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!

^ have not gave. Typo.

Hairbrush

I never said people don't have the right to believe what they want.

I said......do you respect all religious beliefs? Rather different...or can you not tell the difference?

Where did I say "faith can offer no benefit to anyone"? Clearly it can. Doesn't make it true, which actually matters to some of us.

I could make a general argument regarding faith...the inherent stupidity of it and the immorality of supporting and enabling such a flawed way of thinking given that horrific scars "faith" is leaving on our planet.

Bit I can't be bothered since a) you failed to understand a fairly basic point I made and b) tried to put words in my mouth.

Oh FGS Apricot.

Do I respect all religious beliefs? no, then. Not every single one of them. If you are regarding it essential to respect everything in the bible for example to respect christianity. Because there is no singular set of religious beliefs whether that be Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or anything else.

There are varying beliefs within each religion. For some Christian women covering their heads when they prophecy is important, for other women who are christians - they don't believe the gift of prophecy is still available to christians nowadays.

Because it all depends on interpretation!

You simply have no right to define "dysfunctional thinking" in others and apply it to your religion at all, Capsium.

I am amazed that you are still trying to justify this.

Someone is unhappy. You decide - because of your Christianity - that their thinking is dysfunctional, this is harmful to them and so you and take it upon yourself to correct their thinking?

You can't see the arrogance here?

Maybe take your bonkers notions and butt out of other people's lives. The last thing anyone who actually has dysfunctional thinking needs to hear about is your late night chats with your imagined galactic overlord.

Send them to a doctor.

And if that's "rude" so be it. I am genuinely appalled at you.

And done. More important things require my attention.

I know the definition for dysfunctional thinking, Apricot, and has as much right to apply it as anyone else has because everyone is acting out of their own beliefs and perceptions in this sense. Just because my beliefs include Christian ones it does not negate them. If I do try to help anyone it is because I see a need for help, it is not malicious, it is heart felt.

You can be appalled all you like but it doesn't get you very far. It does not deter me from doing what I can to help people.

The last thing anyone who actually has dysfunctional thinking needs to hear about is your late night chats with your imagined galactic overlord.

Hairbrush

Good. Then we are in agreement that not all religious beliefs are deserving of respect.

So why call me rude for not repecting the beliefs I've addressed on this thread? Do you decide which ones I have to respect and which ones not?

And I explicity said that I know much of the Bible (OT) is parable, metaphor etc and not meant to be taken literally. Although, contrary to some people's opinions, it has been taken literally by Christians through history.

But I think it's reasonable for anyone calling themselves a follower of Jesus to actually, you know, follow his teachings.

Have you actually read the NT? Know how many teachings the average Christian follows? Virtually none.

I simply made the point that if Christianity - and what else is it except the teachings of Jesus - is not good enough for most Christians, why all the demanded respect for it? Perfectly valid point.

And this makes me "rude"?

Do you also find people who talk about sky fairies the height of wit smilla?

I don't have any faith and don't tolerate people ramming their beliefs down my throat - whether they have a rampant belief in God or gods or none.

But I find sneering at people's quiet beliefs childish and ignorant.

Hairbrush

"Rude, thoughtless and hypocritical" are not personal attacks. But then neither is "narrow minded".

They are assertions to be defended as far as I'm concerned.

Nowhere near as ignorant and childish as deciding, all by yourself, that you are so monumentally important that other people should take note of what you think and adjust their behaviour accordingly.

I've sneered at no one. If you are so completely unable to understand a) the importance of all of us being able to criticise beliefs and b) the difference between sneering at a belief and sneering at a believer then, trust me, Limited your opinion is of absolutely no value to me.

Think that clears that up.

And thanks, Smila. Burning sausages call me away now.

You sound overtired apricot.

I wasn't talking to you in that last post btw so if one of us has monumental feelings of importance, it's not me.

Then we are in agreement that not all religious beliefs are deserving of respect.

However I think that the person who believes them has a right not to be belittled for it.

And the bible hasn't been taken literally through history at all, I'm not sure where you have taken that from? The bible didn't even exist available to the average believer for hundreds of years. The bible is a collection of texts, which throughout the years have morphed and some sayings exist within it that give entirely another meaning when read in another culture literally. For example, that is is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. The "eye of a needle" is also apparently what a gate in Jerusalem is referred to, smaller than the main gate and used by animals/servants I think iirc (been a long time since I was there) and its entirely possible that Jesus was talking about not being attached to material possessions rather than saying it's impossible to be both rich and enter Gods Kingdom.

The books in the bible were passed on by oral tradition, added to, and changed by scribes over the years - we know this because we have texts that have been dated that differ. Such as the popular woman at the well story - that wasn't in the earlier versions. Later on its been added in by a scribe. It has such a powerful redemptive message in it, why on earth not include it from the start? Unless it simply conveyed a point someone wanted to get across a bit more.

But I think it's reasonable for anyone calling themselves a follower of Jesus to actually, you know, follow his teachings

Have you actually read the NT? Know how many teachings the average Christian follows? Virtually none.

Of course I have read it. Multiple times. Earlier in this thread I have talked about being raised within a cult Christian community.

I simply made the point that if Christianity - and what else is it except the teachings of Jesus - is not good enough for most Christians, why all the demanded respect for it? Perfectly valid point.

Christianity doesn't appear to be the teachings of Jesus necessarily and exclusively. It appears to be people's interpretations of the bible or their own relationship with a higher conciousness or teachings of Jesus. Sometimes all three. Jesus didn't write the bible, and compared to everyone else he doesn't talk that much. That's what I found anyhow. Paul said an awful lot though which is what a large amount of christianity is based upon.

