I don't believe in ridiculing the faith of either those who believe or those who don't.
With regard my my alleged ridicule of anyone on this thread with the use of the phrase, imaginary friend...
Quite a long time ago, early in my discussions about religion with Greg, I was trying to sort out what was hurtful to say and what wasn't. I thought he'd be a good barometer since he's the most overtly religious person to post on this thread. I expressed my point of view to him as candidly but tactfully as I could and I looked for feedback from him. He said on numerous occasions that he had no problem with anything I said. I figured if "invisible friend" didn't bother him, the phrase was OK to use.
Just a few days ago I posted this to Neo:
One can be decided that a personal deity is ridiculous but undecided about other deity models. I know that because I fall into that category.
Nonetheless, I don't care to participate in ridicule. I may throw in an amicable tweak here and there, but I don't subscribe to ridicule, although I did at one time. It's so un-magnanimous <g> and un-constructive. Should you see me saying anything you'd consider ridicule, I'd appreciate your providing me with some constructive criticism.
To which Neo responded:
You have a good point. I guess I would say someone admitting the possibility of a higher power would be sympathetic to the common human propensity to relate to such a power, which tends to conceive of it as a Thou, and therefore be limited in any teasing about ordinary piety......
Notice that Neo did not give me any "constructive criticism." In fact, he used the word, teasing, in his reply.
So, Mr. Prosecutor, with the acceptance of both Greg and Neo, our resident religious barometers, I had good reason to believe that I was on solid ground in the ridicule department. It's hard to understand, if I don't bother them, why I might offend those of, shall we say, less religious commitment.
Karen |
