By thursday I need an expert opinion (probably a psychologist, or something) saying that religious change won't come just from discussion, but has to begin from within a person.

On Friday, I have a debate and my case says "we shouldn't debate religion because people's opinions can't be changed, and only conflict can come from discussion", or something to that effect. It stands under the dictates of "common sense" but I'm going up against someone really good (see my post in Humanities) and something tells me he won't take "common sense" as evidence.

Just so I don't look totally lazy, google didn't help at all, nor did wikipedia or my evidence packet for this topic.

Thanks!

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

By thursday I need an expert opinion (probably a psychologist, or something) saying that religious change won't come just from discussion, but has to begin from within a person.

On Friday, I have a debate and my case says "we shouldn't debate religion because people's opinions can't be changed, and only conflict can come from discussion", or something to that effect. It stands under the dictates of "common sense" but I'm going up against someone really good (see my post in Humanities) and something tells me he won't take "common sense" as evidence.

Thanks!

Since your debate is about religion, talk to a pastor (or some religious leader).. actually maybe a few, from different churches and religions. Although some may not be what some would feel are an "expert", they are professionals, have gone through schooling, and are generally available and willing to help.



Also, maybe call a shrink (for almost the same reasons) and see if he/she would be willing to jot something down for you, or maybe steer you toward an author or resource.

Kinda ironic that your case is the opposite of what we do on TOTSE everyday, although it is good testemony for your (debate) case.

Servius once said that religion consisted in nothing but experience. Maybe you could start with that?

"We can't change others, but we can change ourselves".

Indeed, this much is true. True change comes from deep within.. it has to be from the root upwards. Sure, you can take an apple tree and stick oranges on it artificially, but it is still an apple tree in essence and root.

To argue that genuine, sincere, and meaningful change can come from discussion or debate is to make a mockery of faith. You might be able to convince a harlot to dress like a nun, but if you didn't address the ailment in her heart, you have done nothing in the way of truly helping her, except to cover and hide the weeds, when they needed to be gently plucked.

Leave the debates and discourses to the scholars. It is their job, and part of their academic qualifications. It was not meant for the layman.

Telling someone they are wrong in their beliefs, no matter how discreet and indirectly, it will not work. When you address the ego, do you expect the heart to respond? What is the matter with you? How judge ye? Ofcourse, you do not like me in this tone of speech, then why do you expect others to? A self appointed scholar or saint is neither. The true teacher comes with the heart of a servant & a student. Without this essential quality, without this politeness and courtesy, regardless of the merits of your argument, your preaching amounts to naught. Pharoah; as much of a tyrant he was, and apparently undeserving of any politeness except a severe scolding, yet, however, God instructed Moses to speak a word of kindness to him and to pass on a gentle hand of admonition, incase he may reflect and return to righteousness. Who here will argue with God over this matter? Does not the Creator know best His creation?

When we are 'witnessing' (preaching), we have to stop and verify if our intentions are pure. We have to ask ourselves, are we really speaking to give these souls the peace and rest that they long for, serving our neighbours for their sake.... or are we caught in a subtle form of egoism? are we serving our own ego.. trying to prove our intellectual prowess to ourselves?

Let me take this moment, to clarify our position. We are not wholly against dialogue. If there are good intentions, there is potential for healthy, and fruitful discussion and understanding. We hope, that with God's help, we are able to convey and witness the Truth with complete sincerity. To stand for what is true and just with disregard to the likes and dislikes of our ego, our lower self. We do not claim to be the sole possessors of absolute truth, nor do we claim that one is right and another is wrong. We believe that the intellect, the faculty of reason, is like a fertile ground, which needs to be cultivated and tended to with diligence and care. If it is handled carefully, then wisdom will be its sweet smelling roses. If we get fixated on the fertile soil, the intellect, then we are fighting over the land, this earth... and we miss the mark, because our goals are the fruits from the divine. We do not till the soil for the sake of tilled soil, do we? No! we do it for the roses.

Therefore, it is our opinion, that to make intellectual discussion the primary force or cause for meaningful change, to be a form of degrading to the message which Jesus brought. Did Jesus not ask you to believe in him without the need for miracles? History is replete with similar feats, why don't you follow them? Is it not the case, that Jesus won your heart over, with his exalted character of compassion, and mercy, and love? No doubt, Jesus used his intellect in his preaching, but the intellect was not the end all of everything. Rather, he utilized his intellect to demonstrate his love and to express the wisdom behind his actions.

To say that merely discussion alone can bring about genuine and meaningful change is to offer a cheapened version of the actual reality. It is to limit ourselves. It is likened to scooping a glassful of water from the pacific, and then pointing to it, saying; "This is ocean". While it is true in some sense, it is not seeing things in the whole. It is to fall short of our real purpose.

The intellect, like a sword, can be used to cut deep or hurt others, but there is no mercy in a blade that is dull. Let us utilize it for good purposes.

We do not ask anyone to believe blindly in anything that has been said. We encourage others to be sincere, and honest enough with themselves to surrender to the truths which there hearts witness. We only ask for some integrity. Our goal is not to win debates or prove some form of superiority... that is the selfish kind of preaching, the self righteous kind. Our message is that our intellect is not the house, but the foundation, which allows us the wisdom to give shelter to needy and longing souls, with our sincerity and compassion. If we appeal to the minds of people, our faith becomes dry, and our light begins to fade.. because this kind of religion, is the religion of the books and the minds. It does not live in the hearts of people. Our method of 'witnessing' is not limited to the times we are quoting the Bible or the Quran, but our whole life. To truly serve God, is to follow His commands with sincere devotion, and to reach out to other people, to appeal and speak to their hearts.

This is our religion. Love is the water of life, and the body is it's vessel. Instead of proving how good our glass is, let us quench people's thirsts. In that moment, words fade in its splendour, and we experience the divine.

God bless you all.

-----------

I hope that helps.

-[Soofi]

Tyrant, I'm not sure how well Servius would work, but if I can't think of anything better by tomorrow I'll go with it.

Soofi, good discourse, but not what I was looking for. You see, I'm in debate, and so discourse is what I'm doing. I need real evidence. I follow your reasoning and agree with it, but in debate, quotes by experts lend a more credible air to a case, so they're necessary - particularly because, when you read your post, you'll see that it's unfounded, at its base. Is an expert opinion much better? No, but it looks better.

I understand.

However, if I could just point out.. the type of discussion/debate you are currently in, is different to the type of dialogue which takes place in religious matters.

When we are dealing with things of this world, we can use the intellect alone and reach conclusions, modify our positions etc.. because we are dealing with the mind, and using the intellect to further it's knowledge. In my view, using the intellect to cause change in the heart is foolish.. it's like taking the hammer to a screw. It may drive it through, but it was not meant to be.. and it's consequences is that there is a weak hold. It lacks true conviction for the person.

Ofcourse, it's all dependant on what you are trying to accomplish in this talk/debate, and which methods you use. You could ask psychologists and personality experts, but in my opinion, a better source would be the Prophets of God who were sent with the sole mission to bring about religious change.

One can use fancy words, and quotations, and impress the people.. but it doesn't do much in the way of winning people's hearts.

Anyway. Good luck in your talk, and finding your experts. lol

-[Soofi]

Well, I dropped the whole subpoint because my case was waaaay too long (like 1500 words, had to drop it to 1000 to get it in 6 minutes).

if it gives you an ego boost, Tyrant, I did have the Servius quote before I killed the contention. My case was just way too fucking long; I could've done it but I would have had to talk like 4words per second, and that would really turn off a lot of judges.