Entitled to opinions
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Unless, of course, your opinion is in direct divergence with mine. Then, you're an idiot. Or a bigot. Or a freak. Or a ... well, pick a name to call someone.
And then? The firestorms begin.
Interesting creatures, aren't we? We are all for diversity, love everyone, free expression of ideas...right up until we disagree with them.
What is it about us that does this? Tell you what, let me take the generic "us" out of the picture. Let me focus on where the problem really lies....me.
What is it about ME that does this? Perhaps it's time to look at my own opinions and see how I arrived there.
Opinions are exactly that...opinions. They may be based in fact, or knowledge, or...not. It is a view or judgement of something formed or held by an individual (sometimes a group). It can be thoughts, viewpoint, way of thinking about something, ideas, outlook, attitude, stance, beliefs, perspective, standpoint...
So, in a nutshell, this whole "opinion" thing is a bit gray. That is, until I have one. Then it's pretty solid.
So, what does it matter if I have an opinion on something? Don't I have a right to free thought and ability to form my own opinions? Yes, I do. So does everyone.
So, if I have the opinion that, say, the path to a joy-filled life is X, isn't that my right? Yes, it is.
But what if there are others in this world that don't think the same as me? Isn't that their right, too? Yes, it is.
So, Uncle Sparky, what's the problem? (***side-note: Uncle Sparky is what my nieces call me).
Well, the problem comes about when I insist that everyone think exactly the same way I do about X. Or, conversely, others who don't think the same way insist to me that I MUST think the way they do.
Aren't I silly to think I can persuade someone to think the same way as I do when they have not had the same experiences or knowledge-base as me?
Let me give you an example:
I am a Bible-believing Christian. That is my faith. It is a conscious decision that I have made. As such, there are certain things I believe, a certain way I choose to live my life, certain black and white "non-negotiables" that form the basis of my faith, belief system and mind-set. Because of this focus, there are certain opinions that I hold on various topics. One bedrock principle I believe is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Yes, there's much more to it than that, but let's start with that one thing.
Now this may come as a shock to some, but there are people in this world who are NOT like me. They have NOT had the experiences, upbringing, learning, life-lessons, etc., that I have had. Wonder of wonders, some of those folks do NOT believe, as I do, that Christ is the Son of God. There are even some people out there who think that Christ was not only NOT an historical figure, but is more of a fairy tale or folk tale, kind of like Paul Bunyon.
Now, I ask you...if I make a statement based on my faith in Christ as the Son of God...how could I possibly expect anyone who does not believe as I believe, to give my statements in that regard any credence? Regardless of the number of polls I submitted as evidence, regardless of the many times I could recount to them that Christ impacted my life on a personal level, a non-believer is going to remain a non-believer. So long as our fundamental belief, our bed-rock non-negotiable, is different.
Now...if said non-believer(s) are willing to listen, I will happily share my limited knowledge of God, the Creator, His story as shown in the Bible, and the plan of Salvation that was created by the triune God, evidenced by His Son, the Christ, and the on-going presence of the Holy Spirit.
But...if said non-believer(s) are not willing to listen, then I have two options. I can go ahead and present my case for Christ to them, and when they turn a deaf ear call them out as morons, fools, narrow-minded bigots, ultra-anti-Christian wingnuts... because then, for SURE, they will listen to me about the love of Christ. That approach, for SURE, will make them want to be more like me, so they can think like me and act like me and...um...hmmm....maybe not my best approach.
What is it about me that makes me think that by denigrating what someone else believes, I will convince them of the rightness of my opinion, and the wrongness of theirs?
But when you talk about faith, Uncle Sparky, you are talking about matters that cannot be substantiated with facts. Scientific theory, supported by documented experimentation and peer-reviewed data, is the only path to the truth. And truth cannot be argued. Truth is reality.
Really? Let me muddy your waters further. "Reality" can be altered by language and/or perception. Don't believe me? It's called "advertising" in the marketplace. In warfare, it's called PsyOps. In the media, it's called over-saturation. In some circles, there's even the concept of misinformation, designed to create a magnet toward a concept that is later found to be the opposite of what was the original intent all along. Truth does NOT equal Reality. A person's perception is their reality.
Truth. Let's talk about truth.
