Spiritual Polarities

Akita Suggagaki · May 23, 2025

Even among those within the same faith community we find disagreements, debate and polemic. That, in itself, is not bad. We can actually help each other by giving voice to our own seeking and questioning.

The problem comes when we get locked into and extreme and it becomes a camp. "Left" and "Right", "Conservative" and "Progressive" seem the most common. And "Left" usually seems "Progressive" while "Right" usually seems "Conservative".

I find myself pondering the question of how people that share so much belief in common can come to such polar opposite conclusions. It carries into politics as well as religion.

It looks like the "General Public" is not as polarized as political parties. Extremes are 100 & 6. 40 and 42 on each side of the middle "Stressed Sideliners".
Also, between Ambivalent Right, Stressed and Outsider Left we have 37%. That leaves 28% leaning red and 35% leaning blue.

I don't think, we are as polarized as the media portrays us.

Maria Billingsley · May 23, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
Even among those within the same faith community we find disagreements, debate and polemic. That, in itself, is not bad. We can actually help each other by giving voice to our own seeking and questioning.

The problem comes when we get locked into and extreme and it becomes a camp. "Left" and "Right", "Conservative" and "Progressive" seem the most common. And "Left" usually seems "Progressive" while "Right" usually seems "Conservative".

I find myself pondering the question of how people that share so much belief in common can come to such polar opposite conclusions. It carries into politics as well as religion.

View attachment 365388
It looks like the "General Public" is not as polarized as political parties. Extremes are 100 & 6. 40 and 42 on each side of the middle "Stressed Sideliners".
Also, between Ambivalent Right, Stressed and Outsider Left we have 37%. That leaves 28% leaning red and 35% leaning blue.

I don't think, we are as polarized as the media portrays us.

We should probably avoid using politics as our gage for Christian unity.
Blessings

bèlla · May 23, 2025

Our common denominator is Christ. Christians devote too much energy to meaningless divisions which do little to improve their person or walk with God. When your mind is that compromised you see everything as win or lose and either or. It’s a combative way to think and honestly exhausting.

~bella

Akita Suggagaki · May 23, 2025

bèlla said:
Our common denominator is Christ. Christians devote too much energy to meaningless divisions which do little to improve their person or walk with God. When your mind is that compromised you see everything as win or lose and either or. It’s a combative way to think and honestly exhausting.

~bella

I agree with that but there is no consensus on Christian praxis, what is mean means in public life where it inevitable must manifest.

Richard T · May 23, 2025

Parties and right or left are just methods to simplify one's political beliefs. Sadly, some just follow the whole enchilada of one party and don't think through the policies and consequences. I read public comments on various news places and am surprised at how so many can agree on claims and statements that are clearly false.
Perhaps it will require some hard dead ends to end this kind of thinking. Hopefully many dems got a check on reality and soon it may be the GOP's turn. The Trump phenomenon is incredible in lots of ways (good and bad) but I think it will be over by the midterms. I think too it will get far uglier than it is right now though.

RDKirk · May 23, 2025

Nah, neither party will have learned its hard lessons by the mid-term, no matter what happens.

Richard T · May 23, 2025

RDKirk said:
Nah, neither party will have learned its hard lessons by the mid-term, no matter what happens.

Could be but maybe the donors will have learned?

linux.poet · May 23, 2025

People are attracted to division because, inherently, different perspectives can be learned from. Underneath the political and spiritual divisions of our time is the dignity of distinguishing oneself and the human attraction to novelty, to new and different things. Once the opposite polarity is well-known and accepted as a boring triviality, it is no longer a source of novel amusement.

This also why debates are a form of entertainment, but they can be therapeutic. While novel ideas can be amusing, they can also be threatening and cause fear. So debating them online can reduce one’s fear of that idea when it shows up in real life. Political ideas are more threatening than other novel ideas because they have the potential to kill people or otherwise impose misery/obstacles on them, so reducing them to boredom requires having peace with one’s own death and ability to solve problems. The more you have backup plans to your backup plans, the more you end up in peace.

As for actual spiritual polarities, that is the Calvins and the Armenians, and the legalists and antinomians.

The deep emotional worship of the Pentecostals versus the deep intellectual thinking of the Presbyterians. Each denomination seems to have its own emphasis, it’s own vibe. The Catholics emphasize relationships: laity to priest, priest to cardinal, cardinal to Pope. Men to women. Living to dead. It’s about compassion and quality of relationships. The Orthodox emphasize history, the long tradition and lines of people going back through time to the original apostles. The Messianics emphasize the value of Biblical language and which Hebrew and Greek word says what, and the non-denominationalists emphasize performance - read the Scriptures, study the Scripture, memorize the Scripture, act consistently with the Scripture, emphasizing God’s sovereignty and obedience to Paul’s instructions. All but the last are crude first impressions and probably grossly incomplete if not wrong, but it’s more than politics that divide Christian perspectives.

Liberals believe in sacrificing principles to comfort people, whereas conservatives believe in sacrificing people’s comfort and rights on behalf of truth. So it makes sense to me that the Catholics would be liberal while the non-denominationals and Presbyterians would lean conservative, because their theology is the same as the politics. The fact that it actually happens that way would seem to reinforce my point.

chevyontheriver · May 23, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
Even among those within the same faith community we find disagreements, debate and polemic. That, in itself, is not bad. We can actually help each other by giving voice to our own seeking and questioning.

The problem comes when we get locked into and extreme and it becomes a camp. "Left" and "Right", "Conservative" and "Progressive" seem the most common. And "Left" usually seems "Progressive" while "Right" usually seems "Conservative".

I find myself pondering the question of how people that share so much belief in common can come to such polar opposite conclusions. It carries into politics as well as religion.

View attachment 365388
It looks like the "General Public" is not as polarized as political parties. Extremes are 100 & 6. 40 and 42 on each side of the middle "Stressed Sideliners".
Also, between Ambivalent Right, Stressed and Outsider Left we have 37%. That leaves 28% leaning red and 35% leaning blue.

I don't think, we are as polarized as the media portrays us.

Interesting. But I don't think 'left' and 'right' fully encompass all the possibilities out there. For example, where does distributism fit in to it all? Or subsidiarity? Neither are neatly part of 'left' or 'right'.

bèlla · May 23, 2025

linux.poet said:
People are attracted to division because, inherently, different perspectives can be learned from. Underneath the political and spiritual divisions of our time is the dignity of distinguishing oneself and the human attraction to novelty, to new and different things. Once the opposite polarity is well-known and accepted as a boring triviality, it is no longer a source of novel amusement.

This also why debates are a form of entertainment, but they can be therapeutic.

I don’t believe that holds true for all and I’m definitely on the other side of this statement. Nor did the majority spend their time debating and arguing their point of view ad nauseam as a form of discourse. This is a new phenomenon. Spirited conversation always existed but it wasn’t necessary to make one’s point or share a different perspective. We knew how to communicate and the art of discussion was birthed in many homes. Differences of opinion were always there but they weren’t emphasized as a badge of honor. A declaration of political affiliation or outlook without something more behind it would be met with bewilderment. We were more than our likes and beliefs.

The phenomenon is largely the result of the internet and the co-mingling of values. While we encounter difference in daily living we don’t befriend it to the degree we engage with online. We live in a society that requires validation at a scale we’ve never witnessed and it isn’t sustainable. We’ll reach the point of weariness where tribalism becomes the new way of relating and it’s already underway.

Dissent is wearing out its welcome and many are no longer entertaining it in the measure they did before. These conversations won’t continue en masse. All extremes have a reciprocal correction. There was a time you didn’t discuss certain subjects openly because they were divisive. I see a rekindling of the practice and it may be for betterment.

~bella

linux.poet · May 24, 2025

bèlla said:
Dissent is wearing out its welcome and many are no longer entertaining it in the measure they did before. These conversations won’t continue en masse. All extremes have a reciprocal correction. There was a time you didn’t discuss certain subjects openly because they were divisive.

This attitude really strikes me as the fearful suppression of people’s thoughts and ideas. People were afraid to express themselves and be honest for fear of the condemnation of others in their social group. I’m not particularly eager to go back to that, much as it might have been necessary to survive in previous times and not be killed by other humans.

bèlla said:
The phenomenon is largely the result of the internet and the co-mingling of values. While we encounter difference in daily living we don’t befriend it to the degree we engage with online.

Yes, the internet has made debate and discourse less threatening because of distance and anonymity. We have turned what used to terrify us - social rejection - and made it a non-threatening toy to play with for the night’s entertainment.

People who don’t fear being socially accepted or rejected (such as myself) find a lot more mobility in this online space. The more you don’t care about what people think of you, the more advantages one may seem to gain here. But the vast majority of people seem to care what other people think of them, and the fact that I don’t skews my perspective on their fragility. This is buried deep in my personality and my aura in real life comes across as intimidating.

I should add the caveat that I do care about my behavior and the impact I am making on people though. I have noticed an inconsistency between positive or negative response from a person and whether what I am doing is good or bad, and a firmness and dedication to truth of God’s Word and His Will is required to sort through that particular chaos.

bèlla said:
Spirited conversation always existed but it wasn’t necessary to make one’s point or share a different perspective. We knew how to communicate and the art of discussion was birthed in many homes. Differences of opinion were always there but they weren’t emphasized as a badge of honor. A declaration of political affiliation or outlook without something more behind it would be met with bewilderment. We were more than our likes and beliefs.

