Just because something is familiar does not mean that it is true. The thing might very well be true, but you cannot prove that it is true simply by saying that it is so because it is a concept you are comfortable with or have known for as long as you can remember.
You may be able to make a statement of veracity based on experience or study or logic, which may or may not be accurate. But to fall back upon a thing being true simply because you've grown up thinking it is so and the idea is familiar and comfortable is just plain silly, and you shouldn't be surprised if you are ridiculed for your ideas.
"You Make Jesus Facepalm"... love it.
ReplyDeleteSo very true.
ReplyDeleteAnd so is the opposite: something being unfamiliar or new doesn't make it wrong.
Truth is independent of opinion. :)
well, duh...
ReplyDeleteI guess you've met people who don't see this? :)
yup. although it's ok to still test it.
ReplyDeletei think sometimes people assume that when you say, "well, just be open minded about this" then it's implied that you can't test it. but that's not what being open-minded means at all. in fact, it's just the opposite. if you're open minded about something, then you're willing to test something before judging it.
i'm frequently around people who don't see this.
ReplyDeleteit became a topic of conversation between rob and i yesterday after the morning service. what do you do when someone keeps blundering off in a direction of their own choosing, full of proofs of familiarity, and not bothering to listen to anything that anyone might say that contradicts them or redirects them back to the topic at hand? at some point do you just give up and let them continue to blunder around with their blindfold on? or do you try to remove the blindfold? and if you choose the "help remove the blindfold" route, and they clearly want to keep their blindfold firmly in place, what then? do you just treat them like the person in the room who has alzheimers -- they're prone to ramble and and might not make a point in anything they say, but you wait them out, nod politely and then get back to the topic at hand with the rest of the people present?
+1
ReplyDeleteOpen minded, to me, means not to discount something just because you'd never heard of it or aren't completely familiar with it. You still need to test the idea, make sure if works and address any notions that you already hold which conflict.
... i should add that the same people often exhibit the same behavior in the realm of politics. i was involved in a political discussion yesterday (which i generally try to avoid) which ended when the other person refused to listen to what i had to say and talked over me instead. at that point i decided there was no point in continuing the discussion when she very clearly did not want to listen nor discuss. she just wanted to spout.
ReplyDeletei came home and looked up both of the issues that she feels very strongly about and found that factcheck.org had addressed both issues and found that the details she was using to make her argument were completely false. (Rob thinks very highly of factcheck. He says they're nonpartisan and are just as likely to put down a statement on one side of the political divide as they are on the other.)
in fact, one of her "facts" i could refudiate (did i use palin's word correctly?) on my own without using factcheck. i was very good friends with a gal from pakistan in the early 80s and she occasionally mentioned american missionaries that had visited her when she was back in pakistan, during a time when the gal yesterday said americans weren't allowed into pakistan. so i had second hand proof that went against what she was saying. that's when she started talking over me. *sigh*
yikes... I think I'd find it very hard to deal with that. It's different online, you can walk away from a discussion and mutter under your breath... but out there when you're physically there and a person is spewing this kind of stuff - much more difficult.
ReplyDeletebut I think basically if I feel that this person is just not capable of getting the cotton wool out of their ears then I'd leave it. and then I'd come here and blog and let off steam... ;)
I think I lead a sheltered life, I don't meet so many people who do this sort of thing. Though I did know a pastor who would every now and again come out with stuff in his sermons like "Calvinism says that xyz" and use it as if it were grounds for us taking xyz as true, which always made me feel like heckling and reminding him that I signed up to faith in Jesus, not to following Calvin.
ReplyDeleteyeah, my preferred response is to walk away. that's what i generally do.
ReplyDeletebut i started wondering yesterday (and i've certainly wondered this before), what do you do when this is a person who claims to be a christian and yet they're doing this? as a christian, do i have an obligation to address this? if so, how? if not, why not?
and i should add, this isn't someone that i've met in the mall or in passing somewhere. this is someone who is, biblically speaking, a member of my same body. we're connected within the body of christ. what obligation does the foot have in making sure the hand isn't blindly flailing around at things - doing injury to itself, to others outside the body, and to the rest of the body?
oh, that's a very tricky question - as Christians who are all part of one body, where do we draw the line, when do we pull someone else up and when do we keep quiet... I've sometimes spoken out and felt that maybe I've been rude, then other times I've kept quiet and wondered whether I should have spoken up... and I've experienced first hand what it's like when someone keeps bashing you over the head with something and doesn't stop, and I wouldn't want to do that to anyone.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be a matter of values? What do you value more, peace between yourself and the other person, or helping the other person realize they're mistaken even if it bothers them?
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's the latter most of the time (aren't you shocked?) since, by not pointing out the error, I would be tacitly agreeing with them.
