|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What makes you furious?
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I had an experience this evening that left me fuming, and I'm trying to unpick why.
I was at our joint church discussion group, usually an interesting, productive and thought provoking evening. However, on this occasion we had a visitor from the mainland who did a number of things over the course of the evening:
1) Decided that this would be a suitable time and place to hand out leaflets about a petition to "stop the government redefining marriage".
2) Casually dropped the word "sodomites" into the conversation, with the clear implication he was talking about homosexuality.
3) Strongly implied that those of us who were baptised as infants are not born again by water and the spirit and aren't really Christians.
Now, I'd prefer to avoid the dead horse(s) here, and focus on the level of anger this produced in me. If you disagree with me about the dead horse please try and substitute a less debatable injustice for comparison.
Now, I have no direct stake in same-sex marriage. I'm straight and already happily married to a woman and, while I have friends who are gay or bisexual, they're unlikely to be marrying any time soon. I'd like to believe my anger here is at what I perceive to be an injustice; that it was righteous fury. All I could manage was a curt "no thank you" through gritted teeth. First issue here is, of course, my lack of self-control. I would have liked to have calmly and politely challenged the gentleman in question on the issue, if only on the assumption that all Christians must automatically agree with him.
The third point came along later when I was already seething, but at least here my anger is explicable, if far from justifiable, as the insinuation was directed at my own faith and character.
I tried to think if there are other cases where I would perceive an injustice that would provoke a similar response in me. Some types of headship argument, perhaps, and certainly racism and xenophobia. I'm not sure whether it's the views themselves or hearing them presented as what Christians ought to think by someone in my own community. Certainly hearing public justifications of selfishness and greed masquerading as politics makes me angry. Obviously I see these views on the Internet, and don't experience the same level of fury.
I'd like to think that my rage is directed at the injustice and hypocrisy, and that is the only cause, but I have a niggling doubt that there is something else that I'm not prepared to admit that make me that angry.
I'm inclined to think that the rage itself is not of God. I don't think I have the right to that rage; it belongs to God alone if it is called for. I think that the fact that it left me speechless rather than erudite is perhaps an indication of that. I was too angry to challenge appropriately, and that means I was too angry.
Is there ever a place for righteous fury? Are there issues that make you unreasonably angry? How do you deal with it, has anyone managed to channel that anger into something useful?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
What get's me mad is stupidity, by people you should know better . And I include myself
cause I can be stupid at times.
As to your visitor, did he ever hear of the virtue of Christian charity ? Of course 25 years ago I would have been giving him a big amen , I said I could be silly but I hope I have matured a bit. So there is hope for everyone and maybe we can all mature and get away from getting mad. Blessings PaulBC
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Even though I would broadly (mutatis mutandis)agree with your "visitor from the mainland", I imagine that I too would have felt, if not blind fury, at least intense irritation, which might have resulted in taking the piss out of him with some sarcastic, faux naif questions.
I have often felt this exasperation with fellow-Christians with whom I agree, but whose personalities and modus operandi make them pains in the arse.
Like you, I am not clear as to the interpersonal dynamics involved, and am a little apprehensive as to what I might find if I delved too deeply.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
Been there; got the T-shirt etc. An ex-flatmate once got under my skin by announcing, very casually, after a discussion about baptism, “It's you Anglicans who've got the problem”. At the time I responded with inarticulate bluster. Years later he became a vicar. In other words there might be hope for your visitor.
If someone is doing something wrong it can quite naturally invite a physical response. Snatching leaflets from someone's hand isn't really in the spirit of a church discussion, but doing nothing allows inarticulate fury to set in! Shouldn't, therefore, someone have the authority either to say “do have a look at these leaflets” or, alternatively, “it's not our policy to give out leaflets in a discussion meeting”? Was there not a chairperson for the discussion? If there was, I'm inclined to think it was his or her fault for not challenging this gentleman's actions. Comments are slightly less of a problem because even in the absence of a chairperson offensive comments can be challenged by anyone in a discussion group.
A basic, and not altogether cynical, rule of Christian discussion meetings might be 'where two or three are gathered together there will be a dirty great argument'. Indeed, what our Lord actually said might indeed lead us to pray for the meeting in advance, as well as at the beginning of the meeting itself.
