Are we looking for a solution – or just seeking a verdict? Are we sharing facts and perspectives, looking for a reasonable middle ground – or simply declaring how much we like to judge one another?
If you shut yourself off to the possibilities of other perspectives, you lose touch with the mainstream view. What you perceive to be ‘normal’ or rational or even real – drifts from center.
By definition, extreme positions lack awareness of how extreme they've become.
They tend to seal themselves away from others - refusing to have any meaningful discussion with those they disagree with.
Yet we Atheists often hear Christians say " I know all I need to know." as they declare others to be unreasonable and unapproachable.
It's one thing to avoid people who are clearly adversarial, but .. is that always the case?
If you choose Red and I choose Blue, does that mean that our lives and beings conflict in every other way?
No. Acting like that's the only conclusion is dishonest.
The truth is that you, like anyone else -- are the result of a complex series of experiences and events, all perceived through your unique personality. You didn't start off your life as you are now, nor were you conscious of your every choice and action. And along the way, you made some huge mistakes... some of which still affect you to this day.
Some of which you only realized later in life.
If you would want God, or anyone - to understand and consider that when judging you... wouldn't it only be right to extend those same understandings to everyone you meet?
When you cannot, and your faith allows you to designate the harshest of attitudes toward other people over a singular issue, you are being dogmatic.
This is zealotry. That's not name-calling; it's merely a description of an attitude.
Zealotry is an approach which, by inclination – regulates other people as 'pawns', then constructs the entire relationship based upon either indoctrinating or alienating them. That sounds harsh, but when you exhibit behavior which indicates 'you're either with me or you're against me', that's exactly what's being enacted! By removing the possibility of a third option, exiling others bars honest examination of their conditions.
The moment you take such a position, you’ve initiated a dishonest act.
Even if you are right, even if you're certain you're justified -- it is possible that your method of consideration could be wrong.
What is your agenda?
- to help others understand your faith?
- to make others understand your faith?
- to allow others to understand your faith?
These angles are very different, and the truth is often revealed in how you react when others don't comply with your intentions!
You can only detect the truth of your actions by first committing to honest self-examination.The best examination is that which allows for reasonable discourse, discussion and change. In order to do that, try to positively engage those whom you feel are least like you. It really does matter!
If you were right, you’ve lost nothing.
If you were wrong, you may change everything.
But at the very least, you would have taken the honest opportunity to fulfill your divine instruction and represent the word of God.
Ask yourself:
Am I ok with the way I've behaved?
Have I been fair?
Might I have done things differently if given a chance?
Shutting others out and justifying it?
It's dishonest to your divine mission, your God and really.. yourself. Never let anyone preach to you that ignorance is a virtue. It's not -- it's a liability.
Only when we posses good information about the world can we hope to respond with any real justice and precision.
And precision matters.
It is the difference between unleaded and diesel gasoline.
Or - a well-examined truth vs. a self-justifying assumption.
Happy Easter.
-C.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment