> with faith in Christ I have been healed many times
I think you might be undercutting a few other factors here, though whatever helps your ability to persevere when in such a vulnerable state isn't a nil-factor :)
I think you might be undercutting a few other factors here, though whatever helps your ability to persevere when in such a vulnerable state isn't a nil-factor :)
It's difficult to discern precisely the claim you're making, but it is suggestive, something to the effect that all religious people reduce all good events to miraculous acts. If that is the case, then you are misinformed and - it would seem - painting all "religious" people with the same broad brush. I would strongly recommend looking at something like JPII's encyclical "Fides et Ratio" [0].
As the OP would appear to be a Christian, I will say that according to a robust and mature Christian understanding of the world and its relation to God, there is a distinction between what are called primary causality and secondary causality. While all that exists is granted its existence and causal power by God (primary causality), within the created order and thus within the domain of secondary causes, things operate as genuine causes. This is not some kind of occasionalism where the world is more or less a kind of cosmic puppet theater. So there is no contradiction between gratitude for, say, a doctor's successful intervention and the divine cause that enables it, even when nothing miraculous has occurred (whether quoad substantiam, quoad subjectum, or quoad modum et ordinem).
> i agree that this type of cope may actually be useful, though, it's just insulting at the same time.
I suppose understanding this latter sentence presupposes understanding the first, but I would point back to the division of causal orders above, and perhaps be mindful of superbia vitae.
[0] https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...
> a doctor's successful intervention and the divine cause that enables it
For religious people there is always the single factor, and it's always a bit insulting when they remind you they view the world this way.
I'm a religious person. I both agree that I'm here because of my own choices and the choices of those around me, which were highly influenced by an uncountable of chance events that led to those decisions being made at that time and place.
And at the same time, I choose to point to God that what has happened is what has happened.
I do agree, there are those who do make it seem like only God did this thing, as if any rando person could have done that surgery or what have you. But saying "for religious people..." is being overly reductive IMO.
You'd probably be a bit offended if you encountered someone in the wild who told you that your religious beliefs sound more like a child's fairytale than an accurate understanding of how the universe functions.
Similarly, others will be offended when you tell them "things happen for a reason, under the guidance of a conscious actor."
No one is being overly reductive or misunderstanding anything -- we just disagree. And that's okay.
What I'm talking about is specifically this statement:
> For religious people there is always the single factor
That for all religious people there is only a single factor, that factor being God. As if nobody else's own work and struggle enabled that positive outcome, it was just God that stepped in and make everything just magically happen every time. I've experienced people (plenty, trust me) who lived life this way, and I totally get the frustration at dealing with such people. Because, in the end they usually use such a mindset to not give a shit about the people who were actually there that made the positive outcome happen. They can ignore giving back and supporting those who toiled to ensure the positive outcome happened.
Suggesting all religious people live live this way and with this viewpoint is painting a very negative view of all religious people. Tons of religious people absolutely do not have this viewpoint, at all, even if they see God's influence in their lives.
I absolutely still credit the surgeon for my survival, I definitely still tip my bar tender for a good time.
I think you're just getting hung up on phrasing here. No one is stating this literally -- it's obviously easily disproven.
Change 1-2 words and you'll see what people really believe (and it's true):
> For many religious people there is always a specific factor that is present, that factor being God.
You are basically saying that while the surgeon did have a hand in the outcome, some god intervened in the process and allowed/enabled it to occur. You have to understand that to the rest of us, this belief is absurd and hard to take seriously.
I can easily disprove you.
Here it is:
> For religious people there is always the single factor
Once again that line is:
> there is always the single factor
Lets zoom in
> always the single factor
Continue zooming in
> single factor
> while the surgeon did have a hand in the outcome, some god intervened in the process and allowed/enabled it to occur
Yes, as in multiple factors, enabled by God. Note, you mention the surgeon having a hand in the outcome. How could that then be a single factor?
> You have to understand that to the rest of us, this belief is absurd and hard to take seriously.
Ok, but don't argue that I'm stating its a single factor as if I don't give a shit about the fact the doctor spent a lot of effort to be trained and all the thousands of years of healthcare led to that knowledge being given. I can absolutely still respect and acknowledge that...meaning...not a single factor.
I'm referring to a "single factor," as in one factor among many.
You are getting caught up in phrasing, and you're actually being blinded by it.
Best of luck.
(Assuming you're not just role-playing being involved:)
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
Maybe HN expects everyone to respect their stupid rules. Bad expectation to have.
> No one is stating this literally
> You are getting caught up in phrasing
This is a text message board, how else am I supposed to take something other than the way someone chose to state things in text? Should I take their body language into account? The phrasing is truly all I have to go by.
> Change 1-2 words and you'll see what people really believe
Maybe you should have actually gone with those other sets of words then, assuming you're really the same person I was replying to? I'm replying to a specific comment, not some imagined idea of a comment with a radically different meaning.
And fwiw, I've definitely been around a lot of people who essentially use "God did this" to downplay thanking people for their hard work and efforts in the positive outcomes in life. I can totally get and agree with how annoying and shitty this kind of mentality can be. If someone has truly only known that kind of religious person, I can get how it would be easy to assume all religious people are that same kind of shitty. But they're definitely not all like that.
Its like I'm replying to "all birds are blue" and saying "nah there's a red bird over there, and they actually come in a lot of colors" and then you come in and say "nobody is saying all birds are blue..."
You might take this to reflect how not all religious people are the same, and can't easily be grouped into a single category.
Best of luck.
As humans were more likely to celebrate the God who provides the cure more so than the God who creates the disease.