To impose or not impose: Ideas, Faith or Prophet?

[stvdv]

Many Christians belittle non-Christians by telling "Christianity is the superior religion" (implying non-Christianity is inferior).
Maybe I am wrong, and it's not many Christians behaving like this. The poll might remove unclarities on this matter.
Maybe it's not just Christians who belittle others' religion/views, hence I use: Ideas, Faith and prophet in the poll.

For some, imposing Religion seems natural, for others a sin. Some even naturally impose a sin on others.
Techniques used while imposing: a)belittle + b)emotional blackmail (as seen in evangelizing)

2 Questions came up (when reading "impose": keep in mind the above lines):
1) To impose or not impose?
2) Is it proper to impose your Ideas, Faith or Prophet?
Impose is defined:
a) force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.
b) take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment

Edit: "not done" in the poll meaning "it's `not proper` to do" (just to keep the line short in the poll)
(someone remarked that he could not answer, because "not done" means to him "it is not done by others")

Spoiler: Remarks on the poll

The poll is not on semantics, more on "how you feel about this".
(So please don't start debating, whether or not I misplaced a "dot" ... the issue should be clear)

Many Christians have told me "Jesus is the only way for all".
Many Christians have told me "If you don't accept Jesus, then you go to Hell".
I replaced "Jesus" by "Prophet" and added "Ideas" (to include Atheism, Humanism, Other Faiths, or even Hell)

Trying to shorten the Question (focus on impose as used in evangelizing: belittle + emotional blackmail):
Question = Is it proper to impose: Ideas, Faith or Prophet? (impose as seen in evangelizing as "belittle+emotional blackmail")

Spoiler: My personal view on this

Personally I do not believe "my way" is the only way, nor do I know "for a fact" that my way is the right way. It's about (non)belief, meaning, IMHO, "not a fact", just a belief. So, according to me, all get the "benefit of the doubt", and their way can be a right way. All humans are equal, and most humans are quite well capable to choose for themselves, or to ask if they need. If the Theist wants to impose on the other (s)he might better ask "Is it okay if I impose my truth on you?". Then if the other agrees, go for it. Ask first, then listen, next act accordingly. If the question sounds "funny" maybe that is an indication not to impose

 

[LightofTruth]

When the kingdom of God is established on earth, the world will be ruled with a rod of iron.

But for now, the wicked have the victory.

 

[JJ50]

When the kingdom of God is established on earth, the world will be ruled with a rod of iron.

But for now, the wicked have the victory.

You state that unpleasant take on faith as a fact when it is only a mere belief.

 

[LightofTruth]

You state that unpleasant take on faith as a fact when it is only a mere belief.

Is anyone trying to impose or force you to believe the scriptures?. Not me.

My debate is with those who accept the Scripture as the inspired words of God.

 

[JJ50]

Is anyone trying to impose or force you to believe the scriptures?. Not me.

My debate is with those who accept the Scripture as the inspired words of God.

But someone who is vulnerable reading your unpleasant statement could be frightened by it.

 

[LightofTruth]

But someone who is vulnerable reading your unpleasant statement could be frightened by it.

There are some things that there are no laws against.

Gal 5: 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control.Against such things there is no Law .24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.…

 

[Revoltingest]

When the kingdom of God is established on earth, the world will be ruled with a rod of iron.

But for now, the wicked have the victory.

A "rod of iron" doesn't strike me as non-wicked.

 

[Quintessence]

Imposing ourselves and our ways on the world around us is an inevitability. That said, this does not mean having a superiority complex or belittling those who have different ways of life, which seems to be the heart of what the OP is actually asking about. Being an imposition is inevitable, but being a deliberate $#% about these impositions is not.

 

[danieldemol]

Many Christians belittle non-Christians by telling "Christianity is the superior religion" (implying non-Christianity is inferior).
Maybe I am wrong, and it's not many Christians behaving like this. The poll might remove unclarities on this matter.
Maybe it's not just Christians who belittle others' religion/views, hence I use: Ideas, Faith and prophet in the poll.