On a practical note, counting to ten before saying anything is probably a good idea on these occasions, or perhaps to a rather higher number in the situation you mention. If you're still shaking with fury and can't think of anything clever to say, there's always the statement of the b......g obvious ie 'You're giving out leaflets that we may not all agree with', 'That's a very offensive term', or 'Not all Christians would agree with that'. At least then you've said something.
Slightly better than this would be a humorous response, if you can think of one. I must confess that in our own church discussions when gay marriage is mentioned as 'the thin end of the wedge WHICH WILL END IN BIGAMY' I have quietly muttered the word 'Patriarchs' and got an enormous laugh. Better still, it gets people thinking rather than just indulging in rhetoric.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Sounds like you need to discuss what happened with the rest of the group. I would think there would have been others who would question the appropriateness of such an intrusion.
There are many things here on the mainland (if you are referring to the United States) that get me fuming--the lack of gun control, the GOP intrusion on the reproductive rights of citizens, the decline of the middle class, just to name a few. Redefining marriage is simply not on my list.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Feeling trapped and powerless and being taken advantage of.
In fact, I can think of a situation which happened a few weeks ago where I got 'trapped in a web of politeness'. I was in a place where I'd come to see someone else and couldn't leave without missing them. The ethos of that place was to be polite and accepting and my ethos is to be nice to people who are obviously lonely and having a bad time.
However this got taken advantage of by someone who'd taken to trying to buttonhole me and then reeling off his grudges - so he'd end up bad-mouthing people I knew and regaling me with grudges going back decades. He did it again on this occasion - I wanted to tell him to piss off but was conscious of (1) where I was (2) trapped because there's no nice way to tell someone they're boring and nasty and you don't want to speak to them ever again.
So I finally made an excuse and left but I was seething with rage. Later I was able to look at things I could have said to draw some boundaries - but because getting trapped like that was unexpected I was caught out by feeling too angry to say something polite enough to feel OK with it. So I ended up letting myself get walked all over.
( I'd deliberately moved away from him and he came and muscled in on where I was sitting, taking someone else's seat to do it.)
There are probably certain unspoken expectations in your churches meeting - that people be 'Christian' gracious and nice and polite to each other, so if someone decides to violate those norms by bringing along something you experience as nasty and divisive and expecting people to sign up to it, then there's an element of being taken advantage of - put in a position where you have to be nice about something horrible, and the cumulative resentment that goes with it: of not easily being able to move away and of having to bite your tongue can make it a vicious circle of getting angrier and angrier and thus less and less able to express the anger in a socially acceptable way and thus even more resentful and even angrier...
I used the situation to look up resources and to brainstorm later how I'd act the next time and how I'd draw boundaries calmly with this person. As it happened I never got to practice this, as the venue we were both at closed recently.
You might want to have a talk with your group and ask about boundaries - are petitions/leaflets welcome or not? Where is the line drawn on hate speech?
cheers,
L
[ 12. July 2013, 01:07: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
People who are angry for limited or no reason, and decide to express this at whomever is present. I think the OP situation may be a situation of this.
Also, and more egregious, is people who enjoy causing pain, harm and discomfort of others. The enjoyment of pulling off the wings of flies, and the equivalent against other people.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sounds like you need to discuss what happened with the rest of the group. I would think there would have been others who would question the appropriateness of such an intrusion.
There are many things here on the mainland (if you are referring to the United States) that get me fuming--the lack of gun control, the GOP intrusion on the reproductive rights of citizens, the decline of the middle class, just to name a few. Redefining marriage is simply not on my list.
No, he meant mainland Scotland. There is actually a bit of a cultural snub going on here as well to my mind. But I would have flared because the chap was damn rude, not because I necessarily disagree with him on the dead horses. On the topic of Baptism, on the other hand, I might have suggested 'outside and bring yer glass!'
BTW, it is a YMMV issue because one chaps wind up is another's self-evident truth. For example, even with gun control, criminals will still have guns; and 'reproductive rights' is another name for murdering those who do not happen to be born yet. As far I have been able to figure out both the elephants and the asses are gifted with making that one a political football. It depends which end of the telescope you are looking through.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I'd be with Louise here: it's the feeling that the person has overstepped the boundaries of appropriate behaviour and you can't call them on it.
