out of evangelism, just out of wanting to avoid this very bad situation they find themselves in without wanting to also hurt you. Something's gotta give though, and "I"ll pray for you" seems to them like a reasonable compromise. Even if you would throw a tantrum from hearing such a remark, their ingrained religious instincts overrule. If they really wanted to hurt you, they could just tell you "Keith, your doctor told us this is your deathbed and that you should enjoy it for the next 24 hours. It's your last." They want the best for you, and religious utterances are easy softball ways of acknowledging some very dire circumstances.

You keep bringing up what religious people do in different imaginary situations. It is like you have no concept and can't imagine that all people aren't religious and conditioned by religious 'normality'. Believe it or not there are people who are not religious. If someone wishes to say something supportive to someone that is cared about, an alternative to a desperation blurting of "I'll pray for you', could be as simple as "I hope you recover soon. You let me know if you want or need anything and it's yours". For a non-religious person, hearing "I'll pray for you" means what it generally actually is, a meaningless promise to appeal to a nonexistent being.

ETA:
I lost a cousin last year. He took me up on my promise when he was in the hospital and told me he wanted a Burger King hamburger with onion rings and a chocolate shake because he wanted a break from hospital food. He loved the smuggled in meal.

 

[Brian63]

You are to the point of writing fanfiction about my life and family. Putting your ideas into a setting you are not actually familiar with....
It is getting ludicrous.

Maybe you are not as much an expert as you thought on what other people think. Dunning-Kruger.

As stated earlier, if their goal actually was to hurt you, they could outright tell you that your doctor said you are at the end of your life and they could rub it in your face and laugh at you. So why don't they do that? Pretty simple. They do not want to hurt you. So why do they say "I will pray for you?" It is not because their motive is to hurt you. Because again, if that is what their motive really was, there are grander means they could do to get that job done. They have some other motive, besides hurting you, for saying "I'll pray for you." Maybe those who are even close to you do not hold you in such ill-will that you think they do. They just do not know what else to say besides some meaningless religious utterance.

You hold people in contempt for behaving with ill will, even when they do not behave with ill will. It is so attractive to insult people though, so projecting that ill will onto them is a convenient way to let your mind think you are justified in insulting them. It is a testament to arrogance more than humility.

 

[Brian63]

Believe it or not there are people who are not religious.

I am an atheist and am not religious myself. It is puzzling where you got that idea from that I didn't know some are not religious, when I know firsthand that I am not myself.

If someone wishes to say something supportive to someone that is cared about, an alternative to a desperation blurting of "I'll pray for you', could be as simple as "I hope you recover soon. You let me know if you want or need anything and it's yours". For a non-religious person, hearing "I'll pray for you" means what it generally actually is, a meaningless promise to appeal to a nonexistent being.

A person can say either of those things and have noble intentions with either. I definitely prefer if the former religious expression was obsolete and people stopped uttering it. Not because it is indicative of ill will of theirs, but because it has unintended consequences (normalizing religious supremacy).



Do you think it is possible for a person to make some statement with virtuous intentions, and for that statement to also have harmful unintended consequences?

 

[skepticalbip]

Believe it or not there are people who are not religious.

I am an atheist and am not religious myself. It is puzzling where you got that idea from that I didn't know some are not religious, when I know firsthand that I am not myself.

I got the idea from the fact that you kept falling back on "I'll pray for you" as the only comforting thing you could think of to say to someone you wanted to comfort.

If someone wishes to say something supportive to someone that is cared about, an alternative to a desperation blurting of "I'll pray for you', could be as simple as "I hope you recover soon. You let me know if you want or need anything and it's yours". For a non-religious person, hearing "I'll pray for you" means what it generally actually is, a meaningless promise to appeal to a nonexistent being.

A person can say either of those things and have noble intentions with either. I definitely prefer if the former religious expression was obsolete and people stopped uttering it. Not because it is indicative of ill will of theirs, but because it has unintended consequences (normalizing religious supremacy).

Do you think it is possible for a person to make some statement with virtuous intentions, and for that statement to also have harmful unintended consequences?

Virtuous intentions are admirable but so is honest communication. I generally try to combine both into one but honesty is more important for me.

In the case of my cousin I mentioned earlier, the doctors knew he was dying, his wife knew he was dying, His daughter knew he was dying, I knew he was dying, but most importantly he knew he was dying. Any pretense that there was hope through some supernatural intervention would have been silly. I settled for letting him know that he would be missed and that I would do anything I could that he wished to make him more comfortable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are to the point of writing fanfiction about my life and family. Putting your ideas into a setting you are not actually familiar with....
It is getting ludicrous.

Maybe you are not as much an expert as you thought on what other people think. Dunning-Kruger.

Hahahahaha! That is even funnier.
Dude, we have just been talking specifically about the people close to me. Which means i am close to them. I have GOT to think that my ability to interpret their behavior must be superior to yours.

The people that know me well just do not do what those characters in your script do. Reasons may vary, but those close to me do not reflexively whip out catch phrases from the superstitions of childhood. So telling me you know better the reasons why they would do what they Don t Fucking Do is beyond silly.

However, you do have a good grasp on my understanding of the evangelist argument. Is this performance art? Where you insist that your understanding of my reality is the only real one? And my resistance to your interpretation is based on my arrogance, anger, and ignorance?

Perfect. Just needs a snide remark about evolution, or my gay son to finish it off.

 

[Brian63]

I got the idea from the fact that you kept falling back on "I'll pray for you" as the only comforting thing you could think of to say to someone you wanted to comfort.

You have your facts wrong. If you look at post #375, the post you are responding to, I acknowledge that there is more than 1 way to want to comfort someone. I will give 2 such possibilities here:

1. You can make a religious expression such as "I'll pray for you" or "thoughts and prayers." The effect of those statements may not be comforting, but the person saying them will still want them to be comforting.

2. You can say something secular like "I love you and will care for you." That also shows that the person wants to provide comfort, and to those of us who are secular it will be more realistic as well.

So when you claim that I could only think of 1 comforting thing a person could say, keep in mind you are wrong. I just gave 2 examples above.

Virtuous intentions are admirable but so is honest communication. I generally try to combine both into one but honesty is more important for me.

Okay. If a person was simply ignorant of that preference of yours, would you hold them in contempt if you found out they lied to you by telling you that outfit looked good on you? Would you insult them? Or just clear things up by telling them at that point that you would rather communicate honestly?

Also, do you ever tell little white lies to anyone, to make them feel better?

 

[Brian63]

Dude, we have just been talking specifically about the people close to me. Which means i am close to them. I have GOT to think that my ability to interpret their behavior must be superior to yours.

Not if you have demonstrated a tremendous incompetence in reading and understanding people, which you have unfortunately. Going to be honest with you there and not tell you a white lie. Out of respect and love for you, I will tell you the truth. That does not make you a bad person, just a sign of work that needs to be done.

Where you insist that your understanding of my reality is the only real one? And my resistance to your interpretation is based on my arrogance, anger, and ignorance?

Perfect. Just needs a snide remark about evolution, or my gay son to finish it off.

What are you talking about?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not if you have demonstrated a tremendous incompetence in reading and understanding people, which you have unfortunately.

i find it difficult to creditthat you are in a position to gauge my reading of people you never met, much less tell me how they think.
All in all, a nice fantasy, but it needs more steampunk.