For some, imposing Religion seems natural, for others a sin. Some even naturally impose a sin on others.
Techniques used while imposing: a)belittle + b)emotional blackmail (as seen in evangelizing)

2 Questions came up (when reading "impose": keep in mind the above lines):
1) To impose or not impose?
2) Is it proper to impose your Ideas, Faith or Prophet?
Impose is defined:
a) force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.
b) take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment

Spoiler: Remarks on the poll

The poll is not on semantics, more on "how you feel about this".
(So please don't start debating, whether or not I misplaced a "dot" ... the issue should be clear)

Many Christians have told me "Jesus is the only way for all".
Many Christians have told me "If you don't accept Jesus, then you go to Hell".
I replaced "Jesus" by "Prophet" and added "Ideas" (to include Atheism, Humanism, Other Faiths, or even Hell)

Trying to shorten the Question (focus on impose as used in evangelizing: belittle + emotional blackmail):
Question = Is it proper to impose: Ideas, Faith or Prophet? (impose as seen in evangelizing as "belittle+emotional blackmail")

Spoiler: My personal view on this

Personally I do not believe "my way" is the only way, nor do I know "for a fact" that my way is the right way. It's about (non)belief, meaning, IMHO, "not a fact", just a belief. So, according to me, all get the "benefit of the doubt", and their way can be a right way. All humans are equal, and most humans are quite well capable to choose for themselves, or to ask if they need. If the Theist wants to impose on the other (s)he might better ask "Is it okay if I impose my truth on you?". Then if the other agrees, go for it. Ask first, then listen, next act accordingly. If the question sounds "funny" maybe that is an indication not to impose

I can’t vote because I find it “should” not “be” done, but to find it not done according to my understanding of English means that no one does it. People do wrongly do it.

 

[stvdv]

I can’t vote because I find it “should” not “be” done, but to find it not done according to my understanding of English means that no one does it. People do wrongly do it.

Thanks for the reply. According to my understanding and what Google gives "not done" written "quoted, exactly means "not proper to do".

Google gives: "not done. Socially unacceptable, improper, as in Bringing along two friends without asking, that's not done"

So I guess you can vote now, correct?

I did not word it as "should not be done", because that would be "kind of" imposing (like in "you should do this, or you get punished (either now or in heaven)"). Saying "not done" means to me "Of course you can do what you want, but do remember that you might hurt someone's feelings". Using "Should" feels more strong to me, and is not people's favorite; many people react with "don't tell me what I should or should not do").

I hope this clarifies why I used the words "not done"

 

[siti]

A "rod of iron" doesn't strike me as non-wicked.

That reminds of a feeble joke:

fella walks into a bar and says "ouch!"...

...it was an iron bar.

 

[siti]

I did not word it as "should not be done", because that would be imposing.

Well I voted as a human (despite my appearance) and voted for "not done" - in the spirit that I believe the OP intended...but...

...the bit I quoted indicates a problem...

...how can we promote the idea that ideas should not be imposed without imposing the idea that ideas should not be imposed?

I'm thinking that perhaps everyone should just be allowed to impose what they want they want to impose and everyone else should feel free to resist having ideas imposed upon them if they think that ideas should not be imposed upon them. That's my idea - hope I'm not imposing!

 

[stvdv]

Well I voted as a human (despite my appearance) and voted for "not done" - in the spirit that I believe the OP intended...but...

...the bit I quoted indicates a problem...

...how can we promote the idea that ideas should not be imposed without imposing the idea that ideas should not be imposed?

I'm thinking that perhaps everyone should just be allowed to impose what they want they want to impose and everyone else should feel free to resist having ideas imposed upon them if they think that ideas should not be imposed upon them. That's my idea - hope I'm not imposing!

Very clear and totally not imposing in a negative way. Thanks for pointing this out.

My point in this thread is more like: "To impose or Not" as in:
1) "Fear feelings" using Hell-threats
2) "Guilt feelings" using as in emotional blackmail
3) "Inferior feelings" as in putting people down by belittling them


I googled and found "impose" explained in a way, that I had in mind; creating "negative feelings". Hope that clarifies what I meant

What does it mean to impose on someone?
1): take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment
2): to establish as something to be obeyed or complied with
3): to force (oneself, one's presence, etc) on another or others; obtrude.
4): to take advantage, as of a person or quality to impose on someone's kindness.

