If you so much as waver in my direction you will be toasted by the clique on this board.
That sounds really paranoid, Fred. Certainly it lacks "positive energy," however you try to soften it by saying you are determined to "love your enemies." The fact is that you have decided we (the "clique") are all your enemies.
Frankly, I'm disappointed. I rather liked your last post to me. I thought that perhaps something was getting through to you. For one thing, you agreed with my comment that "perhaps you should stop talking so much about your own experiences and start displaying an interest in the
experiences of others."
You went on to explain whyyou talk about yourself: it is, you said, because you "believe in taking risks
to expose oneself first."
I dare say that is what you believe. But the problem is that it comes across as boasting. Your idea of "service" is very like what Judaism/Christianity/Islam all call "charity" (which goes beyond alms-giving). Charity (zakat) is one of the five pillars of Islam, for example. Every believer is expected to give 2.5% of his income to charity. What he gives beyond that is "sadaqa" -- sometimes translated as "voluntary charity" -- which should, insofar as possible, be given anonymously, and in secret. We are not necessarily talking money here. As the Prophet said: "Even meeting your brother with a cheerful face is charity."
The point is that all forms of zakat are viewed as service, service that should be rendered without any thought of recognition.
So by focussing on your own experiences, you may be preventing your message from getting across.
Back to your post. After proclaiming your own willingness to risk self-exposure, you went on:
Most people like to sit on the sidelines and point fingers. I'm not saying they are bad or good. It's just an
overriding nature for most people. They get into comfort zones and end up back scratching/feeding off others. Then for alot of groups, there's this mutual agenda of blaming, pointing and judging others which feeds more energy into the clique, supporting the negative paradigm.
I think I see the problem here. Actually, there seem to be two problems:
1) You have a very negative view of "most people," and you are quick to "blame" them and "point fingers" at them, and assume they are in need of your "uplifting."
2) You seem to regard any attempt to criticize/analyze your ideas, as you express them, as a manifestation of "negativity" and "finger-pointing." Seems to me you are just uncomfortable with debate. Most people on this thread thrive on debate. Frankly, it's fun (at least, when it's civil). There does not have to be anything "negative" about it. On the contrary, after a good debate/discussion, the participants may find that they have changed their views, at least a little, based on what they have heard.
If you think about it a little, I think you will find that many people have objected not so much to your message per se, as to your style of expressing it. As my mother used to say to me, with a sigh: "It isn't what you say, dear. It's how you say it."
:-) |
