I bought my husband a card a few years ago, because it said what I believe about marriage. And I plan on giving the same card to my son's friend today, as he embarks on "a challenge of his lifetime"! All healthy relationships are defined, I believe, on some or most of these principles, so I thought I would share them, as they are of important value to me.
Marriage is (by Barbara Cage)
A commitment. Its success
doesn't depend on circumstances,
feelings, or moods-but on
two people who are loyal to
each other and the vows they
took on their wedding day....
A relationship where two people
must listen, compromise, and respect.
It's an arrangement that requires a
multitude of decisions to be made
together. Listening, respecting, and
compromising go a long way toward
keeping peace and harmony.
A union in which two people learn
form their mistakes, accept each
other's faults, and willingly adjust
bahaviors that need to be changed.
It's caring enough about each other
to work throught disappointing and
hurtful times and believing in the
love that brought you together in the
first place.
Patience and forgiveness. It's being
open and honest, thoughtful and kind.
Marriage means talking things out,
making necessary changes, and forgiving
each other. It's unconditional love at it's
most understanding and vulnerable-
love supports, comforts, and is
determined to triumph over every challenge
and adversity.
Marriage is a partnership of two unique
people who bring out the very best in each
other and who know that even though
they are wonderful as individuals
they are even better together.
Except for the personal terms, i.e. forgiveness, disappointing and hurtful times,I believe that this kind of commitment could also be applied to other kinds of relationships (business, and diplomacy). The personal terms are to be replaced by the "rule of law", which is considered respect in a civil society.
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Individual Rights and Expectations
Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What Do You Do, When No One Listens?
What happens when people don't listen to YOU? Do you feel frustrated, alone, insignificant, devalued, ignored, minimized, dismissed or what? Perhaps, all these terms apply and this is what is so disturbing when people don't listen!
Has life taught you to expect others to listen because your parent valued your opinion, or at least, you, as a child and a separate being? Or has life taught you that no one listens, because they are too busy for YOU? "You" are those previous terms we used in our first paragraph? What happens when we don't take others seriously? Can we have expectations of them, when we have been dismissive and arrogant?
On a recent program I was listening to, a psychologist say that many conflicts occur because of hidden expectations. These unidentified expectatons are "key" to what we really want or need in a relationship. Expectation is about how we 'see" relationships, in general, and if they are not addressed, there is not much hope of relationship.
Relationships are about two people or groups of people that have certain desires and these groups/people are "formed" by expectations. These expectations frame/interpret our judgments of another's "love" :"value" or "care" of us, as persons. Many times unconscious demands on another's life is what really bothers those that can't seem to bend or express themselves in ways that are productive. These kinds of people are hard-core moralists that hold to a high road of superior vision, purpose, or design about/on life. Those not "in the game" are "not in the game". There is not much compromise in their view, as to compromise is to de-value their ultimates which are absolutes. Absolutes cannot be negotiated, as that would be 'kin" to treason. One must by loyal to principle before people.
When no one listens because they haven't understood or minimized your concern, what can you do? You can take responsibility for youself, and choose the road that seems most pertinant to your values and remember that even those that listen, might not listen well. So, take care of yourself and your own family.
Has life taught you to expect others to listen because your parent valued your opinion, or at least, you, as a child and a separate being? Or has life taught you that no one listens, because they are too busy for YOU? "You" are those previous terms we used in our first paragraph? What happens when we don't take others seriously? Can we have expectations of them, when we have been dismissive and arrogant?
On a recent program I was listening to, a psychologist say that many conflicts occur because of hidden expectations. These unidentified expectatons are "key" to what we really want or need in a relationship. Expectation is about how we 'see" relationships, in general, and if they are not addressed, there is not much hope of relationship.
Relationships are about two people or groups of people that have certain desires and these groups/people are "formed" by expectations. These expectations frame/interpret our judgments of another's "love" :"value" or "care" of us, as persons. Many times unconscious demands on another's life is what really bothers those that can't seem to bend or express themselves in ways that are productive. These kinds of people are hard-core moralists that hold to a high road of superior vision, purpose, or design about/on life. Those not "in the game" are "not in the game". There is not much compromise in their view, as to compromise is to de-value their ultimates which are absolutes. Absolutes cannot be negotiated, as that would be 'kin" to treason. One must by loyal to principle before people.
