How to handle it?

[Amie]

What if..

You listen to someone speak and recognize that what they are saying is harmful?


What is the loving thing to do? How would you handle it?


Interested in talking about it,

Amie

[Me Again]

just clarification: harmful to whom? harmful to you (the listener) or someone else? And if someone else, a particular person or society in general?

I believe that our response might be different depending on who's in harm's way...AND, I just thought of another line of questioning:

Are you listening as a friend, a counselor, what? That makes a difference too: mandatory reporting, duty to warn, etc.

[Amie]

Thanks for asking Ed, those are important questions!

In my case, this is a somewhat hypothetical situation. I hear a lot of people who have embraced the UR point of view criticize the voice that they hear behind many pulpits. For me, that voice isn't different from the abusive home I grew up in. The atmosphere is controlling and nurtures codependent thought. God is made out to be the ultimate destroyer, and humanity wicked from the womb. It's very sad I think. Yet at the same time, when I hear the criticism, it doesn't sound a great deal different.

I appreciate that it's important to educate folks on recognizing stuff like that. Seriously, what person with a healthy heart would buy the story that God would cast them away if they don't do what 'this' church says? But, as you and I know a fairly accurate answer to, how many people have healthy hearts?

So action is needed (imo), but what action can be taken that won't mirror the first? Know what I mean?

Amie

[Robert]

Amie- i think this is a huge line of thought and discussion here. You have basically challenged the worldvire and presuppositions of centuries of christians....... such a small thing lol I like what you said about how some responses by those holding to CG can be no different from the response they themselves challege. How may of us do have healthy hearts??? What is the criterion for understanding a healthy heart??? Everyone who has embraced Cg did so after having been other places, and most probably have family and friends still in those former places. How does God and love work to bring people to a place where He wants them??? If a majority people are not under the Cg tent, what are the implications??? I am responding to your question here as opposed to giving answers myself right now. I will respond with my own answers in a later post but wanted to get questions out that your post brought up in me lol Hope to hear from many others on this. Giosh Amie why must you always be so shallow in your pondersings??? LOL I keed i keed!!!! :P

Robert

[Me Again]

Before I embraced UR (I was searching at the time), I was appalled at how Gary Amirault of Tentmaker treated those who disagreed with him. Even other universalists were bashed by Gary due to their not being theologically conservative enough. I am also reading Bishop Spong's book "Why Christianity must change or die" and am shocked at how dismissive he is of others, in a rather rude way. Too often, the enlightened are almost violent towards the less so...even though Galatians 6:1 tells us how we are supposed to deal with brothers "caught in a fault" and Paul told Timothy to teach with gentleness...

However, we all have that proclivity towards being rude and harsh with others. All we can do is be mindful of this, and encourage others by showing them the example of Jesus. Another HOWEVER, Jesus openly rebuked the religious of his day...he called them vipers, whitewashed tombs, blind guides, children of hell, children of the devil, etc.

[Paige]

Do you suppose Spong has a niche, or fills a specific need that we are not part of? I have heard him speak recently, and was impressed by what he had to say and how he said it. Then, I read a recent essay he wrote and couldn't believe it was the same guy. One thing he shared in the talk, though, was that he has received 16 death threats, all from Christians! I really came away from the essay with a feeling that much of what he believes and shares is reactionary. But, back to that niche thing...Suppose that a large percentage of the entrenched fundamentalists can only be stirred or, or awakened, by someone who is willing to go and shake them up?

[Barry]

For me the difference is both evolutionary on one hand and on the other the distinction made between "condemnation" and "consequence".

Many Universalists still believe in condemnation until all are "saved". So then "rudeness" may come from this perspective.

Those focused on "consequence" have to deal with a variety of issues as opposed to a "black and white" still condemned or saved (from the law) but in consequence.
I oppose all religion based upon its consequence. But religion is still needed to fill a hole that love consiousness needs to fill. It's not "black or white", "good or evil".

Love always attempt to balance things as best as possible give the "time" the "circumstance" and all other considerations based upon a precieved or predicted outcome.
Love makes mistakes.
Not because of love itself but because we are just "trying" and "growing".

The time we live in has something to do with it.
Fighting for women's rights today is different from 1000 years ago. Dealing with the "abuse" 1000 years ago would be different from today.
Not because of good and evil but because of what outcome one would hope to achieve.

The time is becoming "ripe" in view that all religion is going to come under physiological scrutiny. Because it has "consequences" that often are "harmful" because it focuses on "condemnation" as the motivation.

Just a thought.

