Secure in your convictions?

[Halcyon]

Is your theory confined to only religious beliefs, Halcyon?

For me, if someone challenges me religious beliefs, I am, for the most part, able to let it roll off my back as I believe everyone is entitled to their own belief.

But, let someone attack me on a personal front, say because of my sexuality, and you will see the claws come out.

Hmmm, that is a good point Maize.

When i wrote the 'theory' i was just thinking about religious beliefs.

I assume though, you don't have doubts about the validity of your sexuality? I imagine you would get angry because its a personal attack? I think it doesn't follow the same rules as religious belief should.

For example, if someone said to a Christian "Christians are stupid and ignorant" - then that would be a personal attack and would trigger an emotional reaction because it is untrue and insulting. Similar to insulting your sexuality.

However, if someone is debating the existance of Jesus with a Christian, has pretty solid evidence backing their side and will not back down, this can also trigger an emotional response from the Christian - not because it is untrue or insulting, but because it triggers doubt (even deeply hidden doubt) within them. Unless they have no doubt, in which case their shouldn't be an emotional reaction.

 

[jonny]

I imagine you would get angry because its a personal attack?

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one (to use an extremely overly used phrase). My religion defines who I am and when someone attacks my religion I probably tend to personalize it as an attack on me. When someone respectfully questions my religion, I don't have the same reaction.

 

[Halcyon]

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one (to use an extremely overly used phrase). My religion defines who I am and when someone attacks my religion I probably tend to personalize it as an attack on me. When someone respectfully questions my religion, I don't have the same reaction.

Ah, but this just brings it back to the beginning. If you're secure in your convictions then any attack of your beliefs should just roll off your back, like a duck or related water fowl.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm going to try to give an example which may help people understand why I sometimes get "defensive." Most of us know that Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, meaning (to the best of my understanding) that when the Priest blesses the communion, the bread (wafer, etc.) and wine are literally changed into the body and blood of the Savior. If I wanted to say something I knew would really offend the Catholic posters on this forum, I'd say, "Catholics are cannibals." Now I know perfectly well that's not true. But I could quote something off some website and make a pretty convincing argument in favor of my premise. As a Latter-day Saint, I find myself up against that kind of BS ever day of my life, and it gets old!!!

I am as aware as the next guy that many of my Church's doctrines are significantly different from those of mainstream Christianity. Yes, I believe that I am created in God's physical image. I believe that I existed in spirit form prior to my birth and actually had a choice as to whether I wanted to experience mortality. I believe that God has given each of us the potential to someday become as He is. I don't deny that I believe any of these things. On the other hand, I don't take offense when someone disagrees with me and believes these doctrines to be false.

What I object to, and what I take offense to, is when I am told what I believe. What I take even greater offense to is the individual who simply refuses to let go of his misconceptions once I have explained that "NO! NO! NO! THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE AND IT'S NOT WHAT MY CHURCH TEACHES." In other words, "I'M NOT A CANNIBAL!" I don't like people substituting a word here or there that makes just enough difference to change the meaning of an entire sentence. Here's another example (maybe a dumb one... I don't know). Look up the meaning of the word, "thin" in the dictionary. You'll find a great many synonymns for it. If I wanted to pay a friend a compliment, I could tell her how "slender" she looked. I don't think she'd feel particularly flattered, however, if I told her she looked "emaciated." Both words are snyonyms for "thin." When people try to make my beliefs look stupid, I'm offended. I enjoy debating people who are well-enough informed and intelligent enough to stick to the facts, but I have no use for people whose sole purpose for being here is to bash my beliefs.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my feeling secure in my convictions. Does this make sense? I hope it does, because I can't think of another way to put it.

 

[askeptic]

What I object to, and what I take offense to, is when I am told what I believe.

It's rather ironic, Katzpur, but as an atheist, I am with you 100%. As an atheist, there is the constant litany of those claiming my non-belief in the supernatural, is in fact its own belief -- in effect, telling me what I believe. Of course, there's the other part where there is this notion that there is some kind of belief system in being an atheist, when there isn't.

As to my actual belief system which can be described as secular humanism or naturalism, I am certainly willing to reconsider what I accept as truth if there are good reasons to do so. I am one who thinks that an unwillingness to reconsider one's positions (on a variety of topics, including their religious stance) is not a quality to be admired. In any endeavor, there is always the possibility of error, and only by considering and evaluating information not previously included can one arrive at truth.

 

[jiin_caltro]

If you're secure in your convictions then any attack of your beliefs should just roll off your back, like a duck or related water fowl.

I would like to bring to mind the term, "Righteous Anger." For example, one time I was in cooking class (Don't even ask) and a friend turned to me and said, "Did you just cuss?" I was shocked, and told him that no, I hadn't. Before this, it had been made clear that I didn't swear. Ever. Still, he kept ragging on me, telling me I was a bad mormon because I had cussed. So I blew up on him. I'm sure most people here can relate that when you devote yourself to something, nothing makes you more angry than an illegitimate claim of you having done some wrong or otherwise against your beliefs.

 

[sojourner]

A deeply-held religious conviction is held within the heart -- where body, mind, emotions, and spirit intersect. Therefore, it's only natural to become at least somewhat emotionally involved when that conviction is challenged -- it's a systemic response. Only when a conviction is held in the head, away from the emotions, can we debate without becoming emotionally involved.

