Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.
If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.
I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.
I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.
So it's ok for you to write that religion is a net negative, and it's ok for you to make sweeping generalizations about why somebody believes (according to you, it's because she grew up in a "deeply religious family").
But it's wrong for the minister to state her beliefs, even if she couches them in "I believe" or "religious people believe" language, because your sensitive eyes apparently can't read this sort of thing. Uh, ok.
How about, if her views don't resonate with you, you simply state that? "I don't agree." See, that's simple to say. But instead, you accuse her of all sorts of nefarious motives that frankly don't seem to be there and toss out words like "condescension." And while you're at it, stop pretending that I'm offended by the rants of some rando atheist like you--I'm not, what I'm actually offended by are your sleazeball character assassination tactics here, instead of you trying to honestly and openly debate her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.
If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.
I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.
I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.
So it's ok for you to write that religion is a net negative, and it's ok for you to make sweeping generalizations about why somebody believes (according to you, it's because she grew up in a "deeply religious family").
But it's wrong for the minister to state her beliefs, even if she couches them in "I believe" or "religious people believe" language, because your sensitive eyes apparently can't read this sort of thing. Uh, ok.
How about, if her views don't resonate with you, you simply state that? "I don't agree." See, that's simple to say. But instead, you accuse her of all sorts of nefarious motives that frankly don't seem to be there and toss out words like "condescension." And while you're at it, stop pretending that I'm offended by the rants of some rando atheist like you--I'm not, what I'm actually offended by are your sleazeball character assassination tactics here, instead of you trying to honestly and openly debate her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.
If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.
I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.
I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.
If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.
I have posted on other threads (and maybe this one?) that I believe religion is net negative. I haven't posted much else on this thread. Sorry if you feel that is disrespectful but it's not a personal statement about you, an individual, and your beliefs. It's my observation (as an outsider) generally about religions over the course of mankind. The minister was making generalizations for all atheists/all people, as individuals and their experiences. And it was off-base for me. It's understandable because she grew up in a deeply religious family. All of her references tie back to religion/faith/etc. None of that works in my framework. Not just the terminology.
I get that she was trying to be polite about it, but she was still trying to connect dots that don't need to be connected for some people. Presuming that those dots NEED to be connected. And I did find her tone condescending - she wrote as if she had it all figured out, but clearly doesn't. Which is fine - none of us do. But don't write as if you do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.
If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Honestly this seems like a massive overreaction. I wonder if that's because the minister was so respectful, and that threatens you? She was so careful to use words like "I think" and "I believe" as others have oiint d out. She even writes things like. "An atheist would explain this with science" which you did not put in bold.
If you're the pp making statements about organized religion being harmful, scripture being nonsense stories, and so on, then I respectfully suggest that you are making blanket statements that are much broader and disrespectful than anything you accuse the minister of.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:FYI to the minister -- your last few communications have been with a different poster.
Getting back to your #4 - are you saying you regularly see "deathbed conversions"? Maybe not always to an established religion, but from people who have said they were atheists who when close to death say they they now believe in "god"?
If so, I'd imagine this would be a common occurrence in Hospice and would think there'd be a lot written about it.
I didn't find anything in a cursory google search. Could you direct me to information on this?
Thanks
We were just talking about exactly this at my Hospice Center. There are four Ministers working at the center. One of them is a more traditional protestant minister. One is a Catholic Nun. One is an AME Pastor. And then me. I am an Interfaith Minister. I am one they call for anyone who isn't mainline Protestant or Catholic. I am trained to minister to people of all faiths. I by default, get all the Atheists (along with a lot of people from Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths). To me, it's all the same.
I don't see what most people would describe as "deathbed conversions". Not in the sense of people asking for my help to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior". I have literally never had that happen. However, most of the people I spend time with at the end of life seem to become more spiritual as they approach their final days. Maybe not religious, but certainly interested in talking about after-life, benevolent God, forgiveness, etc.