You don't say where this person had just come along, or been invited - either way, it was an offence against hospitality to commandeer the occasion for his own ends.
I remember being at a social evening at a friend's house once. I had a glass of wine, and another couple who were there (and drinking, I presume, neat lemon juice) undertook to tell me I was setting a Bad Example to other Christians. I actually felt the primary affront was to our host. And the unspoken rules that they were violating were of course the same ones which prevented me from telling them to go stick their head in a pig.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Is there ever a place for righteous fury? Sure, if it gives us the courage or motivation to do the right thing when we wouldn't otherwise do it. Of course, theoretically, we could decide on the same response without the righteous fury and get the added benefit of remaining clear-headed, but that's not the kind of thing we're generally in a position to choose when the time comes.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Is there ever a place for righteous fury?
Definitely. Often hard to discern tho!
I love the four fold benedictine blessing because it talks to this issue:
quote:
May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Is there ever a place for righteous fury? Sure, if it gives us the courage or motivation to do the right thing when we wouldn't otherwise do it. Of course, theoretically, we could decide on the same response without the righteous fury and get the added benefit of remaining clear-headed, but that's not the kind of thing we're generally in a position to choose when the time comes.
Exactly. I can't imagine the prophets speaking with the Zen-like tone of a meditation CD.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I was too angry to challenge appropriately, and that means I was too angry.
I wanted to return to this, because it's a really good point.
One of my flashpoints is racism. It's so irrational and stupid. But when I get very angry (which is very rare), I become extremely emotional and incoherent. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) It doesn't do me much good and I highly doubt it would do the offender much good either if I just yelled at them. Exploding at them simply escalates an already volatile situation, with the likelihood of a positive outcome, i.e. that person's mind and heart is changed, rapidly diminishing.
There is a place for righteous anger. Anger itself isn't sinful. Paul said, "In your anger do not sin," Ephesians 4: 26. Jesus certainly wasn't being a nice guy when He overthrew the moneychangers' tables in the Temple courts. At the same time, anger is so volatile an emotion that it's better to proceed with caution. Especially for us mere mortals.
And it is much better if people fuel their righteous anger at injustice into a campaign for justice.
I am not saying we should never confront anyone. But I think it is probably better if we confront a situation without being angry. Righteous confrontation need not, and probably should not, equal aggression.
Jesus and the moneychangers notwithstanding ...
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
Our church was engaged in a long-term building project that created genuine excitement and interest both in the congregation and the wider community. Before throwing the doors open to the public, there was to be a small, low key service of dedication (as low key as it gets when the bishop turns up, anyway) to end with holy communion. Church council members only, but there had been a similar dedication service before work began and there had also been family of council members at that, so I assumed the same would apply this time.
Only, as Lady J and I approached the doors before the start, the vicar stuck his head out and rather awkwardly told us the service it really was just for council members. So, I was in, she wasn't.
We were both a bit miffed - it could have been communicated better - but in the end I went in while she carried on with her walk.
The vicar began by telling we select few that this was a strictly informal service; indeed, if he saw anyone being formal he would kick them up the backside. Still coming down from the miffedness, I muttered to myself that it clearly wasn't that informal...
After some worship and a bit of bishop action my irritation was subsiding - I genuinely wanted to be part of this occasion. Then the proceedings were thrown open to spontaneous prayer. Someone prayed that this place would always be a friendly, open place of welcome.
At which point my annoyance all came back flooding back like a blocked toilet and I decided there was no way I could take communion under these circumstances. And so (very discreetly, I am an Anglican) I walked out, seething with hurt and fury.
So, what makes me furious, to answer the OP? In this case, apparently, a perfect storm of minor niggles. I have to say it doesn't happen that often.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'd be with Louise here: it's the feeling that the person has overstepped the boundaries of appropriate behaviour and you can't call them on it.
And, for me, compounded by the ongoing feeling that there was, or should have been, something that I should have said or done at the time. The anger and frustration eat away.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Firenze: quote:
I remember being at a social evening at a friend's house once. I had a glass of wine, and another couple who were there (and drinking, I presume, neat lemon juice) undertook to tell me I was setting a Bad Example to other Christians.