When no one listens because they haven't understood or minimized your concern, what can you do? You can take responsibility for youself, and choose the road that seems most pertinant to your values and remember that even those that listen, might not listen well. So, take care of yourself and your own family.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Children of Divorce
My grandchildren spent 5 days with me recently, as their parents had to work and one night was spent in the hospital with our grandson for some testing. By the end of their stay, Hannah was asking for her Mommy and saying how she didn't ever want to leave her Mommy, "ever again". I knew she didn't say this because she had not enjoyed her visit with me, but because she had a real need for her "Mommy". When I asked her what she would do if she got married, she just smiled and said," I'll take Mommy with me."
I know they love me, as they express this often, but their hearts belong to their parents. and so it should be. What happens to such hearts when they face a loss "they can't imagine". Would it be the nightmare of their lifetime? And how would it affect the rest of their life?
I know of a case where the parents were divorced because of the husband's infidelity. The little girl was only 6, but was affected so deeply, a psychologist suggested regular counselling. But, how was a single mother to afford such an "extravagance"? This little girl had three other siblings; an older sister, a younger brother, and one yet to be born. This was the time when divorce was not looked upon lightly. It was a great stigma.
The children and mother moved to a house beside their maternal grandparents, so the mother could work and the grandparents be ready made babysitters. The grandparents weren't too easy-going with the children's newfound anxieties. And with the newborn, it was almost too much.
Several years later, the mother and children moved to a small house near the hospital, where the mother held down a job. They were dirt poor, and had to make ends meet by sharing clothes and eating the bare minimum.
These experiences left deep scars on the children. All of them grew up with an unusual need for material security, and the "finer things in life", which I suppose was due to the shame they suffered from being so poor.
The good news is the mother got re-married when the children had become young adults. The oldest daughter marrying a year later and the next eloping a few months after that. A child was born to the eloping couple 9 months after their marriage. The mother was only 17.
How did that 17 year old mother think? Was she able to be equipped to parent her little girl? Wasn't she even in the best of circumstances at a grave disadvantage? And didn't her background make it even harder for her to "care and nurture"? What about her need for counselling that had not been met? Was this need exasperated by such stress as a teen marriage and teen motherhood?
I can't imagine how hard it would've been to be in her shoes. But, I do know the little girl could not have gotten good mothering. She couldn't have. And how did that affect her?
Children of divorce are more likely to get divorced themselves. I have wondered the reasons. Is it because they haven't the example of commitment? are they emotionally immature? or is it that they sabatoge their own happiness? or do they fear intimacy? do they expect and perhaps, force abandonment? Do they mis-read and mis-communicate due to their anxieties? Do they manipulate for fear their needs won't be met? do they feel unworthy and have a low self-esteem? are they low achievers or driven persons?
I think all of these apply in indivdual cases. And even divorces that happen after children are grown still has a grave affect. I had a friend in her 30's suffer after her parent's divorce. She was disoriented. Her identity was traumatized. She didn't see it coming. And she worried for her own children's sake!
I have several other friends who live in the house with their husbands, but have no intimacy. Which is worse? What is the answer?
I have seen in my own family my grandmother, and three of her four children suffer divorces. And the dynamics that are normally difficult are doubly compounded. Divorce should never be taken lightly. It affects everyone.
I know they love me, as they express this often, but their hearts belong to their parents. and so it should be. What happens to such hearts when they face a loss "they can't imagine". Would it be the nightmare of their lifetime? And how would it affect the rest of their life?
I know of a case where the parents were divorced because of the husband's infidelity. The little girl was only 6, but was affected so deeply, a psychologist suggested regular counselling. But, how was a single mother to afford such an "extravagance"? This little girl had three other siblings; an older sister, a younger brother, and one yet to be born. This was the time when divorce was not looked upon lightly. It was a great stigma.
The children and mother moved to a house beside their maternal grandparents, so the mother could work and the grandparents be ready made babysitters. The grandparents weren't too easy-going with the children's newfound anxieties. And with the newborn, it was almost too much.
