|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 26, 2009 8:30:36 GMT -5
OK - so how to deal with fundamentalist types who used to tell me that both Vince and I were going to Hell, if we didn't accept Jesus as our one and only Saviour, and who now try to console me with "you'll see Vince again in heaven one day?" ACCKK!! Now either: --They are being completely phony (they don't really believe what they're saying) --They've inexplicably and without telling anyone or showing any other signs of it, changed their beliefs (I don't think so . . .) --In an attempt to keep from facing "their truth" here, they've twisted things around in their heads so as to believe that (deep down perhaps) Vince shared their convictions, and so do I (he didn't and I don't). To date, I have been completely ignoring the "heaven" comments and changing the subject, but - I don't know what's best. Should I just continue the ignoring and hope it abates, or am I setting myself to explode? Mostly, I'd like to yell: "Don't you mean 'I'll see him again in Hell?' PLEASE SHUT UP!!! You know nothing about my son, the afterlife, or anything else!!!!" Maybe I am being too harsh and they are just dealing with a feeling of "don't know what to say," so they blurt out platitudes they are accustomed to saying? I dunno. I suspect you've pegged it with the red. Unfortunately, any kind of sensible reply ("I don't agree with your after-death beliefs" or "I'm not sure I know what happens after death" or "Do you really believe that's where he is, because that's not what you've said in the past") will surely only lead to a conversation you don't want to have. So you are left with biting your tongue or, if you think it would be better to be rude (or give them what they deserve for their presumption so as to avoid a future total explosion) you might turn it back on them: "Well, if it comforts you to believe that, fine. But I'd rather you didn't speculate on his or my afterlife, since that's a private belief and none of your sodding business." Last phrase optional. I guess it depends on whether you are in the mood to just deflect the comments (just don't respond) or rebuff or challenge. "Well, now, that's not really something you can KNOW, is it?" Or something to that effect? Like, I said, almost any response at all is going to be seen by many with that mind-set as an invitation to continue on in that vein, possibly with a view to pressuring you. You might be able to stop them cold with "I don't believe that," and a cold stare. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Oct 26, 2009 11:17:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Oct 26, 2009 11:22:54 GMT -5
OK - so how to deal with fundamentalist types who used to tell me that both Vince and I were going to Hell, if we didn't accept Jesus as our one and only Saviour, and who now try to console me with "you'll see Vince again in heaven one day?" ACCKK!! Now either: --They are being completely phony (they don't really believe what they're saying) --They've inexplicably and without telling anyone or showing any other signs of it, changed their beliefs (I don't think so . . .) --In an attempt to keep from facing "their truth" here, they've twisted things around in their heads so as to believe that (deep down perhaps) Vince shared their convictions, and so do I (he didn't and I don't). To date, I have been completely ignoring the "heaven" comments and changing the subject, but - I don't know what's best. Should I just continue the ignoring and hope it abates, or am I setting myself to explode? Mostly, I'd like to yell: "Don't you mean 'I'll see him again in Hell?' PLEASE SHUT UP!!! You know nothing about my son, the afterlife, or anything else!!!!" Maybe I am being too harsh and they are just dealing with a feeling of "don't know what to say," so they blurt out platitudes they are accustomed to saying? I dunno. My first instinct was to say you should tell them to perform an anatomically impossible act, but I suspect Sue's suggestions are better in the long run. I also agree that they're just falling back on old platitudes in lieu of coming up with something original and/or thoughtful, but I can definitely see why this apparent reversal in their attitude toward you and Vince would drive you right up the wall--hence my initial instinct. |
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 26, 2009 11:33:14 GMT -5
OK - so how to deal with fundamentalist types who used to tell me that both Vince and I were going to Hell, if we didn't accept Jesus as our one and only Saviour, and who now try to console me with "you'll see Vince again in heaven one day?" ACCKK!! Now either: --They are being completely phony (they don't really believe what they're saying) --They've inexplicably and without telling anyone or showing any other signs of it, changed their beliefs (I don't think so . . .) --In an attempt to keep from facing "their truth" here, they've twisted things around in their heads so as to believe that (deep down perhaps) Vince shared their convictions, and so do I (he didn't and I don't). To date, I have been completely ignoring the "heaven" comments and changing the subject, but - I don't know what's best. Should I just continue the ignoring and hope it abates, or am I setting myself to explode? Mostly, I'd like to yell: "Don't you mean 'I'll see him again in Hell?' PLEASE SHUT UP!!! You know nothing about my son, the afterlife, or anything else!!!!" Maybe I am being too harsh and they are just dealing with a feeling of "don't know what to say," so they blurt out platitudes they are accustomed to saying? I dunno.  Grrrrrrrrr.....stupid people. I would feel the same way as you do and would be hard pressed to bite my tongue. What would Vince say to them from beyond do you think? Nyanyanana na? |
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 26, 2009 13:03:36 GMT -5
Alan Grayson is one of the good guys. Hee. |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 26, 2009 17:11:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Sue, Sara, Karen.