 

[siti]

Hope that clarifies what I meant

I understood what you meant...and its fine and I voted in the poll convinced that I understood what you meant.

What I am less clear about is how to avoid inspiring the same kind of 'bad feelings' in people who feel the urge to warn people of what they conscientiously believe is 'impending doom' for their fellow man if the warning they feel inspired to give is ignored - and yet still retain the capacity to say "I'm sorry but you shouldn't impose that view on me"...its a conundrum for both believers and unbelievers I think...

How can I (for example) promote what I perceive as rational thinking (which I cannot help but believe is a good thing for everyone) without implying that those who don't see it quite the same way as I do are somehow lacking in the ability to think rationally? I am really not saying that I don't think they can think rationally, but that's how it is going to read - it seems - if I even just suggest another way of looking at things. And I honestly do believe that failing to think rationally is potentially disastrous for humans - individually and collectively...so what am I to do? Live and let live - or live and let die (more like)...or speak up and hope that people are not offended?

So I'm putting it from "my side" there...and in all fairness - I am fully aware that nothing that I can say or do is going to change the world - even for an individual, let alone the whole of humanity - but I can well imagine that dilemma from the "other side" of the fence - if I really did believe that my "message" was genuinely "life-saving" - how can I not speak up? Should I allow fear of causing "bad feelings" to stop me throwing a "life belt" to a drowning man? What if he shouts back "I don't need that, what do you think...I don't know how to swim"? Or am I going to harden my resolve and throw it anyway?

Should we really make a rule that prohibits people throwing life belts when they think they're needed just because some people might be offended by the suggestion that they can't get themselves out of trouble without help?

 

[stvdv]

I understood what you meant...and its fine and I voted in the poll convinced that I understood what you meant.

Thanks. I "already had the feeling" that you understood what I meant. I even had the feeling that you were trying to "break the ice" so to speak
In the same way (to give better understanding on my OP), I replied to you with the colorful lines to accentuate I meant "negative impose" here

So what I said:"hope this clarifies", was not meant for you, but for the people "who were not clear about this. And to clarify my OP.
Sorry, my mistake. I should have listened more careful to my feeling and should not have put the words "hope this clarifies"

 

[stvdv]

What I am less clear about is how to avoid inspiring the same kind of 'bad feelings' in people who feel the urge to warn people of what they conscientiously believe is 'impending doom' for their fellow man if the warning they feel inspired to give is ignored - and yet still retain the capacity to say "I'm sorry but you shouldn't impose that view on me"...its a conundrum for both believers and unbelievers I think...

Good point. IMO a good way is to "avoid the people who give you a bad feeling". In this way they can't practice "giving you a bad feeling". Win .. win.
(The saying "Deeds speak louder than words" works here in our favor. "No Contact" is said to be the "Best Contact" when dealing with narcissists)
(To be complete: sometimes of course this won't work ... in our system the judge has to speak out "the verdict"; whether bandits like it or not)

 

[siti]

Good point. IMO a good way is to "avoid the people who give you a bad feeling". In this way they can't practice "giving you a bad feeling". Win .. win.
(The saying "Deeds speak louder than words" works here in our favor. "No Contact" is said to be the "Best Contact" when dealing with narcissists)
(To be complete: sometimes of course this won't work ... in our system the judge has to speak out "the verdict"; whether bandits like it or not)

Right! So that's what I'm thinking - the "taking of offense" is more of a choice than the "giving of offense" - especially in discussions about belief/unbelief...so maybe the rule should be - if you feel offended don't respond - especially don't respond in kind - use the 'ignore' function if necessary...literally if its on RF - figuratively otherwise.

The rule should perhaps be "don't be imposed upon" rather than "don't impose"?

The onus is on the hearer not the speaker...as long as the words are not actually offensive - like directly calling someone 'stupid' or 'bigot' or whatever. Not sure if I haven't gone too far now - I was trying to tread carefully...anyway, there it is - that's what I think. Of course I could be dead wrong...it has happened before.