Several years later, the mother and children moved to a small house near the hospital, where the mother held down a job. They were dirt poor, and had to make ends meet by sharing clothes and eating the bare minimum.
These experiences left deep scars on the children. All of them grew up with an unusual need for material security, and the "finer things in life", which I suppose was due to the shame they suffered from being so poor.
The good news is the mother got re-married when the children had become young adults. The oldest daughter marrying a year later and the next eloping a few months after that. A child was born to the eloping couple 9 months after their marriage. The mother was only 17.
How did that 17 year old mother think? Was she able to be equipped to parent her little girl? Wasn't she even in the best of circumstances at a grave disadvantage? And didn't her background make it even harder for her to "care and nurture"? What about her need for counselling that had not been met? Was this need exasperated by such stress as a teen marriage and teen motherhood?
I can't imagine how hard it would've been to be in her shoes. But, I do know the little girl could not have gotten good mothering. She couldn't have. And how did that affect her?
Children of divorce are more likely to get divorced themselves. I have wondered the reasons. Is it because they haven't the example of commitment? are they emotionally immature? or is it that they sabatoge their own happiness? or do they fear intimacy? do they expect and perhaps, force abandonment? Do they mis-read and mis-communicate due to their anxieties? Do they manipulate for fear their needs won't be met? do they feel unworthy and have a low self-esteem? are they low achievers or driven persons?
I think all of these apply in indivdual cases. And even divorces that happen after children are grown still has a grave affect. I had a friend in her 30's suffer after her parent's divorce. She was disoriented. Her identity was traumatized. She didn't see it coming. And she worried for her own children's sake!
I have several other friends who live in the house with their husbands, but have no intimacy. Which is worse? What is the answer?
I have seen in my own family my grandmother, and three of her four children suffer divorces. And the dynamics that are normally difficult are doubly compounded. Divorce should never be taken lightly. It affects everyone.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
When Someone Lies
Lies affect many things; trust, perception, decisions, hope, desire, etc. Lies cannot be the basis of any ordered society, because the basis of any relationship is trust and the basic perception that decisions are based upon.
I had the T.V. on while I was painting today. Oprah had Andrew Young on, along with his wife. I didn't listen carefully to all the details, as these kinds of things make me sick, but the discussion was about the marital infidelity of Edwards. They were asked to lie for him. They depended on Edwards for their job and sustenance. What were they to do?
I can't understand why anyone would want to cover for another that is decieving thier wife. But, according to Andrew and his wife, Edwards made them think that his wife was about to die. This is horrendously blantant contempt for others, in my opinion. That is hard for me to swallow.
The costs were high for Andrew and his family. "O what a tangled web we weave...." (Shakespeare) rings so true.
I had the T.V. on while I was painting today. Oprah had Andrew Young on, along with his wife. I didn't listen carefully to all the details, as these kinds of things make me sick, but the discussion was about the marital infidelity of Edwards. They were asked to lie for him. They depended on Edwards for their job and sustenance. What were they to do?
I can't understand why anyone would want to cover for another that is decieving thier wife. But, according to Andrew and his wife, Edwards made them think that his wife was about to die. This is horrendously blantant contempt for others, in my opinion. That is hard for me to swallow.
The costs were high for Andrew and his family. "O what a tangled web we weave...." (Shakespeare) rings so true.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
On Forgiveness....
Today in my e-mail, I noticed on a Science and Religion newmail that research had been done on forgiveness. It talked about how there was a decision making process to forgive before one could experience the emotional feeling and health benefits. It also covered various ways forgiveness is manifested toward self, other and God. (Apologies to the one who did the research, but it seems like a overly simplistic view on forgiveness, although I understand that the newsmail could not ever cover all of the information that the researcher uncovered or evaluated. I am only responding to what was stated.)
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
"Surrogates", the Movie
My husband and I went to see "Surrogates" this afternoon. It was a movie that historicizes "virtual reality".
"Surrogates" are robot type "models" of humanity that function for the individual in society. The living human being is "connected" to the surrogate via a "computorized system". "Surrogates" Live for the human, as the human only experiences their life within the confines of their "chair".
