Okay, real simple ...

When we trust in God, what are we trusting? Are we trusting God to steer us against injustice? Or do we trust God to balance all injustice on Judgement Day?

I know this answer for Wicca, I think, but I'm always happy for input (Moon?)

An extreme case:

* Were the Inquisitors having faith in God to lead their actions truly, or were they in fact eschewing faith in God's ability to judge the wicked at their time?

A not so extreme case:

* Is voting to fire teachers for being (gay/atheist/pinko/fill-in-the-blank) because of one's interpretation of Christian duty trusting God to guide their actions for the better of His Kingdom, or are they eschewing the trust that God knows the wicked and will judge?

Jihad fundamentalism, Neo-Nazis for Christ, abortion-clinic bombers, censors, prayer-forcers, and so-forth. In a redemptive scheme featuring God's judgement (such as Christianity and my best--but still poor--understandings of Islamic faith) where does one's faith trust in God?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 14, 2000).]

I believe that the examples and groups of people you presented (and many others) trust God to be a handy justification for their actions. In olden times, God was used to attain politcal ends and to satisfy the lusts of control freaks. Such remakrs as "God commands it" were not questioned because of how tightly woven religion was into daily life. Today, with the separation of church and state being a policy (if not a practice), people of all faiths find it easier to question the old ways or else to return to them (a nod to pagans and Wiccans), causing a rift in the fundamental belief system. Threatened by the loss of a free-thinking flock, religious leaders use the separation of church and state to keep the authorities at bay while they forcibly reunite the "stray sheep" with the flock.

Other goals are not necessarily church and flock related. Censors are guided more by their own morals, enforced by their own upbringings. When their decisions are questioned, religion skews their judgement and they base their answers on whatever they were taught was "the will of God".

The banning of gays from certain jobs is a wonderful example of morality gone awry. It seems that an aversion to homosexuals is a bit instinctive. It goes against our basic programming because it is not conducive to survival of the species. As we grow up, we also see that getting whacked on drugs, drinking and driving, and trying to imitate Beavis and Butthead are also not conducive to the survival of the species. And yet, we accept these actions as part of "what people do".

I believe that part of the problem extends from the militant groups who take their beliefs about homosexuality to the extreme from both sides. One group of homosexuals wants it taught as part of sex education, condoned as "natural" or "normal" and to have experimentation encouraged, regardless of whether or not the child is hetero- or homosexual. Another group of extremists tells us that every homosexual is preying on our children. Both sides can use God to back up their claims. They claim to be doing the work of God in many cases, when in actuality they are only using God to promote their own, selfish ends.

This is, I believe, how most so-called faithful display their so-called "trust" in God.

I have to go for now. There's probably a lot more that can be said, but I have to get to work if I hope to keep this connection up and running.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

I'm just an average guy with no particular religious affiliation. I place my trust in the highest power that I have come to know. It is nameless and faceless but it is always there for me and hasn't let me down yet.

Brian--

If I might ... How does that trust manifest itself?

The best I could explain my own take on it is that I am constantly aware of a not quite fatalistic sense of This is as it should be.

It comes from a number of places; I can even see it within the structure of certain, familiar gods. It comes from the idea that the Universe is infinite; it comes from the infinite possibility of that infinity.

I must revive an argument I recently read regarding issues of the Christian God and Devil. Dr. Jeffrey Burton wrote that it is not appropriate, in the Christian theological context, to assert that God could have done this or that differently, or made the Universe differently. While Dr. Burton was addressing inconsistencies in various theological cosmologies regarding the Devil, I think the point is valid. God is not extraneous. If we remove religion: The universe is not extraneous. So I get this sense that all of the conditions that came together to create human life and its processes might have a reason, but I cannot assert that this reason has anything at all to do with humanity directly; it might be that we are part of a process that is the Universe or is God.

If I even attempt to apply this to human activity, an interesting picture forms. When I see any event, it seems that this event is as it should be. I might recall the old adage about hindsight, which begins essentially the moment that I witness the event. Now, maybe it's splitting hairs, but as I witness the event, the event has actually already occurred, as regards my former existence independent of the event.

If I might invoke tragedy for context ....