I don't think that's true. I did point out the error. She chose to talk over me once she heard me do that. I wouldn't at all feel that i'm tacitly agreeing with her, nor do I think anyone else would think that if I stopped discussing the issue with her at that point (which is exactly what I did).
ReplyDeleteI think the issue falls more under lying and spreading lies. If I have the information that shows the things she's saying have been made up, should I continue to push that even when she's made it clear that she doesn't want to hear it?
Or, to jump away from my political interaction yesterday and back to the more theological one, if someone is missing the point of the Sunday school lesson (or sermon or book we're reading together or Bible study passage we're looking at) and they've shown that they don't really care what the point is as long as their point of view regarding some tangential topic has been validated, is that something that someone in the body should address? (Or, to make it even more complicated, what do you do when that happens and the person is not a part of your congregation, but she does claim to be a Christian?)
... I suppose another way of approaching this is... With my dad, who has Picks disease, even back when he could talk and hold some sort of conversation, there simply was no reasoning with him. He had lost his ability to reason through a topic. (He could hardly reason through a recipe, let alone a theological or political issue.) Though my mom continued to argue with him constantly in an attempt to bring about understanding on an issue, it was always pointless. My dad simply no longer had the mental capacity to think through what she was trying to explain to him. Every word from her mouth was a wasted breath. Now, to what extent should we treat others as I would treat my dad? If someone shows that they would rather hold firmly to lies than be confronted with the truth, to what extent should I/we/whoever assume that they are mentally incapable of reasoning on the issue? What's volitional here? And if it's volitional, does that mean it should be addressed? Toward what end? (In this case, I think it's a matter of sin. That's a really blunt way of putting it, but I think this person does a disservice to God and to Christians to behave in this manner.)
well, in my own struggles with these sorts of things I keep coming back to this: if I have a whole load of knowledge and understanding and have sussed out tons of things that others around me are confused about and for some reason or other they're unable to see it... but I have not love, I am but a noisy gong. my first obligation is to love them. and I think that includes accepting their right to be sometimes blind/deaf/stupid/unable to listen/wrong/etc. accepting them with these things - just as I would like to be accepted with whatever collection of blind spots I still have. I think there's room for saying once, clearly, where you think someone is wrong, but if their response shows they're not ready/able/willing to hear you, then the loving thing is to leave it.
ReplyDelete(now to remind myself of all this stuff I've said when I go to home group on wednesday...)
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was saying you agreed with her: I was saying that that's why I speak up rather than staying quiet.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, I think you should. The only way to combat (willful) ignorance is with the truth.
As for someone missing the point of a sermon, I would think that's a slightly different case, would it? Wouldn't something like that (since it's more about interpretation) be more personal than objective?
if the person who is speaking (in a sermon or lesson or whatever) is talking about A and how A can be found in these examples in scripture, in secular advertising, in contemporary literature etc and that A is important because of such and such, and then someone in the discussion group says, "was he saying B? because i think B is important because blah blah blah" then no. i wouldn't say that's open to interpretation or more personal than objective. what it is is a matter of hearing A and having it link in your mind to something that's not A, and then taking off in that tangential direction because you feel like you have something to say about that, even when it's not at all what any of us (or the main speaker) were talking about. and when someone replies, "no, he was talking about A and how A is important because..." and the person says, "oh, well, whatever" then that, in my mind, says that the person doesn't get the point and doesn't want to get the point. (most likely -- to get back to the original topic at hand -- because point A wasn't familiar at all to this person's way of thinking, but point B was something familiar, comfortable, and that she could wave in front of people like a sharp stick.)
ReplyDeletei didn't think you were. i was hoping to encourage you that you don't always have to speak up. just because you're silent doesn't mean we think you're agreeing with someone. well, actually, knowing you, if you were silent we might think you're dead or asleep or something. but it might be a healthy exercise for you sometimes to just let things slide. you'll find out that we don't think you're agreeing. there are times (especially when you're talking to someone who you know completely disagrees with you despite the evidence) that it's really just better for your health to ignore them.
ReplyDelete... i just don't know if this is one of those situations. at some point, it would be helpful for me to see this person listen to something unfamiliar and puzzle out what it's all about and then make a decision on it. it frustrates me that in almost 10 years i haven't seen that. and i wonder if i should just let it go or if i need to let it concern me. as a christian, i keep feeling like it should. theologically speaking, we're connected. we're one. there's the rub.
i should say that there's another person who is often the same exact way, except that i do see an effort to work through things and see them in a new light, even though the unfamiliar is very unsettling and uncomfortable to this person.
and meirav, to get back to some of the stuff you said earlier too, i'm sure we're all like this in various areas. sometimes we don't want to face the uncomfortable, and for me it might not be a new idea. but it might be a new person. or a new routine. we all have our comfort zones. i suppose another question is, how do we deal with comfort zones? can we just nestle in to them? do we always have to push ourselves out of them? or is there some middle ground?
