Advice on setting boundaries with religious relatives?

[Magna]

What are some effective ways of setting boundaries with religious relatives who believe boundaries should not apply and can be completely ignored because they believe the following and their beliefs are "correct":

> A person's salvation is the most treasured thing they could ever have...even if the person doesn't believe that themselves.

> It's a Christian's obligation and duty to do whatever they can to help another person "stay on the narrow path" and honoring someone's clear boundary of saying that their own spirituality is not a topic they want to discuss isn't fulfilling that obligation or duty in God's eyes (as far as they presume). Note the motivation here is potentially more so to protect and preserve the religious person's own salvation than it is selflessly caring for another's salvation...

> Spiritual health of individuals within a family, extended familiy, etc is everyone's business (because of its believed importance) and should be regarded as such and freely discussed at whim.

> It's also a Christian's duty and obligation to include admonishing those they feel have "fallen away" or have "strayed".

> They are soldiers for Christ, fighting for your salvation on your behalf even after you've asked them not to.

^ Those are the main beliefs that come to mind. I'm asking for advice on how to set boundaries that are actually effective with such people short of going NC (No Contact) with them. To be clear, I'm not and have not asked that any of these relatives refrain from mentioning God in conversation and how God pertains to their own lives when they talk to me. What I mean is, if in conversation the person/people say something like: "Today was such a beautiful day that I thanked God for every moment of my hike." I have not/won't take umbrage with their comment because that's what they believe. In my opinion it would be wrong for me to say: "Don't say anything about God when you talk to me." I've however made it clear and have been direct in saying that my spirituality isn't a topic that I will discuss.

 

[Aspychata]

Boundaries exist outside of religious obligations. Please respect me. And this is what l need from you, perhaps you could state this?

 

[Hypnalis]

Firstly, consider where you stand on going LC/NC with these people.

If you're not prepared to be direct and consistent due to factors you haven't introduced (e.g. it's your parents, or there's life-changing amounts of money at stake), normal methods may not apply.

Secondly, there are two principles for this kind of counter-measure:
1. Keep it clear and concise.
2. An acronym for what not to do: don't JADE, where JADE is "Justify, Argue, Discuss, Explain". Never soften your answer that way - it just encourages discussion, which is the opposite to what you want.

From your description, this isn't an NT<->ND issue, but naturally there are NT protocols for it (and even at least one well known acronym, as above (JADE)). In general people here aren't interested in understanding the protocols, so I've stopped sharing what I use, but some incidental points:

* You'll probably need to actively interrupt them. Learn how.
* They are deliberately abusing the normal "politeness protocols". They'll have convinced themselves with a "The ends justify the means" argument.. Stay polite in general, but don't hesitate to set aside some of the normal rules of conversation for tactical reasons (e.g interruptions)
* This is only about behavior modification. You should not try to educate them.
* Nobody wins a "shouting match". Make sure you don't start one yourself. If someone else does:
(a) the first time, say something like "we can't do this", then leave, walk away, or throw them out
(b) if you know it might happen again, learn how to "DARVO" them for subsequent occurrences.

 

[Magna]

Firstly, consider where you stand on going LC/NC with these people.

If you're not prepared to be direct and consistent due to factors you haven't introduced (e.g. it's your parents, or there's life-changing amounts of money at stake), normal methods may not apply.

Secondly, there are two principles for this kind of counter-measure:
1. Keep it clear and concise.
2. An acronym for what not to do: don't JADE, where JADE is "Justify, Argue, Discuss, Explain". Never soften your answer that way - it just encourages discussion, which is the opposite to what you want.

From your description, this isn't an NT<->ND issue, but naturally there are NT protocols for it (and even at least one well known acronym, as above (JADE)). In general people here aren't interested in understanding the protocols, so I've stopped sharing what I use, but some incidental points:

* You'll probably need to actively interrupt them. Learn how.
* They are deliberately abusing the normal "politeness protocols". They'll have convinced themselves with a "The ends justify the means" argument.. Stay polite in general, but don't hesitate to set aside some of the normal rules of conversation for tactical reasons (e.g interruptions)
* This is only about behavior modification. You should not try to educate them.
* Nobody wins a "shouting match". Make sure you don't start one yourself. If someone else does:
(a) the first time, say something like "we can't do this", then leave, walk away, or throw them out
(b) if you know it might happen again, learn how to "DARVO" them for subsequent occurrences.