I think the only 'holy' book that I know of that could claim to be written and the teachings of one person alone would be the Koran but even then Muslims still read the bible, because they believe Jesus was a prophet so it's still not a faith being entirely formed out of one source.

*Do you also find people who talk about sky fairies the height of wit smilla?

I don't have any faith and don't tolerate people ramming their beliefs down my throat - whether they have a rampant belief in God or gods or none.

But I find sneering at people's quiet beliefs childish and ignorant.*

I found the phrasing amusing and apt in the specific context of what Apricot was arguing against. Perhaps you haven't really been following the debate but don't assume no-one else has.

And no, I don't find 'sky fairies' funny, because it's usually used by people who have no understanding or experience at all of Christianity or religion in general. The same people who throw Leviticus in as their only argument and congratulate themselves on a job well done.

There is plenty to criticise in Christianity and religious beliefs (and other superstition) more generally and while many religious beliefs may be 'quiet', they are all dangerous.

I find religious apologists who try to shut down criticism of religious belief by 'black-sheeping' critics, while painting themselves as tolerant and sympathetic in contrast, childish and ignorant. And potentially more dangerous than the people entertaining 'quiet' religious beliefs.

I found the phrasing amusing and apt in the specific context of what Apricot was arguing against.

Did you smilla? I found apricot's arguments quite bonkers with increasing heavy periods of bonkersness.

I am reassured by the fact that she disassociates herself from my views so vehemently. I'd be worried if she agreed with me.

And I have been following the debate - which began as a request for advice about what to do about a zealot - from the start.

Zealots are mad. Whether religious or secular. Don't you agree?

Are you going to address the arguments Apricot is putting forward, or are you just going to keep pointing and laughing and hoping everyone starts doing so with you?

IMO Apricot hasn't put any arguments worth addressing Smilla.

Her views are zealous and expressed in an insulting and childish manner.

I have no religious faith either but I would run a million miles before being associated with them.

I was already pointing and laughing at Apricots 'arguments', I don't need anybody else or a book of fairytales to tell me right from wrong.

"But I find sneering at people's quiet beliefs childish and ignorant.*

The problem is that people often seem to think "disagreeing" or "challenging" is the same as "sneering"

And "quiet beliefs" is the same as " thinking your beliefs should give you special privileges within society"

Then we are in agreement that not all religious beliefs are deserving of respect.

However I think that the person who believes them has a right not to be belittled for it

But surely that can't be a blanket rule? If I come across someone who chooses to believe in and operate a religion that decides, for instance, that non-white people are automatically inferior, I can't see that that would be deserving of respect.

But surely that can't be a blanket rule? If I come across someone who chooses to believe in and operate a religion that decides, for instance, that non-white people are automatically inferior, I can't see that that would be deserving of respect.

I suppose when it comes to less offensive things, it's easier to do. But my own experience of having been raised in a cult christianity suggests to me that people don't 'choose' to believe. They do or they don't but no choosing is involved. I struggled with the fact I did believe things that were incredibly unhelpful to me for years before I was able to break free of the church and I've only managed to lessen some beliefs by researching them for years even after breaking free of the church. I think if you start out with a basic belief in a higher power and then you're introduced to the notion that this higher power is a particular God from a particular religion with a particular set of rules, people are easily manipulated into accepting it just is that way and then trapped into defending it because they think they must believe it in order to actually believe in their God.

I think if they're not imposing it on anybody else (who doesn't subscribe to that lifestyle) you shouldn't mock someone for believing something, because they're not doing so out of a simple choice. They're trapped in it. I don't think people want to be bigots. I think it's really sad, and I would draw the line at say the Westbro baptist church deserving any respect picketing at funerals because they're imposing their own standard in the lifestyle they've signed up to on others who simply don't.

But say the quiet Christian who is gay and subscribes to a sect which does think homosexuality is a sin to practice and chooses to live a celibate life because of it - I think that has a right to be respected, it's incredibly sad imo, but they're not imposing it on anyone but themselves and mocking them for believing it isn't going to help them escape the belief and live a happier life. That person already feels their faith offers them more than what living the life they could if they weren't a Christian could offer them.

Don't think I'm explaining very well. But I know that people mocking beliefs I held did nothing to undo my faith when I had it. If anything, people being rude about it was seen as a good sign (at the time, in that mindset) because it meant the world heathen held very different standards to the believers. It would only deepen that belief

I think disrespecting what someone believes is futile, and unfair because people don't arrive at that point based on just one belief, there's a whole framework of other beliefs going on before someone accepts something which is culturally accepted as bigoted and imposes it on themselves. As long as they don't impose it on others, who aren't subscribing to their sect/group/version I think I can respect their belief in that I won't be rude or mocking of the fact they believe it

Sorry to but in, but I've been googling "Pokey". He claims to be a "counsellor", specialising in working with people who have suffered childhood sexual abuse. I can't see that he has any qualifications, neither is he a member of any professional body that I can find. Any thoughts?

Am going to rephrase that -the MD claims he is a "counsellor". Also, the links on Pokey's website redirect you to a counselling website.

where he is named as a counsellor

OP If you're asking for thoughts on your latest post here are mine - give it a rest.

You've obviously got a huge problem with this person generally, and that is your issue.

You posted a specific thing which you asked for advice about, even though it sounds like you'd resolved it already.

Don't ask us to have an interest in or vilify this person who none of us on the thread even know. It isn't of interest and as we do not know him, or his job, or his website, it's ridiculous and shit-stirring to ask for further comments.

I had a boss who made us attend weekly meetings where he would give us pep talks about life skills. Grrrr, I found it all tremendously inappropriate for the workplace and when he disappeared it turned out he was in prison charged with paedophilia