Sensitive?

[odeon]

I've just sat on my hands to avoid posting what I really think. Let me explain.

I'm not a religious person. I think this is it, it's the only chance we get and it doesn't really matter. There won't ever be a final judgment on anything, and instead all things will pass. I will die, you will die, everyone will. The planet will die, and that's it for us. There are others out there that will have experienced all this before us, and there will be those that will have to wait.

But none of it matters because there is no sentient being to compare us, nothing that separates one disaster from the other. This is it.

Yet, not everyone believes what I do. They think--they know, or at least they say they do--there is a supreme being, an all-powerful being able to decide who gets to continue and who doesn't, and they remain just as convinced as I am.

Some, like Hannah, post about it here, and I get this mad, mad urge to reply in kind. I'm good with words. I know what to say and what to write. I'm really, really quick that way. There's so much I can say, some of it most likely more than a little bit hurtful for no other reason than that I know how to. Words that hurt, words that divide. Words that can so very easily produce what I feel like doing.

Very often they come to me instantly, and I have to sit on my hands because I know deep inside that there's no point posting them because all that will happen is that they will hurt. Maybe hurt bad. And I don't actually want that.

But here is the thing: I think--and correct me if I'm wrong--these celebrations of a god also come instantly. They are a way to channel a feeling, output something instantly or very nearly so. Something like what I do when I react, only I don't have that initial feeling. So why shouldn't I post what I think? Why shouldn't I simply react?

I don't know the answer.

[odeon]

I should probably add that I don't mind if you have opinions very different from mine, or if you think I should burn in hell. I'm simply pondering why I feel why I should be the one to hold back.

[Al Swearegen]

I think that if someone says something, it ought to be taken in context of what it says. I think anything on here ought to be a public invitation to response and or backing or explaining itself.
If I said (I dunno) "Seems like God had a plan for you" in response for finally catching an even break in something after a lot of hard work, regardless of whether it came instantaneously to the sender or whether it was meant well, it can come across to someone who does not share the religious beliefs as pretty bloody insulting. It begs a reply. You ought not stifle that.
Myself? I would mention that there was no God, what plan? how would they know?, what about all my hard work? what would have resulted without the hard work? does God only show up incidentally after a lot of hard work and if so what would be the difference between him making up and not making me part of their plan?, what about all the times I slugged my guts out and got nowhere? what about any other time? If I am part of some preordained plan this what is the point of free-will? Sure I can put my feet up and it is all part of their plan.
Then no matter what the answer to any of these questions, I would ask, how do you know?
 

['andersom']

I've just sat on my hands to avoid posting what I really think. Let me explain.

I'm not a religious person. I think this is it, it's the only chance we get and it doesn't really matter. There won't ever be a final judgment on anything, and instead all things will pass. I will die, you will die, everyone will. The planet will die, and that's it for us. There are others out there that will have experienced all this before us, and there will be those that will have to wait.

But none of it matters because there is no sentient being to compare us, nothing that separates one disaster from the other. This is it.

Yet, not everyone believes what I do. They think--they know, or at least they say they do--there is a supreme being, an all-powerful being able to decide who gets to continue and who doesn't, and they remain just as convinced as I am.

Some, like Hannah, post about it here, and I get this mad, mad urge to reply in kind. I'm good with words. I know what to say and what to write. I'm really, really quick that way. There's so much I can say, some of it most likely more than a little bit hurtful for no other reason than that I know how to. Words that hurt, words that divide. Words that can so very easily produce what I feel like doing.

Very often they come to me instantly, and I have to sit on my hands because I know deep inside that there's no point posting them because all that will happen is that they will hurt. Maybe hurt bad. And I don't actually want that.

But here is the thing: I think--and correct me if I'm wrong--these celebrations of a god also come instantly. They are a way to channel a feeling, output something instantly or very nearly so. Something like what I do when I react, only I don't have that initial feeling. So why shouldn't I post what I think? Why shouldn't I simply react?

I don't know the answer.

I think the question is the wrong one. There is no "should".

It's not "So why shouldn't I post what I think? Why shouldn't I simply react?".

My guess is that it is about why you would not post what you think there, why you don't simply react.



Hannah posts about her faith with the same impulsiveness, all over the place in the same way she posted about self harming before she found her happiness in her faith. For me it is verbal diarrhoea most of the times.