 

[stvdv]

How can I (for example) promote what I perceive as rational thinking (which I cannot help but believe is a good thing for everyone) without implying that those who don't see it quite the same way as I do are somehow lacking in the ability to think rationally? I am really not saying that I don't think they can think rationally, but that's how it is going to read - it seems - if I even just suggest another way of looking at things. And I honestly do believe that failing to think rationally is potentially disastrous for humans - individually and collectively...so what am I to do? Live and let live - or live and let die (more like)...or speak up and hope that people are not offended?

Another good point. We all have our own conscience and our own feelings. What we do is our own decision with our own created karma.
Many of the ones imposing their religion (truth) on others also believe in "Do unto others what you want others to do unto you"
If they look honestly inside they might feel that they would not be "over the moon" if others imposed their religion on them

If they are happy to be imposed by others, then they should go for it themselves maybe, until they are less happy about it
(I do believe in karma: So it might be that "the universe" will send them too many imposers to still be happy)

 

[stvdv]

So I'm putting it from "my side" there...and in all fairness - I am fully aware that nothing that I can say or do is going to change the world - even for an individual, let alone the whole of humanity - but I can well imagine that dilemma from the "other side" of the fence - if I really did believe that my "message" was genuinely "life-saving" - how can I not speak up? Should I allow fear of causing "bad feelings" to stop me throwing a "life belt" to a drowning man? What if he shouts back "I don't need that, what do you think...I don't know how to swim"? Or am I going to harden my resolve and throw it anyway?

Fear of causing "bad feelings" might not be a good motivator "not to throw a `life belt`".
Introspection, humility and respect might be good before throwing your "life belt", esp. when other shouts (1000 times) "I don't need that ...."

I see in "the Universe" it's all about "balance". Some call this "yin/yang", others explain it using "karma". I am intrigued to find out about "my little Universe" ... how it "balances". The "Big Universe" is full of rules or call them Laws (Law of Gravitation). The "Big Universe" in which we are might take care of everything (if we let her)

Should we really make a rule that prohibits people throwing life belts when they think they're needed just because some people might be offended by the suggestion that they can't get themselves out of trouble without help?

Creating rules might even suggest that "we don't trust the Universe" and that we don't trust ourselves to get out of trouble without rules

 

[stvdv]

Right! So that's what I'm thinking - the "taking of offense" is more of a choice than the "giving of offense" - especially in discussions about belief/unbelief...so maybe the rule should be - if you feel offended don't respond - especially don't respond in kind - use the 'ignore' function if necessary...literally if its on RF - figuratively otherwise.

I think both are a choice. Giver of offense creates the karma, and it sounds weird to say "taking of offense" is more of a choice.
But I think you mean: when harm is done, it is wise to choose "not to be offended" ... you can still control that part (sometimes, as below, that's a big challenge)

Extreme case scenario "man rapes girl". This illustrates it more easy to me what is appropriate to say:
1) Is it appropriate to say to the girl: "taking of offense" is more of a choice than the "giving of offense"? (she might feel even guilty)
2) Is it appropriate to say to the man: "taking of offense" is more of a choice than the "giving of offense"? (he might feel he gets Card Blanche)
3) Is it appropriate to say to the girl: Girls dressing inappropriate are asking to be raped (I heard an Imam say these words; I could not believe what I heard)
4) Is it appropriate to say to the girl: All is God's Will, you will get over it, once you accept Jesus? (priest kind of told my mother this, after losing her baby)
5) Is it appropriate to say to the girl: It's just your karma, maybe you f*cked up in other life (some believe in the "Law of Karma")

If the "Law of Karma" is true then there might be no good/bad, there might be only action/reaction. Good/bad is only in the mind.
Even if this is true, I deem it better to say so in a compassionate way, as to avoid creating more pain in the victim
Even if this is true, I deem it better to say to the offender: this is "Not done", rather then say to him "Well done, karma served. Thanks for executing it"

Why I think this way? The Universe is all about Balancing. So "in general" better not throw oil on the fire, but rather sooth the pain.