God-bothering at work

[WhereToSheNow]

New MD hired his buddy/neighbour 6 months ago for a few hours a week to act as a Management Consultant.

The Management Consultant, who we call "Pokey" (because he keeps jabbing us in the arm) has some sort of official capacity within the Baptist Church, and his website is all about the application of his faith within business.

I didn't have a problem with that, as he hadn't mentioned religion.... until last week.

He attended a "World Leadership Course" and emailed us his notes, with several quotes about God and Jesus, telling us to read them and "feel free to ask any questions". In a meeting the following day, he asked us what we thought of his email.

I told him that I don't want to be included in emails that reference any religion/god, at which point he became very defensive.

Later that day I received another email where he said that he was sorry if the contents of his previous email had offended me, but that he hoped I would gain some insight that would assist me in my professional or personal life.

AIBU to think that my work should a) be a secular space and b) my personal life is none of his business!

Capsium

Regarding witchcraft, I have been in exactly the position you are suggesting. On MN too.

Someone a while ago called themselves an atheist and a "white witch" on a thread.

The atheist bit was not relevant - I think anyone claiming to be able to do any mind of witchcraft was a dangerous, deluded pillock.

Your other examples - dogmatically believed professional positions - are poor analogies. Do these professionals have any evidence for their hypotheses? Their fellow professionals expect them.

You have NO evidence for your hypothesis. And yet you pronounce them and expect your word to be enough.

And we atheists are the arrogant ones?

If you were an atheist who also held fixed views which dictated what you thought 'dysfunctional" meant, then yes. I know plenty of Christians who can think people are wrong without also thinking them "dysfunctional"

Apricot acknowledging and talking about different interpretations is not 'intellectually dishonest' or facile, it is simply acknowledging fact.

There are different interpretations and understandings talked about in the Bible, this continued throughout church history - it is why there were various councils to establish what was orthodox and what was heresy.

Acknowledging different interpretation and understandings, is not about embarrassment, it is simple humility, as it is an acknowledgement of the biases implicit within human perceptions and understanding.

Your other examples - dogmatically believed professional positions - are poor analogies. Do these professionals have any evidence for their hypotheses? Their fellow professionals expect them.

You have NO evidence for your hypothesis. And yet you pronounce them and expect your word to be enough.

Apricot, one example would be favouring 'early intervention' (as cited in policy documents) within the education system. This is, in practice, is intervening before adequate evidence has been collected, to establish whether there is actually difficulty present or what the exact nature of the difficulty (if it exists) may be. My evidence for this is through direct experience with my own DC and reading related case studies.

Bertrand I tend to think of behaviours, not people, as dysfunctional, so no I don't think 'them dysfunctional' (when 'them' refers to people).

Acknowledging what "fact" exactly?

Quote me the passage in the Bible which says, "Decide for yourselves which bit is real and which isn't" (or words to that effect).

Yes, historically, Christians have argued, debated and discussed which bits were "orthodox". Who helped them out? God? No. They decided for themselves based on their own ideas of what their religion was about. How did they know they were discarding the right gospels?

In other words, the religion that emerged was entirely man made supported by carefully chosen supportive passages from a few books. Chosen by THEM to shore up the ideology that THEY invented.

No god required at all.

On this basis, I could invent a religion with Delia Smith's Christmas as my sacred text. Or Fifty Shads of Grey. Or absolutely anything at all.

It is the great book of multiple choice, the bible.

Want to love your neighbours and be kind? Marvelous...the Bible says you should.

Want to be a ranting, sexist, homophobic bigot? It's got your back there too.

Interestingly - and devastatingly for "liberal" Christians - nasty people have far, far, far more nasty passages to call upon than the nice people do.

That's because the Bible actually has very little to say about love and kindness. Odd when you consider that the entire religion is supposed to be about that.

I am a bit at people like Apricot and Love who think being a Christian is solely about taking the Bible literally. There are Christians like that, but actually it's a pretty recent thing. Historically the vast majority of Christians used Tradition and Reason along with Scripture - Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, many more moderate Protestants. Wesleyans (Methodists, Salvation Army, Pentecostals) would add Experience. This is because it follows in the Jewish tradition of using commentary alongside Scripture to interpret it. Even the strictest Orthodox Jews use a degree of interpretation. Not using the Bible alone is actually the oldest form of Christianity. However interpreting ancient dead languages is not easy and I would question anyone using an English translation only as Scriptural evidence.

I think the Bible is written by individual humans who have some inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but I don't think the Bible is error-free. But because my tradition doesn't use the Bible alone, to me that doesn't matter. I follow and serve Christ, therefore I am a Christian. I don't think evangelism only takes the form of literally telling people about God in an obnoxious way but is a broader category. I don't know what special privileges I am supposed to demand - I don't claim to live in 'A Christian Nation' and think secularisation is a good thing for society, I would expect all religions and none to be treated the same in the workplace regarding time off for holidays etc.