Thank you for the info. It's interesting given that I used the term NC which is used often in referencing dealing with people that have personality disorders such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) that JADE is an acronym also used in reference to dealing with the same type of people. I know this because one of the family members, I believe, happens to have NPD and actually justifies and cloaks their narcissism with and in their religious beliefs.

You've reminded me of the importance not to JADE with them.

 

[Fino]

Probably just consistent assertiveness is required, which may become exhausting depending on their amount of perseverance.

 

[GypsyMoth]

What are some effective ways of setting boundaries with religious relatives who believe boundaries should not apply and can be completely ignored because they believe the following and their beliefs are "correct":

> A person's salvation is the most treasured thing they could ever have...even if the person doesn't believe that themselves.

> It's a Christian's obligation and duty to do whatever they can to help another person "stay on the narrow path" and honoring someone's clear boundary of saying that their own spirituality is not a topic they want to discuss isn't fulfilling that obligation or duty in God's eyes (as far as they presume). Note the motivation here is potentially more so to protect and preserve the religious person's own salvation than it is selflessly caring for another's salvation...

> Spiritual health of individuals within a family, extended familiy, etc is everyone's business (because of its believed importance) and should be regarded as such and freely discussed at whim.

> It's also a Christian's duty and obligation to include admonishing those they feel have "fallen away" or have "strayed".

> They are soldiers for Christ, fighting for your salvation on your behalf even after you've asked them not to.

^ Those are the main beliefs that come to mind. I'm asking for advice on how to set boundaries that are actually effective with such people short of going NC (No Contact) with them. To be clear, I'm not and have not asked that any of these relatives refrain from mentioning God in conversation and how God pertains to their own lives when they talk to me. What I mean is, if in conversation the person/people say something like: "Today was such a beautiful day that I thanked God for every moment of my hike." I have not/won't take umbrage with their comment because that's what they believe. In my opinion it would be wrong for me to say: "Don't say anything about God when you talk to me." I've however made it clear and have been direct in saying that my spirituality isn't a topic that I will discuss.

Hi @Magna, it sounds like your religious relatives hold some deeply set beliefs. Weathering their comments may be the best way to accept them for who they are. You might want to ask yourself why it is so upsetting that they cross the boundaries you have--especially when they may not know what your boundaries are or may not be able to respect those boundaries sufficiently well enough to put you at ease. Answering this for yourself may help you when you are around them.

It also sounds like you, too, hold some deeply held beliefs. It may be beneficial for you to seek common ground with your relatives. Keeping open the lines of communication is always healthier than shutting the door to a relationship. Yet it sounds like you would very much like to keep this door open--which tells me that you value the relationships you have with these relatives.

Consider this: pure religion is how we submit ourselves to one another and to God. If we do so with a charitable spirit, then it can build up and encourage the person we are helping. Sometimes our service to others demands sacrifice. We see this frequently in culture, where the person who has made a great sacrifice is recognized as having the moral high ground. Why is this? Yet, this is a religious concept. You might think of examples like this that could serve as bridge builders to talking about concepts between your view and their view. Neither has to convince the other of anything--that's not what this is about. This is about having a thoughtful conversation that strengthens your relationship with them and re-establishes communication.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

There is a subset of Christians who believe their faith requires the behaviors Magna has descibed. So you are not going to change them. It is a bedrock of their Faith.

Hypnalis points out ways to set your boundaries. (BTW, Hypnalis, I have never heard of JADE or DARVOS. I get JADE; it’s a succinctly put technique I learned more or less on my own.)

GypsyMoth is explaining a way to engage these people.

If one is going to stick to the boundaries you set, and really stick to them, it will get more and more uncomfortable until 1) they get that the cost of keeping you in their lives means giving up their efforts to save you or 2) you have to break total contact.

GypsyMoth’s way requires a comfort in your own boundaries to not feel imposed upon when they try to convert you. This requires a lot of personal confidence.

You can engage them in several ways. Ask questions to get them to further explain their religion as if you are really interested in them. You’ve asked some good questions on this forum, so you know some good questions.

You can engage them by asking about favorite books or videos that help them get through life.

Ask them about the evangelical missions their church has established and do they volunteer or donate to this religion.

Be the interested observer when in these discussions. Avoid gut wrenching reactions.

Both ways require a lot of effort.

 

[Hypnalis]

@WhitewaterWoman

DARVO is a standard narcissist "blame-shifting" technique. It stands for "Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender".

