4 ms·

This seems to be thrusting in two directions. One about trigger warnings and safe spaces and so on, and one about sermons and guilt. One common narrative re sa

by philh 11y ago

This seems to be thrusting in two directions. One about trigger warnings and safe spaces and so on, and one about sermons and guilt. One common narrative re safe spaces seems to be: "if something makes you uncomfortable, you should suck it up instead of trying to force everyone else to accommodate you". I think this is somewhat missing the point, but I can relate to it. I feel like this is the dominant narrative in this thread. But the narrative in the article seems to be: "if something makes you uncomfortable, good! It's because you're a bad person. You should be a better person instead of asking us to tell you you're not bad". And I pretty strongly disagree with that. For example, if the sermon was all about how gay people are going to hell, and that made a student uncomfortable, that's not because the student is a bad person. That's because it was a terrible sermon. From the description, this sermon was not obviously terrible. But that still doesn't make the student a bad person. Not everyone experiences or expresses emotions in the same ways. That's fine. When people start speaking about experiences as if they're human universals, and if you don't share those experiences, that can make you uncomfortable. That's fine too. It doesn't make the speaker a bad person, but it doesn't make you a bad person either.

venomsnake 11y ago
> For example, if the sermon was all about how gay people are going to hell, and that made a student uncomfortable, that's not because the student is a bad person. That's because it was a terrible sermon. Well, no - the proper response to that is not whining but saying: "Since in hell are probably also Freddie Mercury, Voltaire and Oscar Wilde (and probably Mark Twain) - do I strictly have to be gay to go there or are there other ways I could take" and enjoy the show. There is no greater weapon against powerful people that take themselves seriously than mocking them and their beliefs.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Why would you be at that university if you plan on mocking their beliefs?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Their school cafeteria may be great. I am also not mocking their beliefs, but the beliefs of a single person with authority. Generally speaking people need more mocking in their lives. For a long time the only people that could speak truth to power were the jesters. No matter if the power is the pope that could condemn to eternal afterlife in hell or a BreitBart/Jezebel writer that could unleash an internet pitchfork mob on you - you are obligated to take them down a notch whenever you can. Jokes are most efficient.
Juliate 11y ago
I pretty strongly disagree with that "because you're a bad person" too, if it were that. But what I read in the article is more "because you're not perfect, as neither one of us is, so show a little introspection about you before complaining about others". And... it's about 1 Corinthians 13. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1... Seriously, go read it, it resonates in quite a peculiar way with this whole discussion. (edited for missing word)
- philh 11y ago
  > An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. Maybe that's not quite "you're a bad person". But I feel like your reading is missing the "you should feel bad" aspect. That chapter resonates with me too, because it's pretty much exactly the sentiment I'm disagreeing with. Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. No, that's exactly wrong. If you do the right thing, that's good. If you do the wrong thing, that's bad. It doesn't matter what you were feeling when you did it. Love makes people do some really shitty things. "I love you and I want you to not go to hell, so I'm going to beat the gay out of you", for example. That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. The opposite is true as well, where people do good while hating it every minute. (No good example comes immediately to mind, and I'm spending too long on this post.) They don't lose points for having unvirtuous emotions. They did good, and that's enough.
  - Juliate 11y ago
    > Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. I think I see what you mean. But this is not how I read Corinthians; but I agree that this may not be shared either, and I won't make this about religion, I'm really talking about the text itself. First, it does not put love before actions. It says actions/qualities (or that most of life, actually) is meaningless, nothing, without love (as an attachment to God/Truth) Second, it defines what is definitely not "love", so one may not use it as a pretext for wrong doing (at least). Third, it says that we will never see things fully, neither at once, until, that is, the end (provided it's not an ellipsis, he! :) ). Plus, "love" as expressed in this text is not Philia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia) but from Latin Caritas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29) (or Greek "agape"); which is not about a feeling, but about something way deeper, transcendant and, although not quite the right word, respectful, for one to an other. It's love as one of the three Christian theological virtues (fides, spes, caritas), that is, in an intimate relation to the Christian God (in this context) as a guide, a goal, an ideal for love/Philia too. > That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. I see your point. That love is, actually, deeply misled. Actually, that's not love, that's fear that supersedes love ("I fear that you [x] and I don't want to because this makes me [y] and I freak out and I don't think you can decide for yourself, so I'll do it and [z]"). Love (be it eros, philia or even agape) is no excuse to abuse. Good intentions don't make an excuse for incompetence.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
He never once said the student was a "bad person". Saying someone should "feel bad" is not the same as saying someone is a "bad person". 1 Corinthian 13 is supposed to make us reflect on love and have some negative feeling when we remember that we've not shown our family, friends, neighbors and strangers love. We're supposed to "feel bad". It means we are alive and healthy.

