Sunday, April 30, 2006

A Fine Bottle of Champagne.

(Craig - Cristi is having trouble actually posting as a contributor - can you take a look at that??)

This post is from Cristi all. She saw this article this week and wanted to share it with you before she left for her interview on Monday. Enjoy.

People's opinions are not generally formed or controlled by arguments or reasonings, as they fondly suppose. They are imbibed by sympathy from those whom they like or love, and who are, or have been, their associates. Thus people, when they arrive at maturity, adhere in the main to the associations, both in religion and in politics, in which they have been brought up, from the influence of sympathy with those whom they love. They believe in this or that doctrine or system, not because they have been convinced by proof, but chiefly because those whom they love believe in them. On religious questions the arguments are presented to them, it is true, while they are young, in catechisms and in other forms of religious instruction, and in politics by the conversations which they overhear; but it is a mistake to suppose that arguments thus offered have any material effect as processes of ratiocination in producing any logical conviction upon their minds. An English boy is Whig or Tory because his father, and his brothers, and his uncles are Whigs or Tories. He may, indeed, have many arguments at his command with which to maintain his opinions, but it is not the force of the arguments that has convinced him, nor do they have any force as a means of convincing the other boys to whom he offers them. _They_ are controlled by their sympathies, as he is by his. But if he is a popular boy, and makes himself a favorite among his companions, the very fact that he is of this or that party will have more effect upon the other boys than the most logical and conclusive trains of reasoning that can be conceived.



So it is with the religious and political differences in this and in every other country. Every one's opinions--or rather the opinion of people in general, for of course there are many individual exceptions--are formed from sympathy with those with whom in mind and heart they have been in friendly communication during their years of childhood and youth. And even in those cases where persons change their religious opinions in adult age,the explanation of the mystery is generally to be found, not in seeking for the _argument that convinced them_, but for the _person that led them_, in the accomplishment of the change. For such changes can very often, and perhaps generally, be traced to some person or persons whose influence over them, if carefully scrutinized, would be found to consist really not in the force of the arguments they offered, but in the magic power of a silent and perhaps unconscious sympathy. The way, therefore, to convert people to our ideas and opinions is to make them like us or love us, and then to avoid arguing with them, but simply let them perceive what our ideas and opinions are.

5 comments:

Craig said...

I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are on this Cristi? Why did this catch your eye? It was a great article and I think I am going to have to think on it before responding.


Anyone else out there? What are your thoughts?


Cristi when will you be back? I checked your status as a member and you should be able to post? What does it say or do when you tried to post? Is anyone else having these problems? E-mail me if you are and I will dig a little deeper.

Yes, that Cristi said...

Yahhooooo!! I figured it out!! Beware all, I have the power of posting!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Craig said...

I still don't know where to go with this topic. There is so much there that we could take a month to break it down. In general I agree that most people conform to the ideas and beliefs of those they love or like. I think there is also much wisdom when it comes to reaching those who don't know Christ in becoming "true" friends and allowing them to see our faith lived out. We don't live in a world, and I find it hard to believe that it ever existed, that you can just brow beat someone into a genuine faith in Jesus. Jesus himself didn't do that. He came to serve, He healed the person on the spiritual level. The word maturity is sticking out to me when I re-read this post.(Thus people, when they arrive at maturity, adhere in the main to the associations, both in religion and in politics) When I think about maturity as it relates to my own...(NO LAUGHING OUT THERE) I think of physical maturity and then emotional, spiritual maturity. I was physically mature at a much younger age then I was spiritually mature. I think in large part my upbringing was much like the one decribed in this article. I just beleived what was told to me because it was told to me by those whom I loved and trusted and I had no reason to doubt they would lead me astray. This continued until I went to college and then was suddenly faced with all these conflicting ideas. I think at that point I decided to turn back to those things of my youth because they were safe and the things being presented in college were just to "weird" for me. Once in the real world and having to make decisions on my own and having real consequences to those decisions I was then given or learned the tools to really question what I was taught as a child. So I think my spiritual/emotional maturity came at that point. So my only contention with this writer is that they seemingly have lumped the two together, or maybe he was assuming the audience would know it was meant as physical maturity?



Cristi great topic. I really hope others will chime in on this.I would love to see what others see in this.

Yes, that Cristi said...

I think that this author was speaking of a legal maturity, an ability to make decisions on your own, something more important in his time than in ours. We have no real age where we are considered mature anymore. People are judged mature or not based on actions or responses rather. (in how they respond to situations rather than what they do) Maturity then was a acutal number corisponding to money and legal ownership and being legally allowed to do things. It usually was 21 or 24 but depended on a couple of things. So this author when he writes about maturity is speaking of something given in that culture, and was indeed lumping the two together. I really think that was the prevalant idea of the time, especially as refered to boys. Maybe he didnt even consider the two to be different, I wouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, I think the part about 'maturity' is very important. We have always known that ther eis a 4-14 window as regards people accepting Christ. Once they reach "maturity" people are much less likely to be willing to question their upbringing/heritage and consider other world views and consequently have a much harder time finding Christ. This 'friend' evangelism if you will forgive the trite phrasing, I think applies more radically to Adults than to children, because earning children's respect is something that we almost instinctively do when teaching them about God but we throw facts and information at Adults and sometimes forget the human aspect. It may have something to do with boundries that we set up around ourselves and how we deal with other adults and respect or something like that, I haven't formulated that theory yet. What do ya'll think?

Angie said...

i don't understand the conversation. I'm trying, but I'm not following. Just thought I'd let you know I'm not NOT reading... but I'm not understanding. I'm having a hard time understanding this week. Sorry guys!

(notice even that on my own post - I haven't even commented!)