It's important to be able to recognize it, because if you see it coming, countermeasures are much easier.
JADE is necessary when reacting. When someone tries this on you, it's essential that you don't pretend to take them seriously.

However there's another interpretation of DARVO. IMO you can use the same name, but using a different meaning of "deny" (sometimes the good guys are allowed to use equivocation

So:
1. A simple concise block. "We're not going to discuss religion". Ignore any response.
2. A basis for reversal: "I don't want you to bring it up again" (Do not make any secondary references (i.e. skip directly to (3)). Allow a little time for a response, and apply an active block if they "double down"
3. Basic reversal (there are a lot of possibilities): "Can I trust you not to do that again?" Force an answer. Don't allow a deflection (e.g. change of subject).

Note that this whole thing is intended to put significant psychological pressure on the target.
Many people are uncomfortable on either side of it - which is what the narcissists leverage, since they enjoy it.

So don't do this unless you're comfortable holding up your side of the exchange.
On the plus side, it offers good opportunities to observe NT body language

PS:
a) I didn't suggest this technique to Magna because some people will never be comfortable doing it. I don't see it as a general recommendation.
b) Gypsy Moth's approach is much nicer than a "reverse DARVO", and is probably a lot better in many cases. I just don't have the patience for trying to educate annoying people

 

[Magna]

@GypsyMoth & @WhitewaterWoman : Thanks for your comments.

What should be clear here is that in no way do I want these relatives to change their religious beliefs, abandon their faith in God or anything like that. I respect people having the right to practice innocuous religions (ie religions that are not harmful. Unlike death cults or other types of cults that exploit people). The reason I don't want them to change is that I know that their beliefs are "in their DNA". It works for them in their own lives. The issue with them and people like them (I don't mean all religious people) is that their belief that what works for them should work for EVERYONE is so strong that it completely overrides any respect for boundaries others have. They can believe that their beliefs are the best for everyone; they should not foist those beliefs on others who are not interested. That's unacceptable. They believe they have an acceptable excuse for ignoring basic boundaries. They don't. In their mind they do, but there are many other things that are in people's minds that make them think, do and say things to change people despite the opposition and rejection other people have and in all cases, it's wrong to ignore boundaries. Bottom line: If a person doesn't respect boundaries that have been clearly expressed, it's harassment. I don't have to explain myself. I don't have to explain my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or my spirituality. I'm an autonomous being. And I have zero interest in discussing religion with them in the same way I would have no interest in continuing a chess game after a draw with only two kings left on the board. There's no point. I would not (and don't want to) sway them from their beliefs and they would not sway me from having no desire to practice their faith.

But the good thing is: There are countless other aspects of life and topics for discussion and conversation that don't involve religion and that I believe people can talk about and get mutual benefit from in doing so when in conversation. If for some reason one party can't or won't discuss life without having every conversation, every topic tied to their faith...then we'd be an an impasse.

Also, in this case it would be a bad idea for me to engage with them, ask them questions about the faith, appear interested, etc as someone suggested. That's an evangelist's dream. It's pouring gas in a fire in a case like this: "There's still hope for him/her! He/she is asking questions! Open the evangelism floodgates!"

Without getting into detail, in my situation it's one where I'm knowledgeable in their faith because I grew up in it. I feel bad for them because fear is such a big part of their life. Also, I'm not saying that ALL religions are cults or cult-like, but it's a fact that some are or have characteristics that are cult-like and that's the case in this specific situation.

Finally, my view of life is that life is wonderful, but life is also difficult and challenging. If there are healthy, non-destructive innocuous ways for a person to get through their own life...more power to them I say. I mean that. If for example, a non-threatening adult said that they believed in something imaginary, a unicorn or something that helps them get through life in a positive way...more power to them I say. And I mean that. If that same person was convinced that I should believe in their imaginary friend and would not stop in trying to get me to believe what they believe...that's a problem. That's not ok. I feel the same way about religion. Great if it helps a person get through their own life in a positive way but it's not a license to steamroll over others or disrespect their boundaries.

I've often found that the notion of respecting boundaries about religion greatly offends some religious people. They seem to take it personally and seem to regard someone's lack of interest or opposition to their evangelization as a personal attack. Why is that?

 

[Mary Terry]

I deal with this issue with certain people in my area. My standard techniques include (1) smiling sweetly and forcefully changing the subject matter of the conversation; (2) smiling sweetly and stating that my religion is very personal to me and not a topic for general conversation; (3) reminding them that the Bible makes it clear not to judge others lest you be judged yourself; (4) when all else fails, I make an enemy of them by stating that I am a Druid and that I want to tell them all about MY religion, just like they want to share THEIR religion with me.