Consider a terrorist bombing. Now, history tends to show that many individuals could have acted differently, thus creating different conditions which might not have compelled terrorism. If we look at the Republican-splinter bombing in Omagh, Northern Ireland ... sure, there's a lot that people could have done differently, starting with the bomber. But that includes whole counties of Ireland and generations of Britain, and the whole effort of American involvement.

Yet it seems that conditions came together as they have. A bomb exploded, killing people and wounding more people.

I can't say it's right. But by the time that event affects my awareness, it is over and I cannot prevent or otherwise change it.

Thus, it is as it should be, even if the only reason is so that we learn how to figure it out.

It doesn't mean anything about the event itself, except that it occurred because all conditions compelled it.

But it is as it should be, or else it would have occurred differently. The Universe--as I'm prone to putting it--is not extraneous. ;)

It's a strangely powerful comfort. Thus far it's the best way I've been able to relate to whatever Grand Scheme composes creation.

It doesn't mean I don't get furious at what I see. When it comes to specifics, I'm actually a pussycat; but with the broader concepts that motivate our decisions, I demand continuity and harmony.

But whatever stupid laws my neighbors pass, however many bodies our bombs produce--it si all as it should be, else we would have done it differently.

Bizarre, eh?\

But that, for long-winded example, is a portion of the standard I carry for trusting on faith.Where, by this model, I place my trust with the Universe itself.

Essentially, I trust that there is a reason for all of it. But I can't trust that I, or anyone, will be able to gather enough data quickly enough to calculate that reason in the span of a single lifetime.

Please bear in mind that none of what I write is gospel. In fact, please remember that I'm just one idiot in 300 million in the US.

In other words, I can't possibly convey the question without a little bit of demosntration for context. Unfortunately, that context is the tip of a huge philosophical iceberg I'm carving into a pretty swan for a tea party in my head.

But ... all else aside, I assert no correctness of any of this. And, as regards our little feud elsewhere, I'm happy to leave it there to fester or die as it will. I'm rather quite curious about your take on the Trust part of it. Remember, that's the trust part. As to my own standards of trust ... well, I'm quite aware that I'm out of my gourd. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hi Tiassa,

The way you put it in your previous post your thread might as well be called "Is there a reason for it all ?" Cause I think that is what your are actually after because having trust in this reason really comes second place.

I think you are confusing a reason for everything with a reason for every single thing.
For example, there is a reason for a fork but there might not be a reason for the tiny little bent at the end of it or the small scar on it. Same thing, there might be a reason for the universe but that doesn't mean there is a reason for the huge explosion in Enschede (the Netherlands) last Sonday.

Any how we have to be very careful if we are talking about reasons for things outside us for reasons are actually very subjective things. The universe, as in everything there is, can hardly be seen as a subject because there is nothing else to compare it with.

But then again why is there something rather then nothing ? Maybe it doesn't really matter, maybe there is something because there was no reason for not to be there. This would mean that there is no real reason for the universe other then nothing prevented it from happening. The same actually works with all the little reasons, but I don't think you or any one else would be satisfied with this explanation...

Oh well, I tried :)

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

Plato--

Perhaps you're right with the alternate title. In my own regard to the Trust issue, that trust manifests itself in a way that regards "the reason for it all".

If we look at a simple example, say, a vote, we have diverse people applying diverse standards to their selections. Acknowledging that diversity, I would like to work with a limited generaliation for a moment.

I know I always harp on Oregon's 1992 election surrounding homsexuality, propriety, and religion. Historically, it started over someone's objection to a library book. So, if I might start with censorship, instead of sex:

* There are some people of faith who trust in God to compel their daily actions to such a degree that they will restrict liberty to enforce that divine compulsion. They trust that that the censorship in question is a reflection of what God wants them to do in daily life.

* There are some people of faith who trust in God to simply know reality. Often, in this example, these people will vote to preserve liberty, even if it means letting the infidels and savages shout until they're purple. The reason for this is that these people recognize that God will mete justice on that Day of Reckoning.

* There are also people who don't acknowledge any specific idea of faith (Capitalists, Communitarians, &c.) who vote based on the tangible standards (say, Liberty vs. an Idea of Decency; or, in the case of the Capitalist, Money). These votes tend to reflect individual standards as desirable public policy. These people trust in the fulfillment of their abstract principle--community peace, perhaps, or a phatty-phat pocketbook, &c.