Looking through the lens of history can be a source of insight, but sometimes progress exists for a reason. I do not think human discourse will regress, instead it will evolve to deal with the fear and addiction aspects of the Internet. There will be an accommodation for the damage done to the sheeple, and the system will change. Psychological exploitation is an unsustainable commodity because the hordes have more neurons than the elites and will eventually organize to overthrow the corrupt.

bèlla · May 24, 2025

linux.poet said:
This attitude really strikes me as the fearful suppression of people’s thoughts and ideas. People were afraid to express themselves and be honest for fear of the condemnation of others in their social group. I’m not particularly eager to go back to that, much as it might have been necessary to survive in previous times and not be killed by other humans.

As with most things what we say and how we say it have equal weight. No one is entitled to be heard. If you can’t communicate with civility and decorum they’re well within their right to abstain from discourse. More importantly, there’s the uncomfortable reality of free will many wish to ignore when they’re on the other side of it.

linux.poet said:
Yes, the internet has made debate and discourse less threatening because of distance and anonymity. We have turned what used to terrify us - social rejection - and made it a non-threatening toy to play with for the night’s entertainment.

No one is anonymous in this space and if you ruffle the wrong feathers they’ll have your information in a heartbeat and it happens all the time. The internet has many thinking they can say what they like and that’s the first mistake. Back in the day people understood the importance of minding their tongue. We have too much technology for people to behave like it’s the nineties. Words have greater consequences now.

linux.poet said:
People who don’t fear being socially accepted or rejected (such as myself) find a lot more mobility in this online space. The more you don’t care about what people think of you, the more advantages one may seem to gain here.

Many people echo the same until it touches their wallet. They lose a job or opportunity or get demonetized based on something they said online. Then they’re asking for donations and making videos sharing their plight. Free speech was always a hoax in this medium. It gave a false sense of security that encouraged people to act out and overshare without concern. But they were always going to tighten the noose.

linux.poet said:
I should add the caveat that I do care about my behavior and the impact I am making on people though. I have noticed an inconsistency between positive or negative response from a person and whether what I am doing is good or bad, and a firmness and dedication to truth of God’s Word and His Will is required to sort through that particular chaos.

My belief in Christ doesn’t give me the right to trod on another person’s will. They have a right to say they’re not interested. Don’t want to be bothered. Want to be left alone or don’t desire my company. Whether it pertains to the gospel or not. But a lot of people think otherwise. That’s why pushback is needed.

linux.poet said:
Looking through the lens of history can be a source of insight, but sometimes progress exists for a reason. I do not think human discourse will regress, instead it will evolve to deal with the fear and addiction aspects of the Internet. There will be an accommodation for the damage done to the sheeple, and the system will change. Psychological exploitation is an unsustainable commodity because the hordes have more neurons than the elites and will eventually organize to overthrow the corrupt.

The internet wasn’t built for that. Nor does the technology they’re releasing (or waiting on the pipeline) mirror your sentiments. It was always meant to be an echo chamber with pre approved voices guiding the masses much like we saw with celebrities. You may doubt that is so; but bear in mind, most content creators never make a product. They’re wholly dependent on sponsorships and affiliate income. YouTube always allows them to build before pulling the plug.

The system isn‘t going to change because we’re not charge. We have to learn how to thrive in spite of it. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a glimpse of your tomorrow. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. ;-)

~bella

linux.poet · May 24, 2025

bèlla said:
The internet wasn’t built for that. Nor does the technology they’re releasing (or waiting on the pipeline) mirror your sentiments. It was always meant to be an echo chamber with pre approved voices guiding the masses much like we saw with celebrities. You may doubt that is so; but bear in mind, most content creators never make a product. They’re wholly dependent on sponsorships and affiliate income. YouTube always allows them to build before pulling the plug.

The system isn‘t going to change because we’re not charge. We have to learn how to thrive in spite of it. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a glimpse of your tomorrow. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. ;-)

Ah, yes, more fear. We’re all pre-approved cogs in the machine and no one is truly benevolent. If I have an independent voice, I’m one of the programmers who is controlling everyone.

The difference is very simple: if nobody listens to me, I’m going to be okay. There’s no need to resort to violence to force my opinion on others, or arrogantly presume I deserve to run the show. When you do that, you push people away, and too much loneliness is uncomfortable and depressing.

I feel both of those extremes in my soul, though, because the system tried to force me to one side or the other, make me into a sheeple or force me to become a criminal wolf (and they blame me, and they blame me, and they blame me). Nah. “And you’re self-deceived! You have no integrity!” Panic, that is. And who am I threatening?

