Is Civility Still Possible? (#609)
Why are people so angry in the public dialog... and nasty? From the national political dialog, to those that troll the Internet to rain on everyone's parade, people are so convinced they are right that they can vilify anyone who disagrees with them. That's where Brad and Wayne end up after sharing a bit about their trips to Israel and Western Europe, respectively. How have we become such an angry, arrogant society, and is there any hope that civility can be resurrected in our day? Wayne shares about a new project he's considering to encourage a new generation of people who can speak a language of healing in the world that can bring people together, rather than the voices of hurt and hate that seem to rule the day.
Helping with Agriculture in Pokot
Add your voice to our question/comment line via Skype at "TheGodJourney"
It is kinda funny you made two polarizing categories: healer or hurter.
No other options, you are either a healer or hurter. Therefore, you as the reader or listener unwittingly position yourself as the judge of all.
Are we too judgmental? Impatient? Intolerant? Biased and Assuming? I think so.
That’s the culture of extremism we live in.
We struggle to get out of, like religion.
There’s only two options, A or B. When communication and true understanding has many layers and spectrums, mixtures of styles and nothing is perfect. So, I hope you consider that when you write the next book…The Language of Healing.
We all need to get away from extremism and/or silencing and censorship.
Why can’t we just talk it out instead of it always be: YOU must say things this way or that—both are rooted in fear. Like we can’t rephrase or explain our words in “Live” conversations or blogs. After all, we do it all the time in person.
Understanding is no longer the goal, I think power and control have blocked so much of it, all rooted in fear. Technology has been awesome and it is changing the dialogue in so many powerful and good ways too. And, the mega microphones do belong to extremists. That’s a huge issue!
I respond to my friends posts, that’s how you impact change.
Take a risk, as friends, sharing another point of view.
That’s not trolling, that’s discussing things as friends.
Personally, I let my friends know I may respond to any topic they post. I’ve let them know that I may even share a different point of view. Because real friends can see things differently, and still be friends. Truly, if our culture cannot work it out with established friends, then what is the hope of us working out civil dialogue with strangers.
That’s my three to five cents.
Great podcast. Wayne gave a very brief summary of how bridgebuilders worked. I’d love to hear a full version.
Brits who are offended at the word ‘crap’ need to get out in the community more. They certainly don’t mix with some of the people I know!
Thanks for your on-going conversation. It’s so refreshing.
Trust your ticker’s back to normal now Wayne. Thank God!
And please keep us updated on Sara’s condition. She must be much better or you wouldn’t have left her.
As regards listening to the other opinion, the big issue in the UK now is Brexit. Half of us want out of the EU, and the other half are calling those who voted out, ‘idiots’.
It would be nice to hear an outsider’s view on Brexit.
I’ve stopped arguing and avoid the subject now. And I avoid some people because I know they’ll bring it up.
I’ve stopped putting posts that advocate my viewpoint on Facebook, because I want my friends to stay friends.
There’s a lot of bad feeling on the subject, because those who wanted to remain in the EU are upset that we’re leaving, and those who voted to leave are upset because there’s little evidence that we’re actually going to leave. Especially since the process is mainly presided over by people who didn’t want to leave anyway.
Do either of you have any views or comments on Brexit?
While listening to this podcast, I was reminded of the scripture idea Paul was writing to the Thessalonians out of: a time when a great falling away occurs and is followed by the removing of “He” which has restrained lawlessness. Then “the lawless one” move’s into that space, and Jesus must Return. In Daniel’s “statue dream” seems like the end of the season when the glue tween the toes could keep the clay and iron of human government together. So Jesus comes, and sets up His kingdom. I get from Paul’s letter that he was trying to motivate them back to work.
I’m thinking that the “He” could be institutional-ness in general. Could be that the religiously woven fabric and sense of legality and morality in our New Millennium is just breaking down. We all want freedom from religion’s way of keeping us in-check. The seas of people, the nations are enraged with it and are tossing to and froe. But, other than individual’s living “quiet and peaceable” lives, how much can be organized to withstand this decline? I feel a little fatalistic in saying this, which isn’t good. I know we can live differently as individuals, especially if God is the one removing the “HE”, then what else is a mother to do? Paul doesn’t really indicate who’s doing the removing, so perhaps we can resist the removing of the “He” that’s holding back the lawless one. Or, perhaps falling away from religion is the best we can do. Is it the same thing as removing “He” that’s been the restrainer of lawlessness. Like you can’t have one without the other. Does promoting real freedom make way for Lawlessness?
Sorry these are kind of raw thoughts— not too well worked out. I just thought I’d toss it out there and reread it a few times to see if it added anything to the discussion: which I thoroughly enjoyed. Thanks guys
I don’t have any deep, insightful comment.
Father must have just loved the Cannonball Kid. I sure did!
I will be more like him.