The Reason for Everything you've mentioned seems to be a vital part of a worldview ("uniview?" what is a worldview of the Universe? A panorama?) that brings me to my questions of trust. The Reason for Everything is more complex and among the best-left-unasked in many circles. I tend to agree, but that doesn't stop me in practice. ;)

But the Reason for Everything is tantamount (imho) to asking the Christian God why he created the heavens and the Earth. Some theologians say He would answer, "Because I love you", which is a very limited answer for something as powerful and knowing as that God. Other theologians would say that God could not help it, that God and his processes are one and the same.

I think you are confusing a reason for everything with a reason for every single thing.
For example, there is a reason for a fork but there might not be a reason for the tiny little bent at the end of it or the small scar on it. Same thing, there might be a reason for the universe but that doesn't mean there is a reason for the huge explosion in Enschede (the Netherlands) last Sonday.

First let me offer my concerns and best wishes to Enschede; in the US, we don't hear about that kind of news unless it destroys a land area equivalent to the Netherlands.

To the topic at hand ... I would inquire to the possibility that you might be placing too much significance on "the" reason.

What is the reason the fork is bent? Physics. It got knocked against something, or pressed into something that bent it. Now, that's basic, I admit, but in the detail, that's all I'm after.

As a barely-workable analogy: People in the US often complain excessively about their government ... it's the classic "They" of conspiracy theories. Any event that becomes part of that canon has its own reasons. People complain that "the Government" is doing this or that to oppress. Theoretically, we, the American people, own this government; that is the Law of Our Land. Despite our unhappiness with this government, it is as it should be. After all, only 40-60% of the voting-eligible population is registered, and of them, perhaps half will vote. If you start with the adage, "Don't vote? Don't complain," and work from there, can you see the process growing? Now, voting numbers aside, if we assert that Big Business has bought our government from beneath us, it is still as it should be, because the people who had the choice to prevent this did not. Furthermore, among my Dad's principles is that "People will revolt when they're starving in the street, but not before". (Yet, at the same time, social problems don't need to be addressed at all because nobody's worried enough to revolt. Gee, thanks Dad :rolleyes: ) Now, aside from asking how it came to be that people are starving in the street, there's a point to be had. After all, for all the complaining we hear about in the news, our voting public seems dead-set on electing politicians who will continue to sell themselves for cash. Thus, despite problems, things are as they should be.

What kind of explosion in the Netherlands? Certainly I deplore terrorism, but as my distant observations of the Northern Irish conflict and the Israeli conflict show that, despite the absolute wrongness of the reaction, that reaction comes from legitimate complaints which people have chosen to ignore. We can't ignore the violence, so people bemoan its toll. Yet they simply won't do anything within the sphere of their influence. Thus, when a bomb goes off and people die, I think, "It's as it should be, or else we would have chosen differently."

If the explosion is accidental, there's a number of things that could have prevented the explosion. To get right down to it, it's fundamental to that person whose error or omission might have been the catalyst for the accident. But it still may be nobody's fault (I'm working in theory, not from the news) despite the number of people whose decisions led up the accident. Those decisions ... sure we could have made different decisions, but we didn't. Thus, we have created the accident as such, with deliberate choices. I mean, when was the last completely random building collapse you heard of? Like the Korean shopping mall a couple of years back, someone's actions contributed to the disaster. It wasn't done elsewise, thus ... (can you guess what comes here?) ... it's as it should be.

I admit it requires a number of presuppositions from cosmology down to the most mundane details. For instance, while I'm past my Communist phase, I still look at humanity as "in the same boat", as compared to animals in the wild who must necessarily destroy each other to survive. It requires the presupposition that what we do is not exclusively immediate, but that such actions affect future events. And so on.

Let me just disclaim one aspect, though: When I say, "It requires", I mean that my own opinion requires. I am in no position to require anything of anyone else. In other words, should one choose to attempt to adopt my perspective to try out for a day, there's a number of presuppositions without which the ideas just won't function properly.

But then again why is there something rather then nothing ?

This is, by the nature of the question, actually the shortest answer you'll get from me today.

I would assert that there is "something" rather than "nothing" simply because we make it so. Language, limited perspective, &c.

And one should never hedge about having tried. On the other hand, I'm quite sure I don't make sense, so you're doing fine. (Look how much you gave me to talk about ... "Oh, well," my ass!) By the way, "No reason not to be ...." I haven't explored fully the idea of Via Negativa, but it seems you're onto it at least in part.