This is where I'd gently mention the wedding at Cana. And, no, the idea that Jesus produced fresh grape juice in those jars doesn't fly. Nobody would have pronounced that sort of liquid the "best" wine at a feast.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I can identify with this - there was a large group of people at a previous church whose small-mindedness and intolerance towards anyone whose lifestyle, choice of words, choice of partner, or choice of interests didn't fit their neat little image of what a Christian should be like, and who lost no opportunity to loudly proclaim against them. It didn't help that these people were strongly supported, listened to and approved of by those responsible for leading the church, because they were so 'godly'.
In the end I realised I'd have to stop getting so wound up (bad for my blood pressure) and take myself off somewhere else. They still have the same attitudes, but I didn't have to listen to them.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
I used to just feel embarrassed by this type of behaviour and then the anger would set in afterwards. Though I rarely encounter people as rude as you have described, I have now learnt the art of gentle assertion so that they are clear that their behaviour is rude and others may find it unnaceptable. Hopefully this will at least make them think twice before doing it again - it is amazing how if one person challenges, others are prepared to speak up.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I think you are probably right to assume that your anger is not just about injustice or rudeness. All sorts of bad things are happening to people the whole time, including things that you probably think are worse than not being allowed to marry, but I expect you are not angry all the time. That is very natural as we could hardly function if we were always angry, but it surely means that feeling anger is telling us something about ourselves and how we handle certain situations, not just about the issues involved.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
I have enjoyed this thread and am learning a lot, more about myself than about others.
I now live in a part of the country which has more right-wing Republicans, and fundamentalist evangelical Christians, than I ever imagined existed. This leads to casual discussions in which people you don't know well -- the kind of things that happen while dog-walking or shopping -- tend to assume that you share the world-view of their own circle, possibly confusing their circle with God's great wide world.
I'm not one to get furious. (I would probably say that "rather insensed" is my limit.) But I found that brief conversations nowadays often often led to derogatory (sometimes vicious) comments about the President, scorn for immigrant and Muslims, and that sort of thing. This often comes from people who know very little about the larger world, and who rely on stock phrases and attitudes provided from who-knows-what blog or tv commentator.
What insenses me is their assumption that I -- just because I'm a white male of a certain age -- would share their ghastly prejudices. That I am ... ugh! ... just like them. Since I don't know if I can control my tongue, I tend to disengage and depart quickly. I no longer care if this makes them uncomfortable or disrespected. To hell with them.
I also tend to get incensed when confronting people who either say "I assume you are a Christian" in the most unexpected, and to me inappropriate, places. Or ask outright and almost out of the blue, "are you a Christian?" My first reaction is "It's none of your business," which I'm unwilling to say out loud. Again, I've felt the need to retreat quickly. Now I say, "Probably not in the sense that you use the term. But it's been nice talking to you. So long."
Earlier, Evensong recommended reading a "Four-Fold Benedictine Blessing." The beginning of second blessing goes like this:
quote:
May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people,
Then comes the zinger:
quote:
[B] ... so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.[B]
I've been wondering whether the energy I waste in getting upset about people I experience as bigoted and smug might better be spent on actually doing more to (a) help the victims of their bigotry and (b) confront and deal with my own varieties of smugness.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
I have enjoyed this thread and am learning a lot, more about myself than about others.
I now live in a part of the country which has more right-wing Republicans, and fundamentalist evangelical Christians, than I ever imagined existed. This leads to casual discussions in which people you don't know well -- the kind of things that happen while dog-walking or shopping -- tend to assume that you share the world-view of their own circle, possibly confusing their circle with God's great wide world.
I'm not one to get furious. (I would probably say that "rather insensed" is my limit.) But I found that brief conversations nowadays often often led to derogatory (sometimes vicious) comments about the President, scorn for immigrant and Muslims, and that sort of thing. This often comes from people who know very little about the larger world, and who rely on stock phrases and attitudes provided from who-knows-what blog or tv commentator.