BUT - and I think this is really important - Keep in mind that I am a minister. I visit everyone who comes into our center regardless of faith at least a couple of times. I introduce myself, do a quick spiritual assessment, talk with the family, and let them know there is a minister on call any time they might need us. I can't visit every patient every day. We have 50 patients in our center and between 30 and 50 under Home Hospice Care. A lot of my visits are at the request of the family or the patient. If a patient has asked to see me or has asked that I remain bedside, chances are they are already thinking about religious or spiritual issues. A person who is not interested in talking about religion is not likely asking to see a minister.
I guess my answer would be that in my experience even atheists who had no interest in talking with me when they were admitted to Hospice often ask for me when death becomes more of a reality. But it's less about a "conversion" and more a need to express renewed interest in spirituality. Really it's not that different than the Catholic who hasn't been to Mass in many years - They will often ask me to give them Holy Eucharist. Or they'll ask for a Priest to come in and give them Last Rites.
My discussion with my fellow Minsters led us to a couple of possible conclusions - The most obvious is that an atheist who was raised in a religious family finds comfort in the familiarity of religious sacrament. Another is that the atheist who was raised in an evangelical church starts to question. And that's scary. I know how powerful those images of hell are. I was raised Southern Baptist. The patient may be seeking that "Blessed Assurance". But more often, I see patients who begin to experience and feel things they can't explain. They aren't interested in hearing me read the Bible or preach. But they do want to talk about God.
Thanks for this look into hospice life. Please tell me, regarding my original question -- what do you know about writings on atheists regularly becoming more religious or spiritual in hospice.
Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Did you see the posts where the minister apologized?
Anonymous wrote:OMG - please learn how to reply and post properly, people. I have a headache trying to catch up.
I'm the PP who found the minister's posts to be condescending and presumptuous. Her whole post was written through the lens of someone raised in a very religious environment and who cannot understand what it is like to never have had religion. All of the talk of faith, deathbed, etc. is really off-base and out of place. "Returning to our Source", creation, faith, etc.
The minister should really just stick to what she knows instead of making false assumptions and generalizations about others. I don't make any blanket statements about what she believes or doesn't believe. If she were truly respectful, so would she.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:FYI to the minister -- your last few communications have been with a different poster.
Getting back to your #4 - are you saying you regularly see "deathbed conversions"? Maybe not always to an established religion, but from people who have said they were atheists who when close to death say they they now believe in "god"?
If so, I'd imagine this would be a common occurrence in Hospice and would think there'd be a lot written about it.
I didn't find anything in a cursory google search. Could you direct me to information on this?
Thanks
We were just talking about exactly this at my Hospice Center. There are four Ministers working at the center. One of them is a more traditional protestant minister. One is a Catholic Nun. One is an AME Pastor. And then me. I am an Interfaith Minister. I am one they call for anyone who isn't mainline Protestant or Catholic. I am trained to minister to people of all faiths. I by default, get all the Atheists (along with a lot of people from Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths). To me, it's all the same.
I don't see what most people would describe as "deathbed conversions". Not in the sense of people asking for my help to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior". I have literally never had that happen. However, most of the people I spend time with at the end of life seem to become more spiritual as they approach their final days. Maybe not religious, but certainly interested in talking about after-life, benevolent God, forgiveness, etc.
BUT - and I think this is really important - Keep in mind that I am a minister. I visit everyone who comes into our center regardless of faith at least a couple of times. I introduce myself, do a quick spiritual assessment, talk with the family, and let them know there is a minister on call any time they might need us. I can't visit every patient every day. We have 50 patients in our center and between 30 and 50 under Home Hospice Care. A lot of my visits are at the request of the family or the patient. If a patient has asked to see me or has asked that I remain bedside, chances are they are already thinking about religious or spiritual issues. A person who is not interested in talking about religion is not likely asking to see a minister.
I guess my answer would be that in my experience even atheists who had no interest in talking with me when they were admitted to Hospice often ask for me when death becomes more of a reality. But it's less about a "conversion" and more a need to express renewed interest in spirituality. Really it's not that different than the Catholic who hasn't been to Mass in many years - They will often ask me to give them Holy Eucharist. Or they'll ask for a Priest to come in and give them Last Rites.
