[Mb-civic] ...

[Ian]

Lyle:

Blessings and Peace.  Because it is so basically...fundamental both to whom I am and to what I believe to be a critical element in any continuing discourse on both the immediate subject (faith and religion) and the subject of this group (effecting change by bringing as many people "into the fold" of people-based socio-politics), let me see if I can put this in a way that will not leave room for misinterpretation.

I believe strongly in the "dogma" and "doctrine" of the Judeo-Christian construct as I believe (from both my own readings and those of others) it was meant to be; i.e., not what it became, but as Jesus lived, spoke and preached it.  Two of my four mentoring ministers refer to this as "primitive Christianity."  It has also been called "true Christianity" (a loaded phrase if ever there was one) and "essential Christianity."  And I believe in that "dogma" and "doctrine" not only because I believe it to be an excellent basis for living and interacting with others (again, when practiced "correctly"), but because it has worked for me: I have seen and felt the benefits, gifts, etc. that living that "dogma" and "doctrine" - that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph - have bestowed on me.  In other words, I do not believe in or live that "dogma" and "doctrine" in a "blind" manner.

For whatever reasons, you do not believe in the "reality" of that "dogma" and "doctrine" and its application to every day life.  You have called it "tired," "trite" and other dismissive terms.

However, simply because (i) you have personal issues with that "dogma" and "doctrine," (ii) it is admittedly exceptionally difficult to actually live that "dogma" and "doctrine" on a day to day, much less moment to moment, basis, and (iii) that "dogma" and "doctrine" have become associated with historical atrocities; the corruption of mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" religion; and a dangerously narrow, conservative "religious" (and political)mindset, this does not mean that the underlying principles of that "dogma" and "doctrine" are not "sound," and maybe even "correct" (another dangerously loaded term).

In this regard, I was not being "defensive."  I only responded at all because your insinuation (that my beliefs somehow make me a closet racist) was particularly heinous.

Nor am I "angry," since it is simply not in my nature to be so.  Rather, I am saddened that you feel the need to denigrate my beliefs in order to support your own.  Calling my beliefs "trite" and "tired" is, as Andrew Carnegie might say, not the way to make friends and influence people.  You will note that, although I may disagree with your beliefs, I have never denigrated them, much less used pejorative terms to describe them.

Consider the following hypothetical situation.  A person -specifically, a "spiritual seeker" - who does not know either of us happens upon Civic and monitors it for a few days.  They read our respective posts.  They "watch" our language, approach and attitude.  Based on this, whose "faith" do you think they will find more attractive?  One that includes insults, invective, denigration and dismissiveness?  Or one that includes courtesy, calm and reasoned discourse?

Note that I am not suggesting that I am "better" than you.  Or even that my "beliefs" are "better" than yours.  But the single most important way that others may be "drawn" to our beliefs is by example - by how we live them: in our daily lives, in our deeds and, yes, in our words.

In this regard, it is disingenuous, if not a bit hypocritical, to talk to me about "love" when you are suggesting that I am a racist.  It is disingenuous to talk to me about "acceptance" when you are calling my beliefs "trite" and "tired."  And, with specific regard to Civic and its "mission," it is particularly disingenuous, if not self-deluding, to believe that you are contributing positively to that mission when you continue to take a position that alienates so many potential allies as a result of an almost complete dismissal of their beliefs.

If your offer of love is genuine, I accept it.  And, indeed, return it.  However, I would be very careful not to bandy that word about too off-handedly.  After all, anyone can talk about love.  But real love reflects other important virtues - some of which seem absent in your attitude and approach.

Forgive me, but I cannot resist:

"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails."  [1 Cor 13:4-8]

Peace.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041116/45786753/attachment.html