What insenses me is their assumption that I -- just because I'm a white male of a certain age -- would share their ghastly prejudices. That I am ... ugh! ... just like them. Since I don't know if I can control my tongue, I tend to disengage and depart quickly. I no longer care if this makes them uncomfortable or disrespected. To hell with them.
I also tend to get incensed when confronting people who either say "I assume you are a Christian" in the most unexpected, and to me inappropriate, places. Or ask outright and almost out of the blue, "are you a Christian?" My first reaction is "It's none of your business," which I'm unwilling to say out loud. Again, I've felt the need to retreat quickly. Now I say, "Probably not in the sense that you use the term. But it's been nice talking to you. So long."
Earlier, Evensong recommended reading a "Four-Fold Benedictine Blessing." The beginning of second blessing goes like this:
quote:
May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people,
Then comes the zinger:
quote:
... so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.
I've been wondering whether the energy I waste in getting upset about people I experience as bigoted and smug might better be spent on actually doing more to (a) help the victims of their bigotry and (b) confront and deal with my own varieties of smugness. [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I was at our joint church discussion group, usually an interesting, productive and thought provoking evening. However, on this occasion we had a visitor from the mainland who did a number of things over the course of the evening:
1) Decided that this would be a suitable time and place to hand out leaflets about a petition to "stop the government redefining marriage".
I find a cigarette lighter can be awfully prophetic in these situations.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Someone prayed that this place would always be a friendly, open place of welcome.
At which point my annoyance all came flooding back
That would make me furious - the disconnect between stated intention and practice. Even where both are well-meaning, the discrepancy somehow turns the initial disappointment into fury.
I remember having to get off a Tube train one stop early, because of a special announcement that for some unstated reason the train wouldn't be stopping at Kings Cross. Only a ten minute walk, but it would mean missing my train home and waiting an hour for the next. So I was a bit miffed. Until I saw the Underground notice (presumably intended for the guidance of tourists) saying "all trains stop at Kings Cross". At which point I was really livid... Somehow the lie is much worse than the original offense.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Thank you all for your thoughts, it has been an interesting read.
The group met again this week, minus our visitor. A number of people had approached me during the week, having noticed how upset I was, and checking if I was ok.
It was an interesting evening, and a man who I have a lot of respect for (he's very conservative - creationist indeed - but also very willing to listen to other people, and very humble in working out his faith) felt moved to raise the issues of gay marriage and gay ministry.
This didn't provoke my anger, perhaps because I know that any questioning or concern from this man comes from a place of sincerity and honesty. He wasn't looking to campaign, he was honestly seeking for truth and wanting to explore ideas. I wonder whether God held me back from speaking last week because the time wasn't right; that this was the time to have the discussion. Now, the mixed group of Presbyterians, Baptists and Anglicans had a range of opinions, and I wasn't surprised to find that most opposed gay marriage and gay ministers. This, again, didn't lead me to anger, because there was no presumption of agreement, no arrogance and, frankly, no rhetoric that set off my "fundamentalist" alarm.
Consequently I was able to lay out my reasoning and challenge some assumptions, and I don't think (and I certainly hope) that I was not too forceful in doing so.
It leaves me wondering whether the converse of the Spirit giving us the right words to speak is that when it is not the time to speak the Holy Spirit makes sure we shut up!
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
This is a very helpful thread for me - thanks.
quote:
That would make me furious - the disconnect between stated intention and practice.
Something like that has helped to drive me from a job recently. I think I've found I'm too much the child to deal with the 'We're going to relentlessly pursue quality and client satisfaction by <insert something cynical, stupid etc here>' - messages which my employer had taken to issuing on a weekly basis. Not having much in the way of reserves of urbane wit, or indeed self-confidence, I move rapidly to 'I'm not OK, and you f*ckers aren't either' and want to kill them all. What do Christians pray for, in terms of a healthy sense of self from which to ride out this sh*t? Not more Ego, surely?
In the meantime the future does not look very remunerative, unless I can come up with a different strategy from mentally machine-gunning everyone, or/and then finding relief in wine (real wine ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) and sleep.
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage, I've taken to mentally reciting the Lord's Prayer, which is about all I know that seems suitable.