My discussion with my fellow Minsters led us to a couple of possible conclusions - The most obvious is that an atheist who was raised in a religious family finds comfort in the familiarity of religious sacrament. Another is that the atheist who was raised in an evangelical church starts to question. And that's scary. I know how powerful those images of hell are. I was raised Southern Baptist. The patient may be seeking that "Blessed Assurance". But more often, I see patients who begin to experience and feel things they can't explain. They aren't interested in hearing me read the Bible or preach. But they do want to talk about God.
Thanks for this look into hospice life. Please tell me, regarding my original question -- what do you know about writings on atheists regularly becoming more religious or spiritual in hospice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The minister was even careful to use language like "what a spiritual person might call..." and "I think". I really don't see how anybody even half-way sincere could take offense at what somebody else is being extra careful to frame as their own views.
I am more than half-way sincere and can see how someone could take offense. I do take offense at immediate pp's put-down of previous pp's viewpoint. There is room for much misunderstanding of religious viewpoints. In the US, we have worked over the years to be understanding and accepting of people of other religions. Now I think we could use some work at being more understanding and accepting of people of no religion. We have always been around. Now there are more of us and more are openly identifying as non-religious. We tend to be upstanding and law-abiding citizens and even if we weren't, we deserve to be treated with the same respect as people who hold a god belief.
Of course, and your desire for respect is completely understandable and valid. I too think atheists deserve more respect.
But atheist pp is asserting that a religious person shouldnt say "I think..." and "religious people think..." because even telling you what they think is somehow offensive. On a thread claiming that organized religion is harmful and scripture is bs, no less.
If you want respect, you have to give respect. That goes for judgemental religious people and it goes for DCUM's atheists as well.
I don't think atheist pp said that. Reading back, it was an interpretation someone made about atheist pp's reaction to the minister.
I do have a problem with the terminology "DCUM's atheists" - as if we are all alike and need to be chastised. Imagine talking about "DCUM's African Americans" or "DCUM's gays" that way.
The atheist is the one who put bold highlights over those two phrases. As if a believer even expressing what she "thinks" is offensive to this poor atheist's sensitive wars.
There's one atheist on DCUM who is a babyish a$$. That "don't tell me what you think" pp is probably her. Unfortunately, without usernames, her behavior has the potential to stain other atheists. I think most of us have her number, though, and write her off as a troll.
PP is an exception. As a rule, Christians are not so nasty.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The minister was even careful to use language like "what a spiritual person might call..." and "I think". I really don't see how anybody even half-way sincere could take offense at what somebody else is being extra careful to frame as their own views.
I am more than half-way sincere and can see how someone could take offense. I do take offense at immediate pp's put-down of previous pp's viewpoint. There is room for much misunderstanding of religious viewpoints. In the US, we have worked over the years to be understanding and accepting of people of other religions. Now I think we could use some work at being more understanding and accepting of people of no religion. We have always been around. Now there are more of us and more are openly identifying as non-religious. We tend to be upstanding and law-abiding citizens and even if we weren't, we deserve to be treated with the same respect as people who hold a god belief.
Of course, and your desire for respect is completely understandable and valid. I too think atheists deserve more respect.
But atheist pp is asserting that a religious person shouldnt say "I think..." and "religious people think..." because even telling you what they think is somehow offensive. On a thread claiming that organized religion is harmful and scripture is bs, no less.
If you want respect, you have to give respect. That goes for judgemental religious people and it goes for DCUM's atheists as well.
I don't think atheist pp said that. Reading back, it was an interpretation someone made about atheist pp's reaction to the minister.
I do have a problem with the terminology "DCUM's atheists" - as if we are all alike and need to be chastised. Imagine talking about "DCUM's African Americans" or "DCUM's gays" that way.
The atheist is the one who put bold highlights over those two phrases. As if a believer even expressing what she "thinks" is offensive to this poor atheist's sensitive wars.
There's one atheist on DCUM who is a babyish a$$. That "don't tell me what you think" pp is probably her. Unfortunately, without usernames, her behavior has the potential to stain other atheists. I think most of us have her number, though, and write her off as a troll.