a) “What is right for you is almost assuredly not right for me.”

b) “…this has lead to an enormous body of literature in which religious and spiritual themes are explored. How can one help but read from this pool of books? Why would one want to avoid doing so?”

Quote a) answers quote b) quite handily. An unspoken assumption of tolerance of others beliefs and actions is that just because you don’t see a reason for it doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It’s wrong or not deserving of respect.

c) “I enjoy reading about characters or ideas with which I disagree. To do so is often enlightening, illuminating myself and others.”

I think this is quite interesting, JD. No matter how much you enjoy reading about characters with which you disagree, you seem to actively dislike TALKING to people with whom you disagree about topics where you don’t see eye to eye.

I wonder if you would enjoy Aegypt, by John Crowley. It’s out of print and my copy got loaned out and not returned years ago. Good book, though, and one of it’s central themes is the evolution of the World View of society as a whole. Sort of.

Dana, I cannot follow your first point. Could you rephrase it? I understand that you think A answers B, but the verbiage of the second part of your statement loses me…

I don’t think one should avoid being exposed to a body of literature (or anything else) simply because the ideas contained therein might be unpalatable.

I chose a secular school rather than a religious school because it seemed foolish to forego the broader experience. I’ve learned that I like Chinese, Thai, Viatnamese, Indian, Mexican, Ethiopian, and Lebanese foods because I’m open to new things, even I’m happy with what I already eat. Though I’m happy to sample this food, I wouldn’t want to have a steady diet of any one cuisine. “Variety is the spice of life that gives it all its flavor.”

Regarding your second point: I do at time avoid conflict, epsecially when I think it is the best interest of the relationship which is affected by the conflict.

In general, though, I believe I’m quite open to discussing controversial topics with people with whom I disagree.

I am willing to allow for give and take. I share my ideas, I listen to what the other person thinks. I may even incorporate some of what they believe into my own mindset. If the person with whom I’m having the conversation is equally open, I enjoy the conversation.

But if the person with whom I’m having the conversation is open, not willing to consider my viewpoint, is only making a show of listening to my points, I don’t enjoy the conversation. In these instances, it’s like talking to a wall.

Then again, maybe my self-perception differs from others’ perception of me…

Ah, trying to be too minimal for my own good 🙂

Your second statement ends with:

“How can one help but read from this pool of books? Why would one want to avoid doing so?.”

These questions are written in such a way as to imply that they have a specific answer. The implied answers are that people can’t help but read from this pool of books and that there isn’t a reason for wanting to avoid doing so.

Are those implied answers true? Are they universal? In my opinion, no. And I feel that the first quote I included gives the reason that those implied answers are in fact not universal answers.

To put it another way, I agree with the first quote about what’s right for one not necessarily being right for another. I disagree about there being no reason for avoiding books with religious and spiritual themes. I disagree that people can’t help but read from books on this topic.

(Shrug)

That’s all. Not exactly an earth-shattering revelation or anything 🙂

On the second topic, I guess I’m probably bringing along baggage from some of our earlier conversations.

I don’t think I’m wrong in lumping myself into the group of friends and family who “cling to an idea” and “never change”, at least in your view.

Some (many?) of our past conversations have left one or both of us frustrated at how pig-headed and uncomprehending the other person is, even though we both see ourselves as emminently reasonable and tolerant people. We are each perceiving the other person as being the unlistening wall, while we each think of ourselves as listening reasonably to the other and comprehending their point of view.

Clearly, one or both of us is wrong on this.

The last time this happened, I spent a lot of time thinking about the circumstances and my own role in our conversation. You ended the conversation rather abruptly because you felt it was putting our friendship at risk, and that avoiding the convlict was better than having the conflict.

I felt no such risk. Your disagreement with me did not make me feel that you were less of a friend, or that I couldn’t talk to you, even if you continued not to (in my perception) get my points.

But clearly either you felt differently, or something I was doing gave you a different impression of how I was feeling.

I guess on some level I see conflict as part of life. Yes, there are times when (and certain people with whom) I desperately avoid it, but on the whole there’s no way for it to be removed entirely, and sometimes I accept and relish it.

I see you as even more conflict-avoidance prone than I am.

(Shrug)

Also, I think you tend to argue your positions more from an emotional place than what I what I would call a logical one. You present emotionally persuasive arguments, not necessarily logical ones. Again, perhaps that’s baggage from earlier arguments we’ve had.

I dunno.

JD,

I still admire your discussion. I hope what I add will not be construed as trying to sway you or proselytizing in any way.

I knew a girl in College that took a liking to me, I have no idea why because she was very religious (conservative Protestant). We spoke about Religion often and I said that I’m not one to believe but that I wish I could. She was trying to win me over to her side (she eventually gave up on a lost cause). I tell you this because I wonder that if that “wishing” I could believe was enough of a seed that led me to where I am now.

A few years later I starting reading Tibetan Buddhist books starting with The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. I collected and read a couple dozen of these and read as much as I could. In one of them it said to let the possibility of belief be an intellectual challenge to oneself, ‘it’s ok if you don’t entirely belive now, just try it out for a while’. Pretty shrewd. I went to a sitting meditation once, sitting, breathing for an hour–longest hour ever.

I even started reading about Islam (as unpolitik as that might be right now). I went to a Friday afternoon meeting and felt about as out of place as a person can be.

I credit W. Berry with getting me to realize that I have a home religion, Christianity, and that there is plenty about the heritage to learn about and honor. I wrestled long and hard about what a “native” religion is (what is native to me a Norwegian/Irish North American, why is Christianity more native than Shinto?).

Another conversation: Sitting at a Canby HS teacher BBQ, drinking beer and talking spirituality with L. Kraxberger. Finally he says, “Oh, so you’re a dilettante?” Blankly I smiled,at first proud of the title then asked, “What’s that?” He said, “Someone who only reads about things but does’t actually DO them…”

Ouch.

That same fact came back a few years later, I can read all I want about this stuff but it’s just an intellectual exercise until I actually do something, meaning jump in and see what it’s truly like.

One of the hardest things I’ve done is to walk in the door of the church for the first time on my own terms(that is, not because my Mom and Dad were going).

Again, thanks for your candor JD it’s given me permission to do likewise. Sorry it’s so wordy.

Paul

JD I too admire your openness in discussing this. I just can’t help but think of Uncle Steve (your Dad) and I know that he would want me to say the things to you that I am saying. JD the reason Christians are so evangelical is because they believe that when one dies they will go to hell to burn forever if they do not except Jesus as Saviour and Lord of their lives. When one believes in a real hell one must be evangelistic . We do not want our loved ones to go there! I am evangelistic. I am NOT evangelistic because I am an arguementative person. I am evangelistic because I love people and cannot bear to know that they will suffer an eternity in hell. Thats the long and the short of it.
And Paul if you’re still reading this I forgot to say earlier that I commend you in your search for God! May you find His peace in your home and in your heart this season! Love to all and especially to my baby cousin JD!

JD, thanks for some honest questions. I wonder if anyone spoke to you of Jesus Christ? He claims to be God, The Word and other things. If true, what He had recorded about himself is, by definition, very important, but then maybe He was just crazy. If you read what He says carefully you will find that He could not be half right, as some are wont to say. As is famously said, He is mad, bad or God – those are the only choices. I can understand anyone who makes one of those three choices, but cannot understand how anyone can choose anything different.
Greg