You simply have not that unstoppable impulsiveness Hannah shows. Most of the members here are not that impulsive and compulsive in posting.

That you can lash out is clear. That you rarely do too. When you do, it has effect. You hold back, part of who you are.



Do I recognise the urge to fling something sharp in return? Yes, I do. Do I hold back, yes, I do. Is it about religious posts only that I hold back. No.
Would I be me if I did not hold back. No, I wouldn't.

['andersom']

I think that if someone says something, it ought to be taken in context of what it says. I think anything on here ought to be a public invitation to response and or backing or explaining itself.
If I said (I dunno) "Seems like God had a plan for you" in response for finally catching an even break in something after a lot of hard work, regardless of whether it came instantaneously to the sender or whether it was meant well, it can come across to someone who does not share the religious beliefs as pretty bloody insulting. It begs a reply. You ought not stifle that.
Myself? I would mention that there was no God, what plan? how would they know?, what about all my hard work? what would have resulted without the hard work? does God only show up incidentally after a lot of hard work and if so what would be the difference between him making up and not making me part of their plan?, what about all the times I slugged my guts out and got nowhere? what about any other time? If I am part of some preordained plan this what is the point of free-will? Sure I can put my feet up and it is all part of their plan.
Then no matter what the answer to any of these questions, I would ask, how do you know?

That's about what I would do if it was directly projected on my life too.

When someone wants me to tell about their faith or belief I react different though. I tell them I am not interested in doctrine, only in what it means for them, in their life, to believe. What makes it worth while for them?

[Jack]

I don't know the answer.

The answer for me is, yes, to the question of the thread title. Her response to a simple challenge was, I've just got to be me, but she refrained from calling anyone dear for an entire three months, absolutely not being her because of sensitivity toward some stupid troll tactic to see how she would respond. Actually am glad she's returned to addressing people as dear, because was beginning to feel a bit bad about that. The point was brought up at that time, of it being very curious, as to why other people here don't care to respond to some of the things said.

Though don't personally care for the third person approach. Hannah, sometimes I ignore you, due to thinking you're simply trolling the forum gushing so much about god, knowing those who share your views have no need to contribute, so it makes you appear to simply be trying to elicit negative responses from those who don't. Certainly those expressions would receive more positive response on a religious forum, or more trollish fun on an atheism forum; either way it's hard to conclude what might be the motive for expressing it here at all. Also sometimes ignore you, due to viewing you as somewhat mentally and emotionally weaker than myself, and am more likely to challenge people who I don't view as inferior. Otherwise, it makes me feel like a bully. If it's not trolling, then will be very bothered by my saying anything about it, if you stop gushing about god now that the topic's been brought up.

Is that it, Odeon. Don't want to feel like you're picking on poor sweet Hannah? Personally wanted to question an ex-cutter's motives in telling mdagli1 to cut off his fingers. Already know why I didn't do that.

['andersom']

The USA relatives of my ex talk almost in the same way as Hannah posts.

Thought it was an SDA USA trait. 

I don't know the answer.

The answer for me is, yes, to the question of the thread title. Her response to a simple challenge was, I've just got to be me, but she refrained from calling anyone dear for an entire three months, absolutely not being her because of sensitivity toward some stupid troll tactic to see how she would respond. Actually am glad she's returned to addressing people as dear, because was beginning to feel a bit bad about that. The point was brought up at that time, of it being very curious, as to why other people here don't care to respond to some of the things said.

I answered similar to how I answered now, I think.

Now and then, I mildly poke Hannah, or tickle her. More because her posts are empty to me than that they are religious.
And, yes, Hannah, typing this sentence, I am wondering whether I can let those words be, that to me your posts are empty, not of any other importance as a VS post. And I do not give a shit about VS.
Faith does really and still dearly interest me though.

I'll let it stand. To me, the posts are empty, that is why I do not react on them. They are like all the words the uncles and aunts of my ex used, and I did not see how any of those words meant anything in their life. It's almost like twisted regular small-talk to me.

[WolFish]

I'm not convinced about a divine figure, however I am convinced about the complexity of the human mind. So I'm not sure what is the nature of that thing that some people call a god, but I am convinced that for some of them, the structure of religion or at least their belief in their gods helps them.

I am completely convinced that if someone's belief in their god or their religion helps them in a good way, that their belief will not need to be outspoken. I experienced this in Florida. I have philosophical differences with Seventh Day Adventists, but the ones who ran the health food store I frequented were living examples of what a religion should do for a person.