You're keeping my brain snapping, crackling, and popping. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Greetings Tiassa!

Hmm, good question. I guess for me it depends on what I'm trusting FOR. Am I trusting justice will be done, am I trusting that things will generally go good for me in my life, am I trusting that when I pound my thumb with a hammer it will hurt really badly? (Which I did yesterday, and it did hurt, trust me. LOL)

Since I don't believe in any one God, in that sense, I guess I trust a lot of different things. I guess karma is the label for the cosmic justice system. Maybe all of those things I listed are really the same kind of thing - what's "right" and what's "wrong"; what's "fair" and what's "unfair", same concept. I like your "everything is as it should be" phrase, I think that's very much the truth.

It reminds me very much that you are never really forced into something. People like to bitch about their lives, but really, it's 98% their own choices that made them that way. Like me for instance; I complain about going to work at O-dark-thirty every day, but I COULD choose to lay in bed all day, couldn't I? Or someone cuts me off in traffic and it makes me mad so I complain about that, well, I'm the one choosing to be upset, I could choose instead to learn some kind of coping mechanism. I'm also the one choosing to drive, which I full well know opens me up to things like getting cut off, rear ended, or getting caught speeding.

My little sister right now is, to all purposes, homeless. She has a full time job, but spends all of her money on CD's, concert tickets, tattoo's, piercings, cigarettes and who knows what else. She lives from couch to couch, staying with different people and eating at my parent's house. My dad was saying how worried about her he was, and was asking me if I thought it was a good idea to lend her some money to get an apartment. I pointed out how she COULD get an apartment if she wanted to, but obviously other things are more important to her right now. I also pointed out that she's only 20 years old, and can very well handle sleeping on a couch. And of course, my parents themselves would always take her back if she ACTUALLY needed something. The fact is, she would rather go to the concerts, smoke the pot, get the tattoos and peircings, and generally party it up. I know she's a realatively responsible person, so I don't fuss about it. When she's ready, she'll settle down, that's the way it works. She has made her CHOICE, she's an adult, and so then ... (say it with me, Tiassa!) everything is as it should be!

Perhaps there is a lesson she must learn from this. Perhaps there is a lesson someone else must learn from it!! I guess I trust karma to keep everything balanced, and so since I don't think my sis is harming anyone, I "trust" that no significant harm will befall her.

Well, I sorta kept that on topic! :)

tiassa: I will try to answer what I think the appropriate answer should be. People of faith should trust God for that which He can directly provide. The first of these things should be salvation. As I understand it that is what He exists for in most cases. I am speaking of Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths whose orthopraxy is clear.

I HAVE to comment on this:

As a barely-workable analogy: People in the US often complain excessively about their government ... it's the classic "They" of conspiracy theories. Any event that becomes part of that canon has its own reasons. People complain that "the Government" is doing this or that to oppress. Theoretically, we, the American people, own this government; that is the Law of Our Land. Despite our unhappiness with this government, it is as it should be. After all, only 40-60% of the voting-eligible population is registered, and of them, perhaps half will vote. If you start with the adage, "Don't vote? Don't complain," and work from there, can you see the process growing? Now, voting numbers aside, if we assert that Big Business has bought our government from beneath us, it is still as it should be, because the people who had the choice to prevent this did not. Furthermore, among my Dad's principles is that "People will revolt when they're starving in the street, but not before". (Yet, at the same time, social problems don't need to be addressed at all because nobody's worried enough to revolt. Gee, thanks Dad ) Now, aside from asking how it came to be that people are starving in the street, there's a point to be had. After all, for all the complaining we hear about in the news, our voting public seems dead-set on electing politicians who will continue to sell themselves for cash. Thus, despite problems, things are as they should be.

You have stated what my own observations have told me for years. The people of the USA get the gov't they deserve. We all have a right to vote. The people, in my mind, are mostly to blame.

Good post! :)

Adlerian, former politician

MoonCat & Alderian

Well, I wasted part of my evening being petty, so I'm a little too tired & intoxicated to give a whole lot of serious response. But still ... ;)

Moon

I'm wondering if lane-hopping in road-construction zones has gotten futile yet? :D

Of your sis ... frankly I always feel like I should say something about these things, since that was "my arena" when I was young enough to have an arena and be prideful about it. Strange, it doesn't seem that long ago. At it's root, my perspective on such things now has its root in hangovers, but that's far too obscure a thing to explain in 50 words or less, so to speak.