I have to say it seems to help, though it leaves me feeling like a bumpkin, mumbling incantations to myself. I suspect it might be possible to feel OK about this.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage...
That might be a very good prayer. God already knows what's on your mind, and if you bring up the subject, it gives him an opening.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd like to think that my rage is directed at the injustice and hypocrisy, and that is the only cause, but I have a niggling doubt that there is something else that I'm not prepared to admit that make me that angry.
I'm inclined to think that the rage itself is not of God. I don't think I have the right to that rage; it belongs to God alone if it is called for. I think that the fact that it left me speechless rather than erudite is perhaps an indication of that. I was too angry to challenge appropriately, and that means I was too angry.
I tend to see this sort of anger as a human instinct - not good or bad in itself, but just an emotion that one feels and which can be very strong (especially if one is very tired, or hungry, or hormonal). I think it can be used for good or bad. Sometimes something can be so unexpected that I can't think of words to address it - just a feeling of anger, or confusion, or shock. So I wait to process it and then decide if I am going to address it. Although sometimes I address it there and then, which tends not to be the best option.
For myself, if I have a strong reaction of anger, I find it is from a mix of things, which generally include physiological factors like hormones/fatigue/sensory overload. I don't find it's ever a pure, righteous 'I am angry on God's behalf' type of anger. There's often a personal feeling of helplessness - a feeling of 'People are using illogical, inconsistent, self-centred reasons for their decisions, and won't acknowledge this, and people's lives are being adversely affected as a result - we are all subject to this kind of irrational, biased decision-making, and there are always inequalities of power.' And I am no doubt internally comparing with times when I have been on the receiving end of such behaviour, and feeling the feelings I felt at the time.
For me, various things can make me angry. For instance, when people make derogatory, sweeping statements and assumptions about groups of people, and no one challenges these assumptions because they are generally accepted, or seen as harmless fun. So things like sexism and racism, or even homophobia, don't make me so angry, because they get a lot of opposition. And I feel angry when people seem all self-righteous because they are opposing these things that it is common to oppose, but they still have prejudices that they don't acknowledge. Double standards can make me angry. And passive aggression, and when people play one-up-manship games and power games, rather than treating everyone like equals.
I tend to think about something afterwards, and decide whether it's worth addressing it - I think about how the influence this person will have, the likelihood of their changing, whether I can make a positive difference or if I'll just make things worse, etc.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage...
That might be a very good prayer. God already knows what's on your mind, and if you bring up the subject, it gives him an opening.
Moo
Yes, I say prayers like that, and they do open a dialogue with God. I find it useful, especially in terms of separating my own emotions and personal anger with what the person has done and how it should be addressed. I have decided I might as well tell God exactly how I'm feeling as he knows anyway, so it's better to talk about it with him and listen to what he has to say than to go my own way with it.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage...
That might be a very good prayer. God already knows what's on your mind, and if you bring up the subject, it gives him an opening.
Moo
Yes, I say prayers like that, and they do open a dialogue with God.
The rector of a church told me a story about his struggles with a very obstructive man in his parish. The priest kept trying to love him, but he couldn't manage it.
One day he prayed, "Lord, I just can't love this man." The answer came back, "I'm glad you finally realize that. Now get out of the way and let me do it."
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
This discussion is doing me a great deal of good. I want to thank you for it. I needed to read these things.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What makes me furious?
Cyclists (especially family groups) who persist in clogging up one of our local lanes which happens to be a busy route between the local town and 5 popular, tourist attraction villages.
At HUGE expense a cycle track was constructed about 5 years ago: this caused major upheaval involving compulsory purchase of a strip of prime agricultural land shared among several farms. However, track was built and opened to great fanfare - and it was pointed out that by removing 3 narrow and sharp blind bends it would make cycling safer.