Just so you know where I stand, I confess to some magical thinking, and it goes like this: I think the power of belief can affect events in the world on a small scale and depending on the number of people involved, in a large event. However, I don't know entirely how this works. That's about the size of it. I'm still experimenting. But also, I am a product of my Catholic upbringing and my fundamentalist christian indoctrination.

I'm not sure what you mean by celebrations of a god, but if they are what I think they are, they are not what most religion's founders meant to happen. These celebrations are the result of social conditioning, and likely do not represent any depth of feeling. They are more shortcuts than anything else. They are the result of an inability to communicate a genuine feeling. Like a swear word. I've uttered my own celebrations, and, as a result of social conditioning, sometimes still use the words in the same empty fashion.

Unfortunately, being perceived as a leader makes you sit on your hands at times.
But isn't this the place where you don't have to do that, where you can say what you want no matter who you are? I'm guessing that your reaction won't break any laws. If feelings are hurt, then either healing will occur (if the religion lives up to its claims) or people will go away. That's what this forum is about. Is celebration different from flaming? Do you sit on your hands when someone says fuck you?

Actually, I don't get it.
Your freedom to post your reaction is the reason this forum is here.

[Icequeen]

My views on it are...if it makes someone happy, if they feel it's a positive thing in their lives...that's fine, I'm happy for them.

Just don't try to sell it to me personally like a telemarketer pedaling life insurance.

I identify as "wiccan", I am not really (although my mother identified as such), my views are probably along the same line as yours...although I kind of hope this isn't "it", finite, the end. There are some places I would like to haunt , I believe that like energy, some trace of us lives on, whether I'm wrong or not will remain to be seen. Judgmental, supreme being not included. 

I found out though that by having a "label" everyone interested in "saving my immortal soul" (including the inlaws and my SO) left me alone. Strangely enough I've found if you tell someone you don't believe, they become hell-bent to convert you, but if you tell them you believe in "something" they leave you be 9/10 times.

It has actually had some cool moments...my ex SIL (the JW) who was always a major bitch to me before the kingdom hall, now avoided pissing me off like the plague because she thought I was a satan worshipper, and the SO still believes to this day (even though I've told him he's nuts a million times) that I put a curse on him after he left for 2 years for someone else...kept both of them from bothering me.

I think religion is a bigger thing over here than it is in other countries, at least it seems to be, especially in some sections of the country.

[Icequeen]

Just so you know where I stand, I confess to some magical thinking, and it goes like this: I think the power of belief can affect events in the world on a small scale and depending on the number of people involved, in a large event. However, I don't know entirely how this works. That's about the size of it. I'm still experimenting. But also, I am a product of my Catholic upbringing and my fundamentalist christian indoctrination.

Law of intent, law of attraction, like attracts like....play with that a bit myself if that's what you mean. I've had some positive results, so I will continue to play.

[Queen Victoria]

I don'the feel the need to take concern or offense with someone's religious beliefs.  I was raised Catholic, but realized that Judaism is the best faith for me sometime in my early thirties.  I'm not offended if an obvious Baptist (black person) says "Have a blessed day."  (Most blacks are Baptist here.)

I don't discuss religion, because it is something uniquely personal.  People believe what they believe because they are comfortable, peaceful with that belief. 

There has been a time or two when I considered commenting on a religious post, but I chose to respect the poster's opinion/belief and went on to the next post.

[Pyraxis]

I think it sucks when people I like have decided to leave here (Loupgarou I'm thinking of you, wherever you are) because of the anti-spiritual sentiment. But now that I think about it I've never gone on a crusade against people here who have blasted spirituality, in the way that I have against people who have done other things I've found unethical.

I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.

I do know that I don't want to be predictable, and I reserve the right to go off on anyone I choose. I like it better when it's someone who presents a challenge.

[Jack]

I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.

That's an interesting statement. Hannah, have noticed a couple of instances where members have intellectually challenged you for statements made in political debate, and the response was to change the subject and start gushing about god, thus ending the intellectual debate with emotional statements which garnered no response at all. Now wondering if you might realize people are being sensitive toward it, and using it as a protective shield tactic when challenged.

[Pyraxis]

Where is she, anyway. She ought to be in this thread.

['andersom']

Hannah's posting pattern has gaps of weeks ever since she is back.