The truth is that, on this website, and probably just in general, I am a blundering fool with much to learn. It is best not to confuse a turtle for a wolf or sheep. And now I think I have overused the turtle example, but it makes so much sense. Literal programming is excruciating for me, emotionally speaking, because I do not want to control other people. It’s an open wound. I just want to bring them truth, and if God’s grace allows it, point them in the right direction.

With that being said, the fear you’ve expressed is common, once people find out I cannot truly be controlled. What they don’t realize is that I don’t have the power to control them either, and I don’t care to have it. I think this attitude is more common than you might think, because I discovered firsthand in writing college how limited my influence was and how much I was talking to myself. The path of truth almost cannot be heard through wolf pride and sheeple fear, and it is subject to heavy criticism from both. A writer cannot make people think a certain way, but fear can.

Masters/programmers are also afraid, they are afraid of other masters and they are afraid of the sheeple rebelling against them. I’m just tired and sick of all the fear, and I walk free, alone. They fear me because I don’t listen to them and I shatter the picture of pride they have built.

————————————-

The internet wasn’t built for any of this, it started as a government communication science project that turned into a faulty research database turned campy entertainment enterprise turned money making machine for entertainment and educational sales. The invention of the forum runs along the spectrum from entertainment to education to social support. The Internet is an organic thing that takes on a life of its own as people add to it. Instead, the internet is just a lens that reflects our collective condition back to us.

And sure, get out on social media and YouTube and online video is just the same phenomenon of celebrity, because celebrities do video and music. It’s just part of how that medium works, an immutable thing that hasn’t changed just because we’re doing online instead of literal TV. Blogs are just another tabloid to them. We’ve just unified tabloids, news media, education and entertainment in one amorphous living organism, and confused half the people who have to wade through the chaos. Celebrities are trees, not the whole forest.

Anyway, I may have more to say here, but it needs to wait for me to get some more sleep.

Akita Suggagaki · May 24, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
Interesting. But I don't think 'left' and 'right' fully encompass all the possibilities out there. For example, where does distributism fit in to it all? Or subsidiarity? Neither are neatly part of 'left' or 'right'.

That is why I don't consider myself Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal. Here on somethings, there on some things and somewhere else on most other things. But each side loves to place me in the other.

What I find most disturbing is how a narcissistic "Christianity" has gripped out country (The U.S) on both sides. One just more dominant than the other and focusing on different issues.

chevyontheriver · May 24, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
That is why I don't consider myself Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal. Here on somethings, there on some things and somewhere else on most other things. But each side loves to place me in the other.

You described me.

Akita Suggagaki said:
What I find most disturbing is how a narcissistic "Christianity" has gripped out country (The U.S) on both sides. One just more dominant than the other and focusing on different issues.

I see a lot of political Christianity on forums but not so much in my parish or diocese.

bèlla · May 24, 2025

linux.poet said:
I feel both of those extremes in my soul, though, because the system tried to force me to one side or the other, make me into a sheeple or force me to become a criminal wolf (and they blame me, and they blame me, and they blame me). Nah. “And you’re self-deceived! You have no integrity!” Panic, that is. And who am I threatening?

You are welcome to your opinion as long as you can accept the consequences. Which might include disagreement, ridicule, harassment and ostracism. That’s the price we pay for sharing our thoughts.

linux.poet said:
Literal programming is excruciating for me, emotionally speaking, because I do not want to control other people. It’s an open wound. I just want to bring them truth, and if God’s grace allows it, point them in the right direction.

You have to learn how to do so within the margins and I’m telling you how. Reference my recent posts in the singles forum.

linux.poet said:
With that being said, the fear you’ve expressed is common, once people find out I cannot truly be controlled. What they don’t realize is that I don’t have the power to control them either, and I don’t care to have it.

There’s a difference between marching to your own drummer and wearing it is as a badge. You can dissent without reminding the reader you don’t agree every chance you get. You have to see beyond your perspective and experiences and keep the kingdom in mind. You can come out with guns blazing and court conflict and get demonetized. Or you can weave the word in your pieces in such a way where the reader is inspired and the other doesn’t consider you a threat. What’s more important? Fifteen years doing the Lord’s work in this realm or two going hard and being silenced? You be the judge.

We have to be shrewd. Remember the parable.

Some of this is beyond the OP and I’m happy to expound in our spot where others are grappling with the same. I think you have a lot to give and if you allow me I’ll help. But it won’t always be comfortable but the end is great. That’s my unfair advantage ;-)

~bella

Spiritual Polarities

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

❤️

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Barshai

Well-Known Member

❤️

Barshai

❤️

Barshai

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

❤️

Similar threads