[Me Again]

Do you suppose Spong has a niche, or fills a specific need that we are not part of? I have heard him speak recently, and was impressed by what he had to say and how he said it. Then, I read a recent essay he wrote and couldn't believe it was the same guy. One thing he shared in the talk, though, was that he has received 16 death threats, all from Christians! I really came away from the essay with a feeling that much of what he believes and shares is reactionary. But, back to that niche thing...Suppose that a large percentage of the entrenched fundamentalists can only be stirred or, or awakened, by someone who is willing to go and shake them up?

Paige, don't misunderstand me; the first few chapters of Spong's book were awesome - I was like "YEAH, that's how I see it." I just feel that in his attempt to explain his position, he gets way too personal; rather than sharing "this is how I see it," he uses very inflammatory rhetoric.

Part of his problem, in my humble opinion, is that he would do well to read his "mentor's" book, Redating the New Testament, by John AT Robinson. Robinson's work on the dating of the NT blows Spong's theories to shreds. Spong bases his arguments on late-dating all of the bible, putting a lot of weight on St. Paul while at the same time saying that we are misunderstanding Paul. While I agree that many scholars have totally misunderstood Paul, Spong is making shit up from whole cloth...I think - er, nope - I KNOW that Amie has done better work on NT interpretation (from a Hebraic understanding) than Spong has. That is a shame, since Spong supposedly has the credentials, while our little sister is just smart (doesn't need paper creds).

I like Spong. I do think he has a niche. I will read more of him (I already have his book A New Christianity for a New World). I want to read a lot more of the liberal theologians, as I think we have much agreement with them.

[Paige]

Part of his problem, in my humble opinion, is that he would do well to read his "mentor's" book, Redating the New Testament, by John AT Robinson.

Exactly!!! I found the same problem with Elaine Pagels.

[ozark]

How does love overcome? I think, primarily, love does not stop loving. This is part of the victory of the cross. Roman crucifixion was an instrument of pain, but even more it is an instrument of shame. It was meant to take away human worth...utterly. Yet, Jesus did not devalue in return. "Father, forgive them...."

I have been reading a little Gandhi lately. One thing I noticed is that he always had something good to say about his opponents even when they just finished kicking the shit out of him. Maybe that is a victory we overlook. Maybe the greater victory is not overcoming our opponents with a superior argument, but it is that we don't stop loving them, even giving them the opposite of what they give us.

So, what is the most important thing to do to a person who is speaking harmfully? Don't become like them in an effort to shut them up. Instead, see in them what they can't see in us, and by doing so we reveal the foolishness of their ways.

[Amie]

Robert, I don't know how to answer most of your questions. They sound more like statements with question marks put on the ends. Majority view doesn't imply anything that I know of. Do you think it implies something?


I keed i keed!!!!

"Keed" "FOFL!


One thing he shared in the talk, though, was that he has received 16 death threats, all from Christians!

That shocks you? lol!


Because it has "consequences" that often are "harmful" because it focuses on "condemnation" as the motivation.

Well there's an idea! Seriously! Maybe pointing out those consequences that you mentioned would be one idea for a constructive approach. There again, when I try to think of specifics it seems too complicated for words just now.

I don't know. I feel better that I'm not alone in dealing with this and don't have to have an answer. Crazy, huh?


I just feel that in his attempt to explain his position, he gets way too personal; rather than sharing "this is how I see it," he uses very inflammatory rhetoric.

See, there's a great example. It's like one side saying how superior the other side thinks they are. That's ironic because that puts them in the superior position to judge that the other one thinks themselves so superior (I hope I just made sense! lol!).


How does love overcome? I think, primarily, love does not stop loving.

So very true! I guess we just do what we can and like, maybe ask them if they remember how it felt when they were being judged and condemned - stuff like that. Even "non-religious" people hold others to their religion of non-religion, lol!

We could just flick a spoon full of pudding at them. What do you think? (lol! "I keed, I keed")

I still maintain that the philosophy is true: "Love ain't for sissies." haha!

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Amie,
I don't find the need to change what people are saying anymore.( not that you said you did) Even if it bothers me. And thats not to be a wimp. I have sat at Bagel church for over 5 years. Let me tell you, some of the talks can be brutal. But I don't take it personal and I just keep trying to grow and learn myself through the process that I am in. Some of the people have said hurtful things, about politics, religion especially. But they have seen me not react to it in a negative way and it really confuses them. HA! Life is hard. Many different views and opinions. I can't figure it out anymore. I don't like when people are mean or hurtful, especially coming from the background with my dad. But I have found, I can tolerate more. Maybe because on some levels we do connect and share the same views. Its not on everything that we disagree about. My husband now, is getting tired of the slams we take sometimes. But I like the challenge and am willing to sit through them and get my 2 cents in, even if they don't like it!
Nancy

[Paige]

You're a strong woman, Nancy! :)