So how is it that one still encounters cyclists on the most dangerous stretch of the lane? Best example to-date: family of 5 riding 3 and 2 abreast, with a c5 year-old on the outside on a bike with stabilisers... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You agitated for safety and you got it - bloody well use it ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If you got on a bike yourself and tried to use the cycle track you might find out why people avoid it, if it's anything like 95% of the so-called "facilities" around here.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Apart from the cycling posts, is there a common trend here, namely one Christian applying their principles to their view of the World, then expressing shock and surprise when others reach a different conclusion? It's the reciprocal situation to being with a group of people, each holding strong and outspoken, but diverse political views. In practice there's often unanimity about the action the Government should take in any actual situation, even where you'd expect views to differ.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Karl: a medical condition precludes me from using a bicycle but the children use the track - in preference to the lane too. It is broad (you can get 3 abreast) and has a good surface and, unlike the lane, doesn't end up with over 6 inches of water when we get heavy rain... and yes, we still get cyclists in the lane even then.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So how is it that one still encounters cyclists on the most dangerous stretch of the lane? Best example to-date: family of 5 riding 3 and 2 abreast, with a c5 year-old on the outside on a bike with stabilisers...
Maybe that family live on the lane, in which case the cycle path isn't much use to them. Maybe they are going to somewhere on the lane, in which case ditto.
(And like Karl, I have a well-earned skepticism about cycle paths. At least if you're cycling on the road, you can be fairly certain that there won't suddenly be a tree, a park bench, or an ornamental planter plonked square in your way.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Feeling trapped and powerless and being taken advantage of.
Exactly.
When still fairly new in South Africa I took a Xhosa class. On one occasion the teacher treated us all to a lecture on racism in Britain today.
I have an English accent that everyone picks up on in the first sentence, so he knew there was a good chance that I was from the UK. Plus, while I agree there is plenty of racism in Britain, he was simply getting his facts wrong - such as "Stephen Lawrence was beaten to death by the police". And I was still reeling from the overt racism I was seeing in SA.
So I ended up feeling attacked, without being able to respond.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Karl: a medical condition precludes me from using a bicycle but the children use the track - in preference to the lane too. It is broad (you can get 3 abreast) and has a good surface and, unlike the lane, doesn't end up with over 6 inches of water when we get heavy rain... and yes, we still get cyclists in the lane even then.
Look at it this way. Either:
1. Cyclists have a bona fide reason unknown to you to use the road instead of the cycle path.
2. They aren't aware of the existence of the cycle path; perhaps the signage isn't that clear if you don't know it's there.
3. They're doing it solely to annoy you.
Now which do you think is more likely?
Can I also point out that the "most dangerous" part of the lane will be dangerous not because of cyclists but because of motorists. Why, then, is it the cyclists who should clear off instead of motorists driving more carefully?
[ 23. July 2013, 09:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Either:
1. Cyclists have a bona fide reason unknown to you to use the road instead of the cycle path.
They doubtless have a reason, but it does not have to be bona fide.
I have several times got home a good 10 minutes late because lycraman is cycling at rush-hour down a busy, two-way road, with too much oncoming traffic to allow easy overtaking and hence a massive build-up of cars behind him, while he blithely ignores the quite adequately signed and EMPTY two-way cycle lane that is available. His reasons I can only guess at, but I lean heavily towards concluding that he is just too achingly kewl, or serious, to be seen dead in a cycle lane when there is a real man's road to be cycling on.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Either:
1. Cyclists have a bona fide reason unknown to you to use the road instead of the cycle path.
They doubtless have a reason, but it does not have to be bona fide.
I have several times got home a good 10 minutes late because lycraman is cycling at rush-hour down a busy, two-way road, with too much oncoming traffic to allow easy overtaking and hence a massive build-up of cars behind him, while he blithely ignores the quite adequately signed and EMPTY two-way cycle lane that is available. His reasons I can only guess at, but I lean heavily towards concluding that he is just too achingly kewl, or serious, to be seen dead in a cycle lane when there is a real man's road to be cycling on.
And yet in my 45 years that's never happened to me. Weird innit? However, I've frequently been 10 minutes or so late because the road is full of queued motor vehicles.
You are aware that the DoT advice is that one should use the road, not a cycle path, if one is travelling above 18MPH? Perhaps that's why he's on the road, as a competent road cyclist will average 20-25mph on the flat.
Now, I'll grant you that in the situation you describe it's only courteous to pull in at lay-by or similar to let traffic pass, but I'd also say that what to you looks a perfectly adequate cycle path may not be to the cyclist. Does it, for example, require him to stop and give way at every side road?