LOL! You know me too well. :)
ReplyDeleteof course there's a middle ground - there has to be. if we always stayed within our comfort zones we would never grow, but if we were being pushed out of a hundred comfort zones all at once we'd collapse in a heap. that's where the thing comes in about loving one another - I've got to love Joe Bloggs enough to allow him to stay within his comfort zones even when it does my head in and even when I'm convinced that it's totally wrong, sinful, etc; but at the same time I've got to love Joe Bloggs enough to now and again prod him gently about something if I feel it's worth addressing that specific issue at that point in time.
ReplyDeleteoh, and I'm with you on what you said to Darryl, we don't have to jump up and state we disagree each and every time someone says something we think is wrong just because otherwise people will assume we agree. goodness, I'd be jumping up and down all day if I had to do that... it would be utterly exhausting. (but having said that, there are times and situations where I feel it is important to speak up, when it's something really crucial, for instance if I was surrounded by people talking in a way I think is racist then I would feel that someone had better point out to them that their way of thinking isn't acceptable to everyone. I guess it's a question of choosing what sort of stuff you're going to stand up for.)
I think this old post of mine is kind of connected.
ReplyDeletei love that cartoon. (D, if you didn't click through, you should. it's a cartoon about you.)
ReplyDeleteso the answer is that i keep saying something when i can, but that i don't do an "intervention" or anything like that, right?
sometimes i hear what these folks say to their coworkers and that's when i really want to do an intervention. i think some people have the gift of evangelism and some people have the gift of the antithesis of evangelism. *sigh* (or better yet *facepalm*)
oh, I think I see what you mean. like when you hear fellow Christians say stuff to non-Christians and you think, oh no, this person is just going to get the whole wrong idea about our faith and they'll never want to know...
ReplyDeletethis is the point when we roll our eyes heavenwards and say, please, if you won't make them stop, can you please bring good out of this somehow, and please give me the patience so that I won't strangle them, ok?
yup.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what I meant. What I meant was, when you're in a discussion with someone and they say something that's wrong, by not saying disagreeing with that statement then you're tacitly agreeing them. If it were during, say, a sermon I wouldn't expect anybody to stand up and point out the error to the speaker (but I would be the person to talk to them after). But during a conversation it's a part of the exchange of ideas and information to do that.
ReplyDeleteThat one's more Christene than me. :)
ReplyDeleteok, first of all I didn't have in mind specifically a one-to-one discussion with another person, I thought we were talking about all sorts of situations, including for example a group discussion - where it isn't possible for each and every person to say everything they'd like to say anyway, and we have to pick and choose what we will use our airtime for... but even in one-to-one I think it still depends... perhaps it depends if I feel we are actually having a discussion, or if I feel the other person is up to having a discussion - sometimes a person just needs to be listened to, to be allowed to vent their feelings, and if I keep interrupting every time I think they've said something wrong then that's not going to be much use. But I'm careful in how I phrase my responses in such situations - I can express empathy for how they feel without sounding like I agree with what they're saying. I guess this is part of my counselling training - a counsellor usually listens without expressing his own views, and you can see a good counsellor for years without having a clue as to what they think about most issues.
ReplyDeleteso what am I saying? it varies a lot. each conversation is different. there are times when I feel the most constructive thing in the situation is to sit on my hands, other times I feel it's crucial to speak up, and sometimes I think I got the two mixed up and spoke when it would have been better to keep quiet or sat on my hands when it would have been more helpful to speak up. I'm looking for what's most constructive, and I don't think establishing truth is always the top priority.
btw, I still haven't got that "facepalm" thing. what am I missing?
ReplyDeleteLet me demonstrate it with the universal language of Star Trek:
ReplyDeleteLOL... thanks, that was beautiful... and I get it now :)
ReplyDeletebtw, here's another little point to ponder re the idea that if we don't state our disagreement then people might assume we agree: some people are perfectly capable of assuming we agree even if we do say clearly what we think... I've seen it done :(
ReplyDeleteTrue. I just hate the idea that someone who holds a false position thinks that I agree with them simply because I didn't speak up. And I agree with you that there's a time and a place to speak up and times when you don't. So I guess what I'm saying is my previous statement was about how I respond in those cases where a response is warranted. :)
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love those clips. There's such a wealth of social examples and commentary in Star Trek. :D
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeletelooks like it. and I am grateful to people who show me some of those and plug small bits of the huge gap in my education :)
ReplyDelete