by philh 11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago

> For example, if the sermon was all about how gay people are going to hell, and that made a student uncomfortable, that's not because the student is a bad person. That's because it was a terrible sermon. Well, no - the proper response to that is not whining but saying: "Since in hell are probably also Freddie Mercury, Voltaire and Oscar Wilde (and probably Mark Twain) - do I strictly have to be gay to go there or are there other ways I could take" and enjoy the show. There is no greater weapon against powerful people that take themselves seriously than mocking them and their beliefs.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Why would you be at that university if you plan on mocking their beliefs?
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Their school cafeteria may be great. I am also not mocking their beliefs, but the beliefs of a single person with authority. Generally speaking people need more mocking in their lives. For a long time the only people that could speak truth to power were the jesters. No matter if the power is the pope that could condemn to eternal afterlife in hell or a BreitBart/Jezebel writer that could unleash an internet pitchfork mob on you - you are obligated to take them down a notch whenever you can. Jokes are most efficient.

Juliate 11y ago

I pretty strongly disagree with that "because you're a bad person" too, if it were that. But what I read in the article is more "because you're not perfect, as neither one of us is, so show a little introspection about you before complaining about others". And... it's about 1 Corinthians 13. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1... Seriously, go read it, it resonates in quite a peculiar way with this whole discussion. (edited for missing word)

philh 11y ago
> An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. Maybe that's not quite "you're a bad person". But I feel like your reading is missing the "you should feel bad" aspect. That chapter resonates with me too, because it's pretty much exactly the sentiment I'm disagreeing with. Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. No, that's exactly wrong. If you do the right thing, that's good. If you do the wrong thing, that's bad. It doesn't matter what you were feeling when you did it. Love makes people do some really shitty things. "I love you and I want you to not go to hell, so I'm going to beat the gay out of you", for example. That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. The opposite is true as well, where people do good while hating it every minute. (No good example comes immediately to mind, and I'm spending too long on this post.) They don't lose points for having unvirtuous emotions. They did good, and that's enough.
- Juliate 11y ago
  > Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. I think I see what you mean. But this is not how I read Corinthians; but I agree that this may not be shared either, and I won't make this about religion, I'm really talking about the text itself. First, it does not put love before actions. It says actions/qualities (or that most of life, actually) is meaningless, nothing, without love (as an attachment to God/Truth) Second, it defines what is definitely not "love", so one may not use it as a pretext for wrong doing (at least). Third, it says that we will never see things fully, neither at once, until, that is, the end (provided it's not an ellipsis, he! :) ). Plus, "love" as expressed in this text is not Philia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia) but from Latin Caritas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29) (or Greek "agape"); which is not about a feeling, but about something way deeper, transcendant and, although not quite the right word, respectful, for one to an other. It's love as one of the three Christian theological virtues (fides, spes, caritas), that is, in an intimate relation to the Christian God (in this context) as a guide, a goal, an ideal for love/Philia too. > That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. I see your point. That love is, actually, deeply misled. Actually, that's not love, that's fear that supersedes love ("I fear that you [x] and I don't want to because this makes me [y] and I freak out and I don't think you can decide for yourself, so I'll do it and [z]"). Love (be it eros, philia or even agape) is no excuse to abuse. Good intentions don't make an excuse for incompetence.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

He never once said the student was a "bad person". Saying someone should "feel bad" is not the same as saying someone is a "bad person". 1 Corinthian 13 is supposed to make us reflect on love and have some negative feeling when we remember that we've not shown our family, friends, neighbors and strangers love. We're supposed to "feel bad". It means we are alive and healthy.