In the last few hours I have answered a number of questions posed by Lover of God, and in so doing have apparently upset him/her. In LoG's view I have offered only "hateful answers [including] nothing loving, caring, or concerned for the feelings of others" and might be someone called "Godless" in disguise.
As far as I can tell my answers have in the main been calm and rational, with nary a hint of inciteful language - although Richard Dawkins might not appreciate me referring to him as "The Dawk".
If I have caused offence I apologise unreservedly, for to not do so would be hypocritical in the extreme.
But I ask of my fellow YA-ers as objective as possible an assessment of whether or not my words this day have, indeed, been "hateful".
Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your time.
2007-03-24 22:21:26 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsSdIPMlmm9uyMc7I8y849nh5gt.?qid=20070324231002AAHa4wf&show=7#profile-info-1fee54e632b083a1d89dea7c2fc84a78aa
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkNtoInasoCuKY.eu8rNZuHh5gt.?qid=20070324235634AA0amj2&show=7#profile-info-1fee54e632b083a1d89dea7c2fc84a78aa
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AulcGxgJLvkbfvdWTtpqkiPh5gt.?qid=20070325002601AAaPFNg&show=7#profile-info-1fee54e632b083a1d89dea7c2fc84a78aa
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmF4QAEInN2MFevpOZQY5BLh5gt.?qid=20070325003518AAX2MIX&show=7#profile-info-1fee54e632b083a1d89dea7c2fc84a78aa
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApESBbJrCFAvuE2n_OzTn5Th5gt.?qid=20070325004345AAxtqZ6&show=7#profile-info-1fee54e632b083a1d89dea7c2fc84a78aa
2007-03-24 22:23:08 · update #1
Thanks to all for your answers.
I wasn't so much concerned as surprised by Lover of God's reaction. I agree that there is nothing I can do to change the way people react to what I say. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't kidding myself that I'd been responding reasonably.
I _am_ sorry if anyone is upset by things I say. Unless of course I've set out to stir things up, I won't pretend that I don't do that upon occasion. This just wasn't one of those occasions!
2007-03-25 01:23:44 · update #2
Bill - Richard Dawkins (AKA The Dawk) wrote "The God Delusion" which is quoted from in a lot of atheists' answers. Personally I haven't read it, but what I have read of his work I've not found especially helpful. Then, each to their own! Anyway, said book is "on my list."
Special thanks to Bill, Steve and the others who didn't agree with the content of my answers, but could put that aside to assess their tone. I'm very glad I put this up...
I'm emailing a link to Lover of God - as I wanted a right of reply in public, it is only fair that I offer the same to him/her.
2007-03-25 17:53:20 · update #3
Your answers were fine. But each of us must remember that opposing views are always going to get some backlash. I don't think any of your answers could be classified as hateful.
2007-03-24 22:47:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Your responses seemed unobjectionable to me.
I have taken a position that if a question is explicitly targeting "atheists", "non-believers" or something similar, that I will not answer (but may read for my own edification) the question since I obviously do not fit these labels.
Likewise, if a question is labeled "believers", "theists", “Moslems”, “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, etc., it would be polite if those not fitting the label would not respond unless the question specifically fits. I also ignore questions that obviously violate the new community guidelines posted at http://answers.yahoo.com/info/community_guidelines.php, and especially those that are flippant, hate-mongering, vapid preaching, or are just chatty.
It seems to me that only if a question is non-specific should responses be expected from any and all persons.
We all learned this behavior in kindergarten but seem to have forgotten how to play nice with one another. We were taught to not speak unless spoken to, answer the question asked, and be polite. We also have learned, as George Elliot noted, "Blessed is the person who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us worthy evidence of the fact."
Why is it that when some are older they feel they can reject all semblances of politeness with shallow and strained arguments for free speech, just having fun, etc? In truth, these are not the salient issues, but only excuses for bad behavior.