But the one coherent, hopefully worthwhile thought I can manage right now is to inquire ...

How difficult was it to wrangle the issues that led you to that "trust" of no significant harm? As Threefold Law has become an obscure Golden Rule to me, and one which I believe I can see at least in allegorical function within reality ... well, I remember trying to wrap my head around Threefold and other such karmic balances. Usually, progress came with pivotal decisions. So if you don't mind my asking, how tough was the path to that particular trust?

(thx) :cool:


Alderian

If I might ...

People of faith should trust God for that which He can directly provide. The first of these things should be salvation.

You've struck upon a peculiar aspect of faith and trust that I've yet to get a full grasp on. Of all the "beyonds" I've given any reasonable consideration, "salvation theory" is the one that just downright confuses me. That, however is a much broader issue, I admit.

What of salvation strikes me the most at present is how one trusts that salvation. It might be that I'm splitting hairs:

* It might be so simple as to what sect of what faith one belongs, but where salvation applies, there is some confusion about how it works (confusion, that is, to me; to be fair, it is merely theoretic diversity, but that hair that I split opens a can of worms best left for another day; it's purely tangential). I offer predestination, "loving God", and acts of redemption. All of these regard the approach to salvation, and thus how one trusts God in regards to that salvation, quite differently. To the predestiner, it's out of human hands. To the Loving God theorist, salvation is practically a standard. Acts of redemption often compel people to do quite odd and sometimes nasty things in the name of God, as the believer hopes to win God's favor.

Maybe that's why I couldn't put much together for Moon. If that confuses you, well, I'm barely holding it together myself.

(thx) :cool:


--Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa,

I think some caution is at place here. It is perhaps not your intension but claiming that 'things are as they should be' or like MoonCat saying that it is so because of Karma might lead to fatalism.
Karma, as you probably know very well is a term of the Vedic philosophy. It resulted in a system in India of layers in which it was impossible for an individual to go from one layer to an other. Society was very rigid and against any form of change, things were as they should sort of speak...

You see if people in the US complain about their government, they are still able to do something about it because of their vote. However what happened in the Netherlands (it was saturday in stead of sunday) is of a whole different matter.
In short : Enschede is a small town of about 10000 people where in the middle of the town there was a fireworks factory. There were more then 100 metric tons of heavy spectacle fireworks stocked in save bunckers. Everything was according to the rules, they had permits for everything. Along comes a pyromaniac (at least that is the latest new I heard) and puts the place on fire. For the moment 18 people have been identified and more then a 100 are still missing...

As a resident of Enschede you knew you were living next to a plant with a whole lot of fireworks in it. The place provided work and prosperity for the little town because it exported its firework all over Europe and the world. You knew there was a possiblity that this might go wrong but you were willing to take the risk. You have no idea of a pyromaniac making the neighbourhood unsave. Is this as it should be ?
Granted, they were willing to take the risk but does this mean that we should go on stocking fireworks in densly populated areas?
The dutch government doesn't think so and is already looking into making new laws that would prohibit stockation of more then 2 metric tons.

I would assert that there is "something" rather than "nothing" simply because we make it so. Language, limited perspective, &c.


So this would mean that things come into existence by talking about them ? Are you then willing to assert an objective existence? Independent of the observer ?

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

I must be brief today, not a lot of time, so here goes;

Tiassa,

I sort of generally formed that philosophy over my (short so far) life. I "learned" about the Law of Three way after I had already noticed it in action. I can't point to any one event, off the top of my head, that made me believe this is how things work, it's more like there were so many little things that just added up and started showing a pattern.

This is one of the reasons I strive to be the 'best' person I can - I try to be honest, and fair, and thoughtful. I try to understand, and respect, and honor the differences I see in others. I feel very strongly that the 'better' I am at doing these things, the 'better' my life will be. So far, it's working! :)

So, I guess it wasn't hard at all, it slowly grew as a part of me, like the hair on my head. The "law of three" is just a label for the phenomenon, luckily for me I was aware of it long before I knew the right words for it.