My issue with these folks isn't so much that they have strong beliefs about the afterlife; I understand that some people do. What bothers me is the "switcheroo" - we were going to hell and now suddenly, we're not?
My late husband and I had a friend who became a born-again fundamentalist type. We weren't sure how it happened, as he had been out of town for several years. Anyhow, when John died - in his 20's and while still "exploring" when it came to religion - this guy decided to tell me that John was burning in hell, since he had not accepted Jesus as his Savior, and I needed to blah, blah, blah, if I didn't want to end up in the same place, etc.
I never spoke to him again. But you know, I actually respect that more than I do the "he's in heaven" stuff from people who supposedly have strong beliefs to the contrary. I mean, at least the "in Hell" guy had the courage of his convictions.
I guess you are right that they are simply falling back on platitudes because they are at a loss as to what to say . . . I like the idea of going with a "that is a private matter to me, and not something I want to discuss."
Well, thanks for helping me think it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Oct 26, 2009 20:54:23 GMT -5
Thanks, Sue, Sara, Karen. My issue with these folks isn't so much that they have strong beliefs about the afterlife; I understand that some people do. What bothers me is the "switcheroo" - we were going to hell and now suddenly, we're not? My late husband and I had a friend who became a born-again fundamentalist type. We weren't sure how it happened, as he had been out of town for several years. Anyhow, when John died - in his 20's and while still "exploring" when it came to religion - this guy decided to tell me that John was burning in hell, since he had not accepted Jesus as his Savior, and I needed to blah, blah, blah, if I didn't want to end up in the same place, etc. I never spoke to him again. But you know, I actually respect that more than I do the "he's in heaven" stuff from people who supposedly have strong beliefs to the contrary. I mean, at least the "in Hell" guy had the courage of his convictions. I guess you are right that they are simply falling back on platitudes because they are at a loss as to what to say . . . I like the idea of going with a "that is a private matter to me, and not something I want to discuss." Well, thanks for helping me think it out. I guess I would say, "I just really cherish the time I was able to spend with Vince." Let them interpret that as they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 29, 2009 9:12:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 29, 2009 9:14:24 GMT -5
I heard this on the radio this morning. Pretty darn classy of him, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 29, 2009 9:21:50 GMT -5
I heard this on the radio this morning. Pretty darn classy of him, IMHO. The video is quite moving. |
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 3, 2009 14:38:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 3, 2009 16:01:45 GMT -5
That IS idiotic. But the idea that naturalized citizens are somehow "not as American" as those born here has been around for a long, long time. I remember back when Michael Dukakis was running for Pres, several articles or talking heads would mention that Dukakis was facing some prejudice because he "did not have American parents." It just used to irritate me to no end. Dukakis' parents were American! They were as American as anybody! They just weren't American-born. That is two different things, but are often used interchangeably. Of course, this article is about something much more blatant and egregious than casual misuse of terms. Anyhow - blech. |
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 4, 2009 21:15:06 GMT -5
Well, that confirms that.
After watching "V" I definitely thought that if I came at it from a Republican POV I would think that they were definitely writing an allegory (is that the correct usage?) to the Obama groupies.
And, I just read exactly that comment on TVGuide.com. [They have a "what is your favorite new show" thread and one commenter said "V, by far, for the great analogies to the obummer administration!]
Not surprised, really, that someone would draw that parallel (even though I don't agree). So, back when the original was aired who were we supposed to this the "V" were analogous to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 4, 2009 23:43:55 GMT -5
The 6:00 update on Referendum 71 to preserve"everything but marriage" domestic partnership law in Washington increased the win margin by .5%. It's almost certain to pass, especially since the most conservative counties had the highest early-ote totals.
Julia, and Tim Eyman's latest little stink bomb is being hammered, 44-56.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 4, 2009 23:46:11 GMT -5
Well, that confirms that. After watching "V" I definitely thought that if I came at it from a Republican POV I would think that they were definitely writing an allegory (is that the correct usage?) to the Obama groupies. And, I just read exactly that comment on TVGuide.com. [They have a "what is your favorite new show" thread and one commenter said "V, by far, for the great analogies to the obummer administration!] Not surprised, really, that someone would draw that parallel (even though I don't agree). So, back when the original was aired who were we supposed to this the "V" were analogous to? Let me go on recordas hating the "universal health care" line. |
|
