When Words and Actions Conflict, Actions Carry the Stronger Message
are you duplicitous?

Do you have a friend who you KNOW differs from you with regard to faith, politics, relationships, social issues, etc?

Is there a difference in how you relate to them one-on-one and how you express your opinion of the cultural sub-groups they fit into?

Do you have a Christian friend and mock Christians as uneducated sheep?

Do you have a liberal or conservative friend who you personally interact with respectfully but then post content that could be viewed by them as arrogant condescension?

Do you post divisive and mocking “us” vs. “them” memes and gifs about the group your friend is affiliated with?

Those friends are not stupid and they don’t live under a rock. They see your posts. They hear what you say. And when you talk to them in real life, they know what you REALLY think about them.

They know you are duplicitous.

(unless you’ve blocked them because YOU ALREADY KNOW you are duplicitous)

Look at the content you post, from the other person’s point of view.
Listen to what you say, from the other person’s perspective.

Often, we have the ability to recognize content that might be viewed as an attack on others who differ from us. If you know it crosses that line, DON’T post it. DON’T say it.

Not sure? If you genuinely care about this other person, be brave. ASK them if they’ve seen or heard anything you posted or said that contradicted the respect you express toward them in person.

Maybe they’ll tell you the truth.

or maybe, they will protect themselves by remaining silent because they know they can’t trust you.

I’ve written about this before, with examples, in my posts entitled:
duplicity. duplicity everywhere” and
People talking without speaking. People hearing without listening

the 1% rule. a minority with too much free time? or representative of the 99%?

Something has bothered me for a while. When someone says that a certain group of people “thinks” this or “says” that, where does the opinion of that group come from?

If it’s true that only 1% of people are “vocal” on the internet, (via posts, tweets, comments or blogs) does that really tell us what the quiet people are thinking? (I’m not claiming to be one of the quiet ones.)

1percentrule.svg

By Life of RileyOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Even if a person on the internet seems to be in line with my own thoughts on a subject, I rarely agree with the way they’ve stated it much less every nuance of their opinion. Often, there is no nuance, the stand is so extreme it forces polarized positions and the statements are surface level, oversimplified, sarcastic or trite.

The world is bigger than this 1%.

The issues are complex and I have a feeling a good chunk of the other 99% think much deeper than can be expressed in a tweet. So, they don’t tweet, they talk. and listen.

In person.

Where there are no trolls and the only seagulls are at the beach.

I don’t say “the left” does or says this or “the right” does or says that. Reformed, Arminian, Atheist, Evangelicals, straight, LGBT, Clinton/Trump “supporters”….whatever group label you can think of, remember the 1% rule.

“The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the Internet represents approximately 1% (give or take) of the people actually viewing that content. For example, for every person who posts on a forum, generally about 99 other people are viewing that forum but not posting.” [CLICK HERE to read the full wikimedia content on the 1% rule]

Given our propensity to get our information from the internet, it’s statistically probable that whatever opinion you hold about a certain labeled group and whatever reasoning behind that opinion is based on what 1% of the internet population thinks – and the internet population is only 40% of the world population.

The world is bigger than this 1%. We only think they represent the majority because they are the loudest and most visible.

The quiet people are thinking. And apparently, there’s more of them than we realize. I’m betting one of the reasons they are quiet is that they have no time or patience for the tic-tac-toe futility of the bickering that seems so prevalent on the internet today.

Thank God. Because there’s a LOT of intolerant and judgemental people on the internet who could use a day or two off the grid to regain some perspective.

#seepeople and #edify, because everybody is #justadifferentkindofbroken

#GoodNews – the Christian faith isn’t about being “good.”

JSMGospelMeansGoodNewsThe Christian faith isn’t about being “good” and trying not to do anything “wrong.” ‪

#‎Jesus‬ wasn’t just a good man Christians should strive to emulate.

If I believe the eye witnesses, He was God himself, in the flesh. He came to restore my relationship with Him – a relationship severed by my rejection and indifference.

I suffer when I am separated from God. Without Jesus, that separation would be eternal.

Any parent will tell you they wish they could take their child’s place when the child suffers.

If you believe what Jesus said, that’s what God did. ‪#‎ibelieve‬ ‪#‎GospelMeansGoodNews‬

Richard Dawkins acknowledges the possibility of Intelligent Design…

Richard Dawkins on the Possibility of Intelligent DesignHow did I not know this?

Anti-theist, Richard Dawkins believes in the possibility of intelligent design:

“It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, by probably some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. That is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the D cells of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”

Doing the math…

That’s: 3 “coulds” 1 “somewhere” 1 “probably” 1 “perhaps” 3 “possibilities” and 2 “mights” all adding up to

– if I understand him correctly –

Aliens.

from outer space.

or more specifically, from “somewhere” in space, at “some earlier time” in history.

perhaps. He supposes.

He makes this statement in an interview with Ben Stein, who comments:

“So, Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design. Just certain types of designers. Such as God.”

Aliens are a reasonable scientific theory.

But a different kind of transcendent being,

such as God,

is not.

Here’s two data points I will remember forever about Richard Dawkins:

1. When asked, without even a hint of argument, he immediately acknowledged the possibility of intelligent design:

“It could come about in the following way.”

2. Without any citing any scientific evidence, using words like could, probably, perhaps, possible and might, he believes aliens are a reasonable scientific theory to explain intelligent design.

“And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”

And then there’s his quote about “people who claim to be religious” from my post yesterday:

“Mock them. Ridicule them. In public.” Religion “needs to be ridiculed. With contempt.

Richard Dawkins on Christians: “mock them. ridicule them. in public. with contempt.”

[Background Photo Source and Prints Available to Purchase from: http://navitz.deviantart.com/art/Wings-of-a-Broken-Heart-32783712 ]
[Background Photo Source and Prints Available to Purchase from: http://navitz.deviantart.com/art/Wings-of-a-Broken-Heart-32783712 ]

Been thinking about something Richard Dawkins said
when he spoke about
meeting someone who claims to be religious:

“Mock them.

Ridicule them.

In public.”

Religion “needs to be ridiculed.

With contempt.”

And the crowd he addressed laughed and cheered and applauded.

I don’t agree.

I can’t fathom a single situation in which contemptuous ridicule is “needed.”

Public or private.

Everybody is ‪#‎justadifferentkindofbroken‬ ‪#‎edify‬

sarcasm: religious and political poison.

sarcasm and stupidityReading too much on the internet today and keep thinking one thing:

Sarcasm is an ineffective persuasive technique.

It’s condescending, arrogant, divisive and shuts down dialog. It’s too often used by people in a manner to indicate that an issue is simple and anyone who doesn’t see the simplicity and logic of their side of an argument is an idiot to be ridiculed and dismissed.

Seriously.

If these issues were simple,
they wouldn’t be so controversial.

Anyone who uses trite, flippant sarcasm to make a point – especially without even acknowledging any opposing points of view – loses credibility with me

and my interest in any discussion with them about how stupid the other guy’s point of view is

– regardless of whether I am the other guy or am aligned in opinion with the person wielding the sarcasm.

sarcasm puppets and crayons