taijasi said:
...there are certain people who post to CR with a derogatory attitude toward anything and everything which I hold sacred. It's basically okay to be rude to someone who follows a less well-known path, or who doesn't belong to one of the "Big Religions" (indeed, who isn't religious at all, in the conventional sense - which is just the way I like it!) .... since the christians will all rally once the saber is rattled.
But it is sadness which I feel, in seeing that - little has changed. Most folks here are quite civil. Most folks do abide by the rules. And generally, simply because people do avoid saying the slightest little thing to perturb the prevailing mindset and set loose the rancor ... all get along fine. But, simply because I stand firm as a non-christian who is not afraid to defend his beliefs, as vigorously and vehemently as you, and others ... I get to witness mob rules in one of the last places I would have expected it. Brian's own post on this thread demonstrates that sufficiently for me.
Andrew, I hope that you will understand my post in the gentle manner in which it is written. As a fellow follower of a "less-known path," I empathize with the feelings you may have of being outnumbered or outvoiced. However, I would dispute that CR allows rudeness or derogatory attitudes toward people just because they don't follow one of the "Big Religions."
I have posted many thoughts here that were not within the prevailing mindset of Christianity, and I have stood firm and defended my beliefs, yet I have not seen the behaviors you ascribe to the people on this forum. You are welcome to read my past posts and see for yourself that even when they disagree, people have been polite, caring, and civil- not because I said nothing they disagreed with or avoided defending my positions, but because they genuinely were nice. While I fall outside the pale of some versions of Christianity, those who disagree with me still are loving towards me, seem to genuinely care about my life, and do not preach to me. We just exchange our beliefs and the reasons behind them, and (I hope) we find each other useful for further meditation. As far as I could tell, Brian's own post on this simply pointed out that you are welcome to have a debate concerning the validity of Christianity (as indeed others have done), and showed you the appropriate forum on which to post it (Comparative Studies). He was simply saying that debating Christianity is not a problem, and has been done before, but clueing you in to avoiding such a post on the Christianity board, as that would be disrespectful. Just as Christians here must avoid posting their negative ideas about neo-Paganism, for example, on the Neo-Pagan board. Faith-specific boards are for people or issues directly related to those faiths, operating on principles from those faiths, not for attack or debate on the validity of the faith itself. I think that is reasonable for all of us, and I certainly wouldn't want to constantly shift through such debates on those forums, which would get cluttered and inefficient in no time flat.
As for your stereotyping of Christians, I find that problematic. You imply in the quote above that all Christians believe the same things and feel the same ways, that "they all rally once the saber is rattled." First, I would point out that just as you feel it necessary to defend your faith with reasoning, so too do some Christians. People can disagree and both defend their position without one or the other being derogatory. Some Christians may defend their stance on universalism, and that is OK. Just as you think they are wrong for not accepting other paths, they think you are wrong for not accepting there is only one path. As long as none of it infringes on human rights to worship any way they please, I don't really see the issue. Some people of any religion or path will feel the need to defend their position, while others may feel they are clarifying so as not to be misunderstood, and yet others will feel it utterly unneccessary to defend anything at all. None of these are wrong positions, and I am grateful that at CR we generally find a way to do all three without losing a polite mannerism.
I would argue that we should avoid stereotyping others, from any religion or path. Just as it would be incorrect for me to assume that all universalists are like those who do not seriously study any religion, it is erroneous for you to consistently choose Christianity as the example of a religion that is exclusive, unwilling to study other traditions, or defensive about its own tradition. There is a huge diversity within Christianity, ranging from Quakers to Catholics to Baptists and beyond, and their responses to universalism are quite different. I consider myself to be a Christian, and find such implications of prejudice and inflexibility to be a little offensive (though I'm used to it and pretty unflappable, so no feelings are hurt- I'm just making you aware of the problem). As a person who has studied other religions for years, loves others and their traditions, and finds a lot of truth and joy in other traditions and texts (yet retains a firm relationship with Christ and belief in Him as Savior), it is a bit sad to hear someone essentially say that I will be aggressively defensive and possibly derogatory, simply because I am Christian. Such stereotypes are never useful and only make people more hurt, resulting in a cycle of anger and pain.
taijasi said:
I have never intended to "go after" those who do not see things as I do ... which is what this thread was really about from the beginning. Your path is legitimate, yours isn't.
I do not personally think that Thomas' thread was started simply as an attack on universalism, though he may have a negative opinion of it. I do not think he was "going after" universalists.
This may not apply to you, but perhaps it does at it has applied to me in the past: those of us who travel "less-known paths" or engage in syncretism are used to feeling the rejection from numerous people who feel that we are heretics. This can result in hurt and anger. I may be wrong, but this is the hurt/anger I see in your posts, Andrew. And I understand that feeling of hurt. However, I found in my journey that I need not care if other people reject my path. I am not in a conquest to convince everyone of my legitimacy, but rather to dialogue with others that
I may learn. It is their decision whether or not to be open and receptive on their side of things, and it matters not to me. Even people who reject the validity of my path, interpretations, and indeed even my experiences still have the capacity to teach me amazing things, if I am open to hearing it. By shifting my focus from what others think to my own journey, I found it unneccessary to defend my own path. I may discuss my reasoning and such to clarify, but I do not feel defensive. It is others' right to reject the validity of my traditions (as long as they don't try to take away my right to practice them), just as it is my right to reject the validity of other traditions (though I choose not to). I am not saying here that Thomas started this threat to reject universalism as a valid path, but
even if he did, that there are things to learn from this thread and it has not been a waste. Why feel anger (stemming from focusing on others' reactions) when one can feel peace (stemming from the inward focus)? I'll present my reasons for any of my positions on things, but I do not invest my energy or emotion in others' responses. Finally, and this may or may not apply to you, I found in myself a tendency to automatically assume rejection and become defensive when, in fact, people were not rejecting me nor being derogatory. That is, I had become so used to rejection and being called a heretic, that I looked for it. I expected it. And in so doing, I erroneously colored my own perceptions and saw it even when it wasn't there. CR has been instrumental in bringing that to my attention, and I am thankful it did, because it reminded me not to fall into such a detrimental trap and to be myself, boldly, and be without expectation of either acceptance or rejection- to try to see others as they are and not as I thought they would be.
I sincerely hope you take this as the empathetic and sincere discussion on my part that it is. I am not rejecting you, or your ideas about universalism, but rather the stereotypes and interpretation of some folks here that may be firmly one-pathers, but are lovingly so in my experience.