This may be terrible advice for you, but it works pretty well for me.

 

[LadyS]

I wonder.. will something work along the lines of: My relationship with God is very personal so please, this should remain between me and God only.

Maybe I'm wrong but people who truly have a personal relationship with God don't constantly need to dictate others' religious practices with the same God. The need to assert yourself over others (like in a way of "I know better than you") comes from a human ego standpoint and not a spiritual one. I get that others want to share their successes with the Lord with others so they can achieve the same, but it should be done in a way that's demonstrative, lead by example not just by words.

Or I could just be babbling again..

 

[GypsyMoth]

Hi @Magna, I usually avoid engaging with religious issues online because people either respond with all-out emotional vengeance or stick so sharply to their own polemic that no discussion is possible. But that's not what you're doing here, which is very cool. I'll talk with you a bit further on it but only because I think you genuinely want to know. I might be able to add some perspective that could help. This is in no way meant as an approach via haggling but, rather, as a way of teasing out other ways of looking at the problem. I hope it helps.

@GypsyMoth & @WhitewaterWoman : Thanks for your comments.

What should be clear here is that in no way do I want these relatives to change their religious beliefs, abandon their faith in God or anything like that. I respect people having the right to practice innocuous religions (ie religions that are not harmful. Unlike death cults or other types of cults that exploit people). The reason I don't want them to change is that I know that their beliefs are "in their DNA". It works for them in their own lives. The issue with them and people like them (I don't mean all religious people) is that their belief that what works for them should work for EVERYONE is so strong that it completely overrides any respect for boundaries others have.

It's actually not a mind-blind approach but one rooted in a totally different metaphysical understanding of reality.

They can believe that their beliefs are the best for everyone; they should not foist those beliefs on others who are not interested.

The present incarnation of philosophical debate is incapable of providing sufficient explanation for common conundrums that defy naturalistic explanation. In line with this is some confusion about what truth is. If it's objective, then truth is tied to an object. If it's subjective, then it's tied to a person. As a consequence, where ever the locus of truth lies determines the resultant belief. To extend that belief (on whichever view) to everyone is consistent and, from a logical perspective, consistency is desirable. Therefore, we might say your relatives are delightfully logically consistent in the application of their beliefs. Which is a really nice thing to say about them.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe your beliefs are best for everyone? If they can believe that, then so can you. You each are being logically consistent within your own views. Yet, aren't you, too, foisting your belief upon them that they should be obligated to respect your autonomy and your boundaries upon them? I'm just saying; it works both ways. (BTW, the best solution might just be to be directly yet politely tell them what you've shared wth us here--but keep it to a brief 2-3 sentences.)

That's unacceptable. They believe they have an acceptable excuse for ignoring basic boundaries.

What if (from their perspective) it is you who are ignoring their basic boundaries? Would this not be reason enough for them to strengthen their resolve in coaching you further into their religious beliefs? (I hope you see what I'm trying to do here in exposing the polemic is to attempt to show you how you might bridge any discussion with them from a mutual common ground.)

They don't.

Why not? Do you? If so, then why? Furthermore, if you do but they don't, why would your autonomy be of greater value than their proselytizing? (There is much, much more going on here than merely a discussion about religion. If religion is the catalyst, then philosophy is the current driving you apart.)

In their mind they do, but there are many other things that are in people's minds that make them think, do and say things to change people despite the opposition and rejection other people have and in all cases, it's wrong to ignore boundaries.

Have you considered that maybe, on some level, they feel the same? What if, from their perspective, they see you as similarly having crossed some boundary, one they feel duty-bound to save you from? (This would mean that, structurally speaking, you and they are surprisingly similar in your philosophical approaches to religion.)

Bottom line: If a person doesn't respect boundaries that have been clearly expressed, it's harassment. I don't have to explain myself. I don't have to explain my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or my spirituality. I'm an autonomous being. And I have zero interest in discussing religion with them in the same way I would have no interest in continuing a chess game after a draw with only two kings left on the board.

Just an irrelevant comment here: That is a really great metaphor.

There's no point. I would not (and don't want to) sway them from their beliefs and they would not sway me from having no desire to practice their faith.