The real issue is what enables these forums? The answer should be clear--it is the questioner. The questioner is the driving force in these forums and should be able to designate a specific population for the responses they are seeking. For if there are no questions, there is no reason for a Q&A type of forum. Thus, my focus on my response is what the asker thinks of my question, not any other answerers who may also respond. If the asker doesn’t like my answer I usually hear about it and learn from them. That said, I write cogent responses that I hope are useful to others who may take the time to read them.
I create my answers from an academic theologian’s perspective, as this is my “day job”. Yes, my answers are often wordy, but I honor the questioner with enough details to help them learn more. I believe that what a person sets into writing is a greater act of consciousness than what a person speaks from their mouths. So, when a person writes some of the vitriol that we see in this Forum, especially from self-professed believers, this person is giving deeper evidence of the state of their faith to others. In short, some may know the Word of the Lord, but they demonstrate by their actions that they do not know the Lord of the Word.
If we respect the questioner’s desires for specificity, this forum will be something worth spending our precious time in.
2007-03-25 05:44:26 · answer #2 · answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"If you don't behave the way I want I will punish myself by giving myself a bad feeling."
People are responsible for their own feelings.
With that said, it's always helpful to adopt the view of the person we're corresponding with and work from there (in a Socratic fashion preferrably) toward a better answer. To offer opposing views, however calmly, and however rational, does not always make for good communication. Communication is all about the person you're communicating with, unless (like me, so often) you're simply interested in hearing your own voice, ha ha!
...with that said, I'd rather not take sides in this matter...you've both got room to grow...just like everybody else.
-Rob
2007-03-25 05:32:49 · answer #3 · answered by Rob S 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
As a peer.. I dont care.. so innocent... i dont care if some one is a lover of god or not.. not my Biz.. But if you pose a question here you open yerself to being answered.. and they may not be the answer ya want... So if the lover of god is so offended they should just shut the hell up or learn to take the good with the bad.. personally i'd neve apologise for my answers.. mine are honest.. and from my perspective.. if ya dont like em ignore um... thats my policy.... But my opinion or answer maynot be what someone wants to hear..(so dont Ask OK?)
2007-03-25 05:30:19 · answer #4 · answered by darchangel_3 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your language is delightful. You and your kind make YA a nice place to be in. It is sad though that of late the power of the 'WORD' has been reduced to that of thought provoking at best and amusing most of the time but no longer course-altering. Has God stopped creating leaders?
2007-03-25 09:43:06 · answer #5 · answered by smartobees 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am a Christian. I read one of your answers, I didn't find your answer hateful. At least I didn't take it that way. We all make our choices. You choose to not believe there is a God. That's between you and God. For your sake I hope you are right. We really won't know for sure till that time comes. My faith is thinking there is a God.
2007-03-25 05:34:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your answers may not have been hateful. But faith is a sensitive topic and some people don't like being criticised. Also in writing some things can be misinterpreted. Try not to worry about it... It doesn't mean you are 'bad' or anything similar.
2007-03-25 05:27:01 · answer #7 · answered by bcooper_au 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Lover of God, judging by his questions is clinging to his faith with white knuckled fear. He mentioned depression and hopeless despair in several of his questions and responses. Anything that would make him question his faith would drive him just about frantic. I would expect and forgive the poor person in hat situation. (and then I would give pulling the rug out from under them my very best shot, people like that are a danger to society as a whole)
2007-03-25 06:02:54 · answer #8 · answered by U-98 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
On nary an ocassion would I even consider myself one of your peers.
You, my dear are beyond peerdom and in a class all your own.
I don't need to read any of your links (but I will just for your wit) to know whatever your responses were; they were not hateful, unloving or uncaring in any extent.
Trouble yourself not.
2007-03-25 08:54:54 · answer #9 · answered by Yellowstonedogs 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your explanation is not hateful. It is very fair and shows much concern for the feelings of the person you answered questions for. It also encourages that person to think more about his/her reaction to your words and consider whether he/she was unfair to your feelings.
2007-03-25 05:28:45 · answer #10 · answered by Wrath Warbone 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