The meaning of the movie to me was how disconnected the "connected" were. Relationships were dissolved of intimacy and humans were denied their "humanity".
Is this where we are today, even though we don't "officially" function as a "surrogate" society?
"Surrogates" are robot type "models" of humanity that function for the individual in society. The living human being is "connected" to the surrogate via a "computorized system". "Surrogates" Live for the human, as the human only experiences their life within the confines of their "chair".
The meaning of the movie to me was how disconnected the "connected" were. Relationships were dissolved of intimacy and humans were denied their "humanity".
Is this where we are today, even though we don't "officially" function as a "surrogate" society?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Problem With Christianizing Experience
In the past two weeks, I have talked with two friends who live in two different places,; who I have known in different "times" of my life, and who don't know each other. I have been struck with some similarities of experience, and finding that "christianizing" their experience is horrendously cruel. What do I mean?
One friend is married to an alcoholic, who is "in ministry", while the other friend is married, while living "estranged". Both are committed but struggling with staying married, questioning the situation, themselves, dealing with anger, confusion, indifference.... As I talk with them, I listen and try to understand, but I used to try to "christianize" my advice, as I thought that this was the "right" thing to do. I don't do so anymore. I only struggle to help them understand, evaluate, and try to encourage in any way I can.
I find that Christians bring upon these kinds of people trememdous pain, guilt and condemnation, by their patronizing attitude toward their "problems". One of the couples is in a small group and she shares some of her anger and frustration over not being understood and the simplistic way in which everyone else seems to understand their life. Of course, she does not feel free to "really share". Christians are not the first people that one thinks about "running toward".
I don't think that these two friends and their 'problems" are any different from any other human problems in one sense, but in another sense, they are suffering more under the guise of the expectations of "Christians".
These two friends and their "christianized experiences" are not the only ones that have impacted my opinion about Christian faith. My brother many years ago wanted to divorce his wife. My mother would not agree to it, which now she regrets. His marriage was a horrible one, but "good christians" don't divorce. His life ended in suicide. While I am not blaming his marriage as the total cause of his despair, it was a major part. Would he still be living if he had divorced? I don't know, but I wonder how our "christianized" encouragement damned his life!
Christians like to live by standards, which sometimes are hard roads to plow in the real world. The real world is not simple, and real solutions are not christianized experiences. Real solutions are political, moral and ethical questions about values that make up life. What is important to a person needs affirmation, if at all possible, not "christianized" condemnation.
"Christian" in evangelical/conservative terms has meant a "culture". But, that culture can be inhumane in their attempts to christianize experiences in the real world.
I have come to a point where Christian has no meaning, because what the word used to mean has dissappated. And under the circumstances, I think that is a good thing.
One friend is married to an alcoholic, who is "in ministry", while the other friend is married, while living "estranged". Both are committed but struggling with staying married, questioning the situation, themselves, dealing with anger, confusion, indifference.... As I talk with them, I listen and try to understand, but I used to try to "christianize" my advice, as I thought that this was the "right" thing to do. I don't do so anymore. I only struggle to help them understand, evaluate, and try to encourage in any way I can.
I find that Christians bring upon these kinds of people trememdous pain, guilt and condemnation, by their patronizing attitude toward their "problems". One of the couples is in a small group and she shares some of her anger and frustration over not being understood and the simplistic way in which everyone else seems to understand their life. Of course, she does not feel free to "really share". Christians are not the first people that one thinks about "running toward".
I don't think that these two friends and their 'problems" are any different from any other human problems in one sense, but in another sense, they are suffering more under the guise of the expectations of "Christians".
These two friends and their "christianized experiences" are not the only ones that have impacted my opinion about Christian faith. My brother many years ago wanted to divorce his wife. My mother would not agree to it, which now she regrets. His marriage was a horrible one, but "good christians" don't divorce. His life ended in suicide. While I am not blaming his marriage as the total cause of his despair, it was a major part. Would he still be living if he had divorced? I don't know, but I wonder how our "christianized" encouragement damned his life!