But the good thing is: There are countless other aspects of life and topics for discussion and conversation that don't involve religion and that I believe people can talk about and get mutual benefit from in doing so when in conversation.

I keep thinking being direct with them might be the best course of action. Have you tried redirecting the conversation?

If for some reason one party can't or won't discuss life without having every conversation, every topic tied to their faith...then we'd be an an impasse.

Well... technically, every conversation we have has its roots in faith. If knowledge is justified, reasonable believe, then all knowledge is grounded in faith. This is irregardless of talking about religious or nonreligious matters.

...I've often found that the notion of respecting boundaries about religion greatly offends some religious people. They seem to take it personally and seem to regard someone's lack of interest or opposition to their evangelization as a personal attack. Why is that?

Why is it that you have taken their position against you so personally? Because you value your position. So do they.

I can't help you with the cult-thing without knowing more about their denomination. Personally, I think your best course of action is to be polite, yet firm and direct. "Aunt Rhonda, I appreciate your concern for me. I really do. But we have this conversation everytime I come visit, and everytime I come visit you still believe what you believe and I still believe what I believe. I'm in no more danger of converting today than I was yesterday. Can we talk about something different? How's your new car working out? Do you like it better than the old one...?" You get the idea.

You and I actually have quite a bit in common as I have the opposite problem with my relatives. I hope you find this helpful on some level.

 

[Magna]

The present incarnation of philosophical debate is incapable of providing sufficient explanation for common conundrums that defy naturalistic explanation. In line with this is some confusion about what truth is. If it's objective, then truth is tied to an object. If it's subjective, then it's tied to a person. As a consequence, where ever the locus of truth lies determines the resultant belief. To extend that belief (on whichever view) to everyone is consistent and, from a logical perspective, consistency is desirable. Therefore, we might say your relatives are delightfully logically consistent in the application of their beliefs. Which is a really nice thing to say about them.

In other words: What a person thinks is the truth (subjective), they will believe it to be the truth (objective). What if we apply what you've said to other subjective"truths" that people have believed should be applied to everyone? Tyrannical beliefs even in the name of religions through history have been anything but "nice".

Your comments are interesting to me. I'm going to ponder the notion that if someone has a spiritual, metaphysical or philosophical belief that they strongly believe and with deepest conviction to the point that they view it as the ultimate "truth", they should be exempt from respecting others. At that point, armed with the knowledge of the perceived "truth", they should decide who and what to honor and respect; in effect, they should have the license of a demi-god over common man.

 

[Fino]

In other words: What a person thinks is the truth (subjective), they will believe it to be the truth (objective). What if we apply what you've said to other subjective"truths" that people have believed should be applied to everyone? Tyrannical beliefs even in the name of religions through history have been anything but "nice".

Your comments are interesting to me. I'm going to ponder the notion that if someone has a spiritual, metaphysical or philosophical belief that they strongly believe and with deepest conviction to the point that they view it as the ultimate "truth", they should be exempt from respecting others. At that point, armed with the knowledge of the perceived "truth", they should decide who and what to honor and respect; in effect, they should have the license of a demi-god over common man.

A person with a belief that strong should understand that other people have a different perspective and treat people with that fact in mind.

 

[GypsyMoth]

In other words: What a person thinks is the truth (subjective), they will believe it to be the truth (objective). What if we apply what you've said to other subjective"truths" that people have believed should be applied to everyone? Tyrannical beliefs even in the name of religions through history have been anything but "nice".

Huh. Not quite what I was thinking. Subjective truth is person relative; objective truth is object relative. For example, If you like ice cream, then the fact that you like ice cream is relative to you, the person doing the liking. But it is objectively true that ice cream is not a substitute for insulin; the diabetic cannot have ice cream in place of insulin. This is an objective truth. The truth of what ice cream is, of what insulin is, and how a diabetic person's body responds to each corresponds with the objective nature of the reality of what those two substances are and how they affect the body. Just because a person believes truth to be one thing or another does not mean that what they believe becomes objective truth. I think they call that 'delusional' in psychiatry.

Likewise, tyranny by any other philosophy is still tyranny. Neither did religion cause the Holocaust nor was the Khmer Rouge a religious idea. (The Khmer Rouge sought to eradicate religion!) Or, what about China's social credit system? Or North Korea's denial of personal freedom? Tyranny by any so-called justification reflects the absolute worst of human nature in any context.