I think for anyone to make assumptions of strangers' personal beliefs and say that they are not 'really Christians' is extremely rude. There are many Christians who I don't think exactly radiate the love of God, but I would never claim that they are not really Christians. That is between them and God alone.

Capsium

Well, I would imagine that the thinking there was that unncecessary intervention would be less damaging than no intervention at all if need subsequently emerged.

This is not even faintly the same thing about proclamations regarding a god, and you know it.

Are you attempting a version of Pascal's Wager with this analogy?

A quick question for the believers ....
Where was God at Beslan?

Apricot the fact I was talking about was the fact that different understandings and interpretations exist.

Romans 14, for example, talks extensively about acting according to (one's individual) faith and how to properly act when someone else's Christian Faith differs from your own in some respects.

And 1 Corinthians 13 is just one section that highlights love as the absolute priority above all else...

Oh, here come the "rude brigade". "Waaaahhhhh...I don't like what you're saying about my precious beliefs, so I shall try to use my moral suoeriority to shut you up, you RUDE person".

Don't waste my time, thanks.

Got any evidence for this "inspiration from the Holy Spirit"? Because that's the only part I'm interested in.

Oh, and evidence that Jesus's teachings have not been taken literally for most of Christian history.

Thought not.

Incidentally, this whole "It's always been seen as allegory" is not altogether true.

The big-name early Christian thinkers counselled that the Bible should be seen as BOTH history and allegory.

Adam and Eve was both literally true and had an allegorical message.

Apricot 'early intervention' requires acting upon beliefs, though. As opposed to acting upon evidence. This was in reference to your comment that professionals expect evidence. This is an example which requires them not to.

Presumably the evidence for "early intervention" is "what worked in similar situations in the past"

Bertrand that is not evidence, though. There are no 'similar situations' when the a) the exact situation has not been established and b) each child is an individual. In life, we are not dealing controlled conditions, as in a laboratory or even identical subjects being exposed to those conditions. The variables are endless.

^ and added to this the success criteria of 'what worked' is moot when there is no control, no identical person subjected to different treatment, to compare outcomes with.

What other sort of evidence is there?

This analogy of yours is very shaky, Capsium.

If academia took the view that only data collected from IDENTICAL situations could be relied upon, nothing would ever get done.

You know what evidence means, right? Not confusing it with "proof", are you?

Godstopper
"Someone who believes in the world's first zombie"

I have to take offence at that,

Jesus was not a Zombie. He was not mindless nor did he consume anyone.
Nor was he a Ghoul or a Wight. Although his soul and intellect were intact, he was not a rotting corpse.
He was not a Vampire. Whilst he transubstantiated wine in to blood, he never drank it as a person,
Jesus was not a Ghost or a Wraith. He was corporeal and still had his wounds.
It is clear that Jesus was a LICH.
A Lich is created when a powerful magician or King striving for eternal life uses spells or rituals to bind his soul to an animated corpse and thereby achieves immortality. Liches are depicted as being clearly cadaverous, their bodies still bearing the wounds they received before death. Liches often have the power of necromancy, which allows them to bring the dead back to life.

Surely you are not claiming the practise of 'early intervention' is at all evidence based Bertrand? To my mind, it seems to involve as much faith as religious practises. All that differs is the dogma.

You know what evidence means, right? Not confusing it with "proof", are you?

Interesting point, Apricot, I am, I admit, as affected by the unstable nature of the common usage of our language, as anyone else. Meanings can so easily be degraded, can't they?

Be sure to remember this point when looking for evidence for God though. Personal experiences, ancient writings and anecdotal evidence does count.

Surely you are not claiming the practise of 'early intervention' is at all evidence based Bertrand? To my mind, it seems to involve as much faith as religious practises. All that differs is the dogma."

I don't even know what you mean by "early intervention" I'm afraid. But I do know that significNt numbers of people who have been testable helped by something counts as evidence. Anecdote alone doesn't.

Capsium

Yes, I know that different interpretations exist.

The point is, the fact that they do at all is very telling.

Why would something as important as a communication from the creator of the universe is kefg so open to flawed human interpretations.

And who decides which interpretation is correct.

No - you can't say "We must all decide that for ourselves" - not when you've just finished explaining that you consider it your duty on behalf of God to spread the word.

Whose word, exactly? They are all apparently different.

Bertrand lots of Christians would testify to being helped by God. Ta- dah!!!!There you see, evidence.

Have no idea where "is kefg" came from.

Put "be" in it's place.