Christians like to live by standards, which sometimes are hard roads to plow in the real world. The real world is not simple, and real solutions are not christianized experiences. Real solutions are political, moral and ethical questions about values that make up life. What is important to a person needs affirmation, if at all possible, not "christianized" condemnation.
"Christian" in evangelical/conservative terms has meant a "culture". But, that culture can be inhumane in their attempts to christianize experiences in the real world.
I have come to a point where Christian has no meaning, because what the word used to mean has dissappated. And under the circumstances, I think that is a good thing.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Networks, Individuals and Relationships
Relationships make us human, Relationships sometimesdefine our person, but should not be our sole source of "self". Relationships make for opportunity, as relationships are about connection.
The business world calls "connection" networking. But, what if an individual has no network? What if, for no fault of their own, they have fallen through the cracks of their community? Some think this is the time for those "left out" to "reach out and touch". But, what if the message within the person inhibits them from continuing to "reach out"? Messages are sent by how we exclude another and these messages are internalized. That is why it is important that all have a voice, otherwise, we do disservice to another and end up scape-goating them.
The real issue is that the scapegoat is usually the answer to much of the problem, as the scapegoat covers or takes upon himself the sins of the others. But, the scapegoat suffers, while others go "scot free" in their jealousies, petty competiviness, and superior attitudes toward another make like them. This is not justice, or just.
Discrimination is based on a lie that another is not worthy or to be valued. And discrimination is unloving. Obama represents a new hope that all of us will not continue in the petty bigotedness of the past, but represent a new hope for tomorrow...
The business world calls "connection" networking. But, what if an individual has no network? What if, for no fault of their own, they have fallen through the cracks of their community? Some think this is the time for those "left out" to "reach out and touch". But, what if the message within the person inhibits them from continuing to "reach out"? Messages are sent by how we exclude another and these messages are internalized. That is why it is important that all have a voice, otherwise, we do disservice to another and end up scape-goating them.
The real issue is that the scapegoat is usually the answer to much of the problem, as the scapegoat covers or takes upon himself the sins of the others. But, the scapegoat suffers, while others go "scot free" in their jealousies, petty competiviness, and superior attitudes toward another make like them. This is not justice, or just.
Discrimination is based on a lie that another is not worthy or to be valued. And discrimination is unloving. Obama represents a new hope that all of us will not continue in the petty bigotedness of the past, but represent a new hope for tomorrow...
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Misconceptions Based on Mispreceptions
Today we dedicated our grandson, Drayton, in Church. As a celebration, my husband, I and family went to a local resturant.
After having lunch, we all departed to meet back up at our house. I entered the parking lot, which was filled with ice. My oldest son approached me with his hand outstretched. I started to back away, as I identified this gesture as one of mischief. He continued to approach me rapidly and when I grimaced, he looked at me with surprise, as he was only trying to help me across the parking lot. I, on the other hand, had thought that he had a "snowball in tow" to throw at me...When we got in the car, he questioned my response, and I told him that he and his brother always found seaweed at the beach to "scare" Mom"...so, I had projected that image onto his helpfulness. We laughed in the car, reminiscing about our times at the beach and their mischevious ways...I'm glad I misprecieved his intent, as it led to a delightful memory of "family"...
This so often happens in relationships, as we precieve what we have experienced, so often and project it onto our present experience. We must take care to take care of our past, so that our past does not continue to affect our present and influence our future.
After having lunch, we all departed to meet back up at our house. I entered the parking lot, which was filled with ice. My oldest son approached me with his hand outstretched. I started to back away, as I identified this gesture as one of mischief. He continued to approach me rapidly and when I grimaced, he looked at me with surprise, as he was only trying to help me across the parking lot. I, on the other hand, had thought that he had a "snowball in tow" to throw at me...When we got in the car, he questioned my response, and I told him that he and his brother always found seaweed at the beach to "scare" Mom"...so, I had projected that image onto his helpfulness. We laughed in the car, reminiscing about our times at the beach and their mischevious ways...I'm glad I misprecieved his intent, as it led to a delightful memory of "family"...
This so often happens in relationships, as we precieve what we have experienced, so often and project it onto our present experience. We must take care to take care of our past, so that our past does not continue to affect our present and influence our future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