Truth is based on indisputable facts, right? I mean, things that everyone can agree on. And Truth never changes, it's always the same. It's something everyone (especially the established experts) can agree on.
So...as recently as the mid-19th century, bloodletting was the accepted practice for many medical ailments. It was considered "truth", an indisputable fact, supported by the established experts.
In retrospect, our medical community has decided that this was less than a good idea, in fact, quite harmful in most cases. In fact, there were physicians in the 16th and 17th centuries who came out strongly against bloodletting. But it persisted, because the majority of the intellectuals of the time (i.e., practicing physicians) agreed with it, and performed it, and the general population had no recourse.
Side-note: bloodletting is still seen as a viable treatment for a few medical instances, i.e., hemochromatosis, polycythemia vera, and porphyria cutanea tarda.
But the "truth" that bloodletting was a cure-all...well, not so true, it turns out. There were people of the times that held the opinion, based on their own research, their own thoughts, their own hypotheses, that blood-letting was a bad idea. Maybe, if the general population had been more literate, and had access to the internet (and leisure time), the general populace might have been able to re-shape their own opinions more quickly. As it was, blood-letting was common practice from about the 2nd Century AD until the early to mid 19th century. After all, knowledge isn't necessarily power, but access to knowledge can lead to increased individual power.
So, back to my opening premise. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes, they are. Even when there are voices decrying that opinion, and calling the holder all sorts of names, etc.
Let me share a couple Voorheesian opinions:
You and I are blessed creations of the Almighty God. He created us with minds, thoughts, creativity, intelligence and the ability to know something greater than ourselves...Him. He has given us the ability to learn and to grow. He has given us the ability to think, create, and form ideas and opinions. He has given this gift to all of his children. So before I decide to jump on my white charger and attack those who have different opinions than me, I need to remember...they may not have the same base-line understanding of the Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, that I have. I have the option...no, I have the responsibility to show them the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Now...I can do that by yelling at them, calling them names, belittling their thoughts/ideas, beating them about the head and shoulders....or, I can lead by example, living my life out daily in front of them. SHOWING them the Way, the Truth and the Life.
From the book of Matthew:
Unless, of course, your opinion is in direct divergence with mine. Then, you're an idiot. Or a bigot. Or a freak. Or a ... well, pick a name to call someone.
And then? The firestorms begin.
Interesting creatures, aren't we? We are all for diversity, love everyone, free expression of ideas...right up until we disagree with them.
What is it about us that does this? Tell you what, let me take the generic "us" out of the picture. Let me focus on where the problem really lies....me.
What is it about ME that does this? Perhaps it's time to look at my own opinions and see how I arrived there.
Opinions are exactly that...opinions. They may be based in fact, or knowledge, or...not. It is a view or judgement of something formed or held by an individual (sometimes a group). It can be thoughts, viewpoint, way of thinking about something, ideas, outlook, attitude, stance, beliefs, perspective, standpoint...
So, in a nutshell, this whole "opinion" thing is a bit gray. That is, until I have one. Then it's pretty solid.
So, what does it matter if I have an opinion on something? Don't I have a right to free thought and ability to form my own opinions? Yes, I do. So does everyone.
So, if I have the opinion that, say, the path to a joy-filled life is X, isn't that my right? Yes, it is.
But what if there are others in this world that don't think the same as me? Isn't that their right, too? Yes, it is.
So, Uncle Sparky, what's the problem? (***side-note: Uncle Sparky is what my nieces call me).
Well, the problem comes about when I insist that everyone think exactly the same way I do about X. Or, conversely, others who don't think the same way insist to me that I MUST think the way they do.
Aren't I silly to think I can persuade someone to think the same way as I do when they have not had the same experiences or knowledge-base as me?
Let me give you an example:
I am a Bible-believing Christian. That is my faith. It is a conscious decision that I have made. As such, there are certain things I believe, a certain way I choose to live my life, certain black and white "non-negotiables" that form the basis of my faith, belief system and mind-set. Because of this focus, there are certain opinions that I hold on various topics. One bedrock principle I believe is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Yes, there's much more to it than that, but let's start with that one thing.
