G.O.S.P.E.L.
In support of charity I will write and sing you two songs if you are the highest bidder. :)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-songs-Written-and-sung-Jack-Togetherforpeace-/120775042882
Playlist of Songs I’ve written:
Comment Critique: 2
“Ridicule is our most powerful weapon against people like Jack. Psychologically, he takes it personally and by that you stab the belief itself in the heart.”
===================================================
The use of language in this comment sets up the person who is being criticized. Of course, this person has given no standard by which we can determine what it looks like when “he takes it personally.”
As such, me responding to the comment can be viewed as taking it personally…me not responding can be viewed as taking it personally.
This sort of tactic is a prevalent one.
- What has informed this persons idea that “ridicule” is the best route to take?
Placing the emotion in a secondary response role and using the intellect as the primary is not a challenging task. A critique of ridicule is far easier as often times ridicule is an emotional response not grounded in a presentation of evidence and reason to substantiate it.
Accepting Mockery of Your Faith
“Jack, if you can’t accept mockery, then quite frankly your faith is weak.”
=======================================================
How does mockery function in a different way as it relates to a persons religious belief vs. a political belief or your image or anything else a person can mock you for? Does the intent of mockery change based upon what is being mocked? The commonly presented idea is that mockery is being used to get someone to think about the ridiculousness of their position. However, how is the person being mocked supposed to know this? Why do you assume they should? If they don’t know your intent then is it reasonable to think they should look past the ridicule and consider the point/argument you’re attempting to make? Is it human nature to do this? If you know it is not human nature then why make the task of you conveying your point more complicated by adding the dimension of mockery unless you are not interested in actually getting a reply?
For example:
- You have zits all over your face. Kids at school make fun of you. You get upset and think about how much you hate high school. Does this mean you have a low self-esteem?
- You have a female Muslim friend. She wears the hijab (headscarf). You both are walking in the mall and a person comes up to her and tells her how ridiculous her religion is. You get tell the person to “shut up.” Afterwards, she begins to cry. Does this mean she has a weak faith?
- Someone mocks your acceptance of evolution. You get mad does this mean you do not really accept evolution?
Mockery in both situations was intend to create an emotion within the person. A better explanation is that people when mocked naturally get upset.
What about ‘accepting’ mockery has to do with the strength of a persons belief? During the 4-5 years I’ve been on YouTube I have rarely deleted comments or blocked people. Anyone can see countless comments that mock my belief in God and myself. Is this what it means to ‘accept’ mockery?
You may consider a belief worthy of mockery, however, to think that such mockery should be accepted and the individual should not experience what is common to most humans is irrational.
The things being mocked are different and the relationship of that which is mocked to the person is different, however, the people are responding based not upon said relationship rather they are responding based upon the sense of the intentionally inappropriateness of what is being said.
If a person mocks your mother does your acceptance of that mean you will not experience an emotion in response? If you insult the person back are you demonstrating that you cannot accept mockery?
Isn’t it ridiculous to propose that the reason why they expressed such emotion regarding their mother is because they are insecure in their relationship with their mom, or their love for their mother was weak?
I have accepted the fact that people will make puerile comments. That people no matter how much I may encourage people to be civil and courteous there are countless people who see little reason to do so.
I am not incline to think that people in real life walk around ‘accepting’ mockery as a demonstration of the strength of their position.
Couldn’t I easily say, “Your position is weak if you need to resort to mockery!” I actually think that assertion is more justified albeit not necessarily true in every instance.
Responding to these sort of comments with civility and a reasoned response is difficult as I want to simply say, “what a stupid comment.” However, it is an exercise in patience and intellectual thought to take the time to temper the emotion and engage the mind so as to use words in such a way that can engage their intellect as well.
There’s more to say but I’m tired …;)
Christians Should Stone People?!
When an atheist, who claims to have be raised up in the church, read the Bible several times and studied it tells me, “You should be following the Old Testament law. That law basically means we’d all be dead.”
I wonder have they asked themselves, “Why aren’t the Jews stoning people today? Why aren’t Christians stoning people today? I wonder maybe the Jews know more about the Hebrew scriptures than I do? Am I being a bit presumptuous in talking about Old Testament law as though I’ve really studied it but clearly haven’t?”
The Foundation of Christianity in less than 2mins.
Working on a response to PatCondell’s latest vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uTypnaP5X4
I may toss in your thoughts if I like it :). I will only consider thoughtful, valid criticisms. So, what say you about Pat’s vid?
"Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For ‘consciousness of sin’ is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things are simply describing what has happened to them, whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it."
— Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Culture and Value.” I’m not entirely sure of the context on this one but I found the quote to be meaningful. Thank you Ricardo for sharing it with me.
Thunderf00t & Draw Mohammed Day..Again!!? :|
Thunderf00t appears to believe that the way to diminish radicalism in Islam is to engage in an activity that will upset most Muslims many of whom are not radicals.
Do I believe that many American politicians and the media have given special treatment to Islam, in terms of how they talk about it, in contrast to Christianity? Yes!
When TIME comes out with a cover questioning/criticizing the Quran in the same way that it has the Bible just about every year I will be surprised.
Not that I particularly care for TIME’s assessment of the Bible but there is this feeling of, “Okay folks if you want to bring up the ‘controversy’ surrounding people’s religious beliefs then do it with everyone…including Islam!”
I don’t see weekly specials on TV addressing concerns regarding the compilation of the Quran, it’s translation, and interpretation.
Given that Christianity is the most popular religion in America I understand why people talk about it more. However, there is little doubt that many people, out of fear, avoid speaking critically about Islam in the same way they do about Christianity.
Draw Mohammed Day is puerile tactic. Being abrasive for the sake of being abrasive is not what I consider a very beneficial approach.
Thunderf00t’s theory appears to be, “if we ridicule Islam enough then we’ll expose Muslim’s to the sort of freedom of speech American’s value and make the world a better place.” I’m curious where else has such an approach worked?
Mr. Scientific Naturalism aka Thunderf00t should bring some ‘reason’ and ‘empirical evidence’ to the table to back up his theory.
Predictable Atheist Response to Japan
Not surprised that ‘some’ atheists on YouTube have played the predictable “Praying doesn’t do anything” card in relation to the Japan earthquake.
Their reasoning appears to be:
1. Christians are praying about Japan
therefore
2. Christians are not giving money to help Japan
therefore
3. We, atheists, are better than them because we will give money and not waste our time praying which doesn’t do anything.
Christians Pray & Give!
Prayer is meant to be a sort of continual dialogue and communion with God. I bring to God the realities of my life and all that goes on. People wrongly believe that if I pray then I don’t ‘do’. What I ‘do’ is an extension and part of the prayer. It’s an act of worship to God.