Your comments are interesting to me. I'm going to ponder the notion that if someone has a spiritual, metaphysical or philosophical belief that they strongly believe and with deepest conviction to the point that they view it as the ultimate "truth", they should be exempt from respecting others. At that point, armed with the knowledge of the perceived "truth", they should decide who and what to honor and respect; in effect, they should have the license of a demi-god over common man.

Glad the comments are interesting! But ultimate truth doesn't work on a postmodern construction of truth, which is the version of truth you are using there in your 2nd sentence. Because of this, I can't follow your argument to your conclusion. However, Freud would not only agree with but support said same conclusion, something modern-day psychoanalytic theory would likewise attest. (It functions as a secular religion.) So I'm picking up on some threads in what you're writing that may surprise you. I hope they give you further food for thought.

If anything, I hope it shows that we rarely have all the answers and that reflection and knowing what we believe and why, and being secure in our own beliefs, is an asset when talking with other people, especially family whom we love, because through it we may be able to love them better than we could have before that reflection.

 

[Magna]

Huh. Not quite what I was thinking. Subjective truth is person relative; objective truth is object relative. For example, If you like ice cream, then the fact that you like ice cream is relative to you, the person doing the liking. But it is objectively true that ice cream is not a substitute for insulin; the diabetic cannot have ice cream in place of insulin. This is an objective truth. The truth of what ice cream is, of what insulin is, and how a diabetic person's body responds to each corresponds with the objective nature of the reality of what those two substances are and how they affect the body. Just because a person believes truth to be one thing or another does not mean that what they believe becomes objective truth. I think they call that 'delusional' in psychiatry.

Likewise, tyranny by any other philosophy is still tyranny. Neither did religion cause the Holocaust nor was the Khmer Rouge a religious idea. (The Khmer Rouge sought to eradicate religion!) Or, what about China's social credit system? Or North Korea's denial of personal freedom? Tyranny by any so-called justification reflects the absolute worst of human nature in any context.

Glad the comments are interesting! But ultimate truth doesn't work on a postmodern construction of truth, which is the version of truth you are using there in your 2nd sentence. Because of this, I can't follow your argument to your conclusion. However, Freud would not only agree with but support said same conclusion, something modern-day psychoanalytic theory would likewise attest. (It functions as a secular religion.) So I'm picking up on some threads in what you're writing that may surprise you. I hope they give you further food for thought.

If anything, I hope it shows that we rarely have all the answers and that reflection and knowing what we believe and why, and being secure in our own beliefs, is an asset when talking with other people, especially family whom we love, because through it we may be able to love them better than we could have before that reflection.

Thank you for clarifying your previous posts. I misunderstood you to be saying that there is justification and perhaps even admiration for a person, based on their religious or spiritual beliefs to ignore personal boundaries.

 

[Ella Spell]

Your religious relatives can be as religious or irreligious as they wish, but they don't have the right to shame or guilt you for having different beliefs, and they should not force any topic or conversation against your will. In some circumstances religion can be used by narcissists to bolster their self-righteousness at the expense of other people's ego.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Thank you for clarifying your previous posts. I misunderstood you to be saying that there is justification and perhaps even admiration for a person, based on their religious or spiritual beliefs to ignore personal boundaries.

Egads! So that's where that was coming from. I was concerned my extreme tiredness was leading to confusion and vagueness, as I wrote my first post while otherwise engaged elsewhere....

You'll do fine. You love them; they love you. What more could a person ask for in life than to be loved by the family they have surrounding them. You are a very lucky person to have them think such so highly of you to want to engage you in these discussions.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Your religious relatives can be as religious or irreligious as they wish, but they don't have the right to shame or guilt you ...

And this is a great example of another difference--a cultural difference. There are all kinds of gaps that must be crossed to reach common ground conversations and ancient near east religions are grounded in an honor/shame culture that is quite unfamiliar to socially independent Westerners. So, naturally you will hold the view here you do...and equally as naturally, @Manga's family will hold the view they do. There's a ton of cultural subtext at play here that makes a common ground conversation tricky, at best, when you are rooted solely in your own position.

And frankly, the postmodern culture adds to this a disservice by selling the public on the idea that you are the maker of your own truth. Because if that is so, then there can never be a genuine exchange of ideas, simply because you can never get outside of your self-administered cultural context. And without a meaningful exchange of ideas, communication breaks down and relationships fail.

(I have a lot to say on that last point but I'll save it for later.)

 

[Ella Spell]

It's not about postmodern culture.
It's about Magna's life.