Now this may come as a shock to some, but there are people in this world who are NOT like me. They have NOT had the experiences, upbringing, learning, life-lessons, etc., that I have had. Wonder of wonders, some of those folks do NOT believe, as I do, that Christ is the Son of God. There are even some people out there who think that Christ was not only NOT an historical figure, but is more of a fairy tale or folk tale, kind of like Paul Bunyon.
Now, I ask you...if I make a statement based on my faith in Christ as the Son of God...how could I possibly expect anyone who does not believe as I believe, to give my statements in that regard any credence? Regardless of the number of polls I submitted as evidence, regardless of the many times I could recount to them that Christ impacted my life on a personal level, a non-believer is going to remain a non-believer. So long as our fundamental belief, our bed-rock non-negotiable, is different.
Now...if said non-believer(s) are willing to listen, I will happily share my limited knowledge of God, the Creator, His story as shown in the Bible, and the plan of Salvation that was created by the triune God, evidenced by His Son, the Christ, and the on-going presence of the Holy Spirit.
But...if said non-believer(s) are not willing to listen, then I have two options. I can go ahead and present my case for Christ to them, and when they turn a deaf ear call them out as morons, fools, narrow-minded bigots, ultra-anti-Christian wingnuts... because then, for SURE, they will listen to me about the love of Christ. That approach, for SURE, will make them want to be more like me, so they can think like me and act like me and...um...hmmm....maybe not my best approach.
What is it about me that makes me think that by denigrating what someone else believes, I will convince them of the rightness of my opinion, and the wrongness of theirs?
But when you talk about faith, Uncle Sparky, you are talking about matters that cannot be substantiated with facts. Scientific theory, supported by documented experimentation and peer-reviewed data, is the only path to the truth. And truth cannot be argued. Truth is reality.
Really? Let me muddy your waters further. "Reality" can be altered by language and/or perception. Don't believe me? It's called "advertising" in the marketplace. In warfare, it's called PsyOps. In the media, it's called over-saturation. In some circles, there's even the concept of misinformation, designed to create a magnet toward a concept that is later found to be the opposite of what was the original intent all along. Truth does NOT equal Reality. A person's perception is their reality.
Truth. Let's talk about truth.
Truth is based on indisputable facts, right? I mean, things that everyone can agree on. And Truth never changes, it's always the same. It's something everyone (especially the established experts) can agree on.
So...as recently as the mid-19th century, bloodletting was the accepted practice for many medical ailments. It was considered "truth", an indisputable fact, supported by the established experts.
In retrospect, our medical community has decided that this was less than a good idea, in fact, quite harmful in most cases. In fact, there were physicians in the 16th and 17th centuries who came out strongly against bloodletting. But it persisted, because the majority of the intellectuals of the time (i.e., practicing physicians) agreed with it, and performed it, and the general population had no recourse.
Side-note: bloodletting is still seen as a viable treatment for a few medical instances, i.e., hemochromatosis, polycythemia vera, and porphyria cutanea tarda.
But the "truth" that bloodletting was a cure-all...well, not so true, it turns out. There were people of the times that held the opinion, based on their own research, their own thoughts, their own hypotheses, that blood-letting was a bad idea. Maybe, if the general population had been more literate, and had access to the internet (and leisure time), the general populace might have been able to re-shape their own opinions more quickly. As it was, blood-letting was common practice from about the 2nd Century AD until the early to mid 19th century. After all, knowledge isn't necessarily power, but access to knowledge can lead to increased individual power.
So, back to my opening premise. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes, they are. Even when there are voices decrying that opinion, and calling the holder all sorts of names, etc.
Let me share a couple Voorheesian opinions:
You and I are blessed creations of the Almighty God. He created us with minds, thoughts, creativity, intelligence and the ability to know something greater than ourselves...Him. He has given us the ability to learn and to grow. He has given us the ability to think, create, and form ideas and opinions. He has given this gift to all of his children. So before I decide to jump on my white charger and attack those who have different opinions than me, I need to remember...they may not have the same base-line understanding of the Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, that I have. I have the option...no, I have the responsibility to show them the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Now...I can do that by yelling at them, calling them names, belittling their thoughts/ideas, beating them about the head and shoulders....or, I can lead by example, living my life out daily in front of them. SHOWING them the Way, the Truth and the Life.
From the book of Matthew:
- Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)
- Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. .5:11-12
- My two cents worth today.
Comments