Are you talking about a cycle lane (on road) or a cycle path (off road?) There's a difference there as well; the former at least tend to be free of obstructions although generally far too narrow; the latter are often poor of surface (not obvious unless you're a road cyclist) or very slow because of requiring giving way at every side road.
Trust me, as a road cyclist who often eschews cycle "facilities" and generally sticks to the road, it isn't because we enjoy having traffic bearing down on us. It's because, like you, we want to get home in a reasonable time without dodging bits of broken glass and having to give way every 200 yards.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
The cycle path in question is 2 miles long and uninterrupted by sideroads, paths etc. However:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are aware that the DoT advice is that one should use the road, not a cycle path, if one is travelling above 18MPH? Perhaps that's why he's on the road, as a competent road cyclist will average 20-25mph on the flat.
I was not actually aware of that, and as the one thing I will grant lycraman is a decent lick of speed, relatively speaking, this effectively kills my complaint stone dead (with your other informed comments as the final shots in the back of its head). Thanks for the information; I shall endeavour to suppress my fury from hereon.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Karl, (and others)
1. The few houses in the lane are occupied by elderly - not people with children.
2. The signage for the cycle track is excellent.
3. The "most dangerous" part is because there are 3 90 degree bends ALL with adverse cambers - bad in the dry whether on 2 wheels or four, potentially lethal in the wet, even without the added joy of soil being washed onto the road from fields meaning the surface is nothing more than loose gravel etc.
4. I'm not knee-jerk anti-cyclist, but I am anti those who seem determined not to use common sense (or have a sense of self-preservation).
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Some of you get furious about far nobler things than I. The common theme in most of the times that I REALLY fly off the handle is being accused of doing the wrong thing when I was in the process of trying to do the right thing. It doesn't particularly matter what the right and wrong things are, it's the attack on my integrity that leaves me seeing red and breathing fireballs.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I also point out that the "most dangerous" part of the lane will be dangerous not because of cyclists but because of motorists. Why, then, is it the cyclists who should clear off instead of motorists driving more carefully?
I disagree. Yes, the energy transference will more negatively affect the cyclist, however cyclists are as often at fault as the motorists, IME.
Sharing the road is fully the responsibility of both cyclists and motorists. However, as they incur more damage, it is prudent for cyclists to be more cautious.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sharing the road is fully the responsibility of both cyclists and motorists.
Yup.
My particular bugbear are the cycle clubs we have around here. I quite often encounter a gang of 20 or so lycra-clad cyclists on my drive home, and they insist on riding in a clump and occupying the entire lane.
I know that you're having an enjoyable ride with your mates, and I'm happy for you, but this is also my commute home, and I'm hoping to be able to see my children before they go to bed. If you ride in single file like considerate people, the width of the roads around here mean that I barely have to cross the centerline in order to pass you at a generous safe distance. In your clump, I have to move fully into the opposite lane, which usually means I have to wait.
Yes, I know you're not going to delay be by more than a minute or so, but it's the principle of the thing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fuck the principle. Riding in clumps is just stupid.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.
M.
Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.
[ 25. July 2013, 06:56: Message edited by: M. ]
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.
M.
Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.
I'd be happy if motorists did the same.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.
M.
Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.
Perhaps if motorists didn't ignore speed limits it would be helpful as well.
What's that? Wrong to tar them all with the same brush?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I also point out that the "most dangerous" part of the lane will be dangerous not because of cyclists but because of motorists. Why, then, is it the cyclists who should clear off instead of motorists driving more carefully?
I disagree. Yes, the energy transference will more negatively affect the cyclist, however cyclists are as often at fault as the motorists, IME.
Research findings don't agree with your experience.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents-28489/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/addison-lee-chairman-wrong-to-blame-cyclists-because-most-crashes-are-caused-by-bad-driving
quote:
Sharing the road is fully the responsibility of both cyclists and motorists. However, as they incur more damage, it is prudent for cyclists to be more cautious.
Indeed. But it beats me how caution on my part can do anything about motorists pulling out of side roads in front of me, overtaking on my side of the road and driving straight at me, overtaking me and turning left at the same time, or any of the other things that actually kill and injure cyclists.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