 

[Halcyon]

I would like to bring to mind the term, "Righteous Anger." For example, one time I was in cooking class (Don't even ask) and a friend turned to me and said, "Did you just cuss?" I was shocked, and told him that no, I hadn't. Before this, it had been made clear that I didn't swear. Ever. Still, he kept ragging on me, telling me I was a bad mormon because I had cussed. So I blew up on him. I'm sure most people here can relate that when you devote yourself to something, nothing makes you more angry than an illegitimate claim of you having done some wrong or otherwise against your beliefs.

I hope this doesn't come across offensive jiin, but it seems from what you have said that your friend was deliberately winding you up to get a reaction, and you complied. Not so much righteous anger, moreso anger resulting from irritation?

 

[jonny]

Ah, but this just brings it back to the beginning. If you're secure in your convictions then any attack of your beliefs should just roll off your back, like a duck or related water fowl.

I don't think it can be simplified and generalized like this. There are too many different variables that go into every situation.

 

[Halcyon]

A deeply-held religious conviction is held within the heart -- where body, mind, emotions, and spirit intersect. Therefore, it's only natural to become at least somewhat emotionally involved when that conviction is challenged -- it's a systemic response. Only when a conviction is held in the head, away from the emotions, can we debate without becoming emotionally involved.

Maybe i didn't explain what i meant very well in my OP. Let me try again, and this applies to your post aswell Katz.

The reactions you are describing Katz, stem from irritation at a person who won't quit arguing a point you've already shown to be false. This is nothing to do with your religious beliefs per se, the same irritation could result from any situation where a person will not acknowledge their ignorance in the face of correction.

What i meant by getting upset when your religious belief is challenged, and that emotional response resulting from inner doubt really only applies to a situation, which we do get on this forum, when the person 'bashing' your beliefs has legitimate evidence and reason backing them.

For example, a atheist may start an debate with the assertion that Jesus was not a real historical figure, but was in fact the personification of the teachings of a small Jewish sect's theological concepts.
A Christian would of course challenge this. They would use evidence from the Bible, and other related religious scripture to 'prove' Jesus's existance.
However, the atheist will not back down, he has evidence on his side - or should i say the lack of corroborating evidence for Jesus's existance outside the Bible.

A few more heated exchanges pass, eventually resulting in the Christian getting upset/angry. You could argue that the Christian became upset through frustration at the atheist not accepting his/her viewpoint.
What i'm saying though, is that the Christian gets upset at not being able to disprove the atheists claim and having doubts raised within themselves.

A person secure in their convictions would not get upset, because nothing the atheist could say would sway their faith.

 

[Ðanisty]

Why is such conviction admired in some people but detested in others? I have a strong conviction in my faith, but all that seems to really mean to others is that I'm stubborn and I'm being impossible. Yet, if a Christian has a strong conviction it is considered admirable, etc.

 

[jonny]

Why is such conviction admired in some people but detested in others? I have a strong conviction in my faith, but all that seems to really mean to others is that I'm stubborn and I'm being impossible. Yet, if a Christian has a strong conviction it is considered admirable, etc.

I don't think it should be admired in some and detested in others.

 

[dawny0826]

Why is such conviction admired in some people but detested in others? I have a strong conviction in my faith, but all that seems to really mean to others is that I'm stubborn and I'm being impossible. Yet, if a Christian has a strong conviction it is considered admirable, etc.

We're probably classic opposites in terms of religious beliefs and I don't detest your convictions at all. They're YOUR convictions. I don't think you're stubborn or impossible. You present your points very well.

As a Christian...trust me, my convictions are not always admired, even by people of like faith.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What I don't understand is why feeling secure in your beliefs is it seen as such a negative thing. Sometimes I feel like I've got to apologize for my convictions. I just don't get it, I guess.

By definition there are no doubts in Conviction, that is what it means, you are convinced.
There can well be some doubts in detail about scripture, dogma, and about what others in your faith believe.
But not to the extent of shaking your conviction.
If others feel all this is negative, that is their problem.
That is the difference between those that have faith and those that don't.

Terry____________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[michel]

I'm very secure in my beliefs but do tend to get hyped up when in the heat of a debate.

I don't think this discounts my security in what I believe...I think it just shows that I'm human...and I'm passionate about what I believe in...

That rings true; I guess I am 99% happy about my beliefs (with a 1% error for 'little technicalities). I am passionate in what I believe, but only for myself. I guess I have been 'on my own' religiously all my life, so If anyone agrees with me, it comes as a great surprise and pleasure!

It isn't doubt in my mind that upsets me. It is the ignorance and intolerance of some people that upsets me. If it were the doubt that upsets me it would only be strong arguments that get me upset. That isn't true. I usually get a lot more upset over the stupid claims that insult my intelligence.

Ouch! That sounds like me(Yesterday or the day before ?) when I 'assumed' something about your faith and got it wrong; I guess I'll be more careful in future.........

 

[jonny]

Ouch! That sounds like me(Yesterday or the day before ?) when I 'assumed' something about your faith and got it wrong; I guess I'll be more careful in future.........

Don't worry. You were not on my mind when I made that statement.

 

[Katzpur]

By definition there are no doubts in Conviction, that is what it means, you are convinced.
There can well be some doubts in detail about scripture, dogma, and about what others in your faith believe.
But not to the extent of shaking your conviction.
If others feel all this is negative, that is their problem.
That is the difference between those that have faith and those that don't.

Terry____________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

Terry, thank you for stating this so well.