Plato,

If I might horn in on your post to Tiassa a bit, when you ask if it is "as it should be" regarding that accident with the fireworks factory, consider this; perhaps that accident will encourage another factory or seven to increase security, and thereby prevent an even larger disaster. If this were the case, then the lives lost in this disaster are for a purpose - they might save lives of many more after them. Monsterously unfair to those that died in the fire...perhaps. One theory is that we choose the lives we have when we reincarnate - we pick a life based on a lesson we need to learn, or perhaps a debt we need to repay. Those 18 or so people may have just completed a vital part of their cosmic journey through many lifetimes by providing a warning against a potentially worse disaster.

I don't think this is fatalist, to me it is actually quite optomistic. I have always had a favorite saying - a mistake is only a mistake if you don't learn from it; otherwise it's a lesson. It's okay to screw up, as long as you learn from it and don't repeat your mistakes. Even if that screw up ends this lifeline, there are more behind it, and if you can carry that lesson along with you, you're making progress. And if your death helps OTHERS learn from their mistakes, to me that looks like a positive flow of karma in your direction. Not that I'd like to die anytime soon, but if I'm going to, I at least hope it helps someone else learn something that makes it safer/easier/whatever for others.

And now, I must run. Have a good one, everyone. :)

Hi MoonCat,

you know I also used to believe in that, the very same things that you come to explain. But some things can't be seen that way, for example what could possibly be the lesson that a baby has learned when it dies a few days old ? This has absolutely no reason what so ever.
Besides when you say one can choose the kind of life one wants to live before one is born then this would mean that your life is already predesposed even before you live it. Why bother living it then ?
What I also don't understand about reïncarnation is why on earth come back if life after death is full of bliss and so, to learn more ? Why should you want to do that ? What can you gain by doing it ? Nirwana ? But you are in Nirwana when you die or do I have this completly wrong ?

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

No, if I might! ;)

*You've struck upon a peculiar aspect of faith and trust that I've yet to get a full grasp on.

Join the club!


*Of all the "beyonds" I've given any reasonable consideration, "salvation theory" is the one that just downright confuses me.

Again, join the club and thanks for your honesty! :)


*What of salvation strikes me the most at present is how one trusts that salvation. It might be that I'm splitting hairs:
It might be so simple as to what sect of what faith one belongs, but where salvation applies, there is some confusion about how it works (confusion, that is, to me; to be fair, it is merely theoretic diversity, but that hair that I split opens a can of worms best left for another day; it's purely tangential).

I would call your hair-splitting, investigation, and thanks for the mixed metaphor! LOL I would say it is theoretic diversity.

*I offer predestination, "loving God", and acts of redemption. All of these regard the approach to salvation, and thus how one trusts God in regards to that salvation, quite differently. To the predestiner, it's out of human hands. To the Loving God theorist, salvation is practically a standard. Acts of redemption often compel people to do quite odd and sometimes nasty things in the name of God, as the believer hopes to win God's favor.

Agreed on all points. I was making a generalization and you further carried out its implications, quite well, I might add, but won’t. ;)

If you would like we can discuss any of the particular implications you brought up.

All the best,

Adlerian

Hello tiassa,

Brian--
If I might ... How does that trust manifest itself?

The best I could explain my own take on it is that I am constantly aware of a not quite fatalistic sense of This is as it should be.

Except for the fatalistic part, this is very much my take on it with respect to the past and present I do agree with the following:

But whatever stupid laws my neighbors pass, however many bodies our bombs produce--it si all as it should be, else we would have done it differently.

Being a visionary to a certain degree, I don't believe in predestination so with respect to the future I have a tendency to understand in my own way that I can participate in what things become. Of course, once the future becomes the present or the past, to me, it takes on the characteristic of this is the way it should be.

I, too, believe that everything happens for a reason. I don't claim to understand the reason or all the reasons as the case may be. By my own standards my life has been pretty darn good. More fortunate people might think it's the pits. Less fortunate people might think it's great. It's all relative and yes, whatever position I find myself in at any given moment, that's the way it should be.

There were times in the past when I found myself wondering why and even being bitter about certain terrible things that happened, particularly to others - you gave examples of terroristic and accidental bombings. Bad news either way. But I accept such news as the way it should have been or the way it should be for now. I need to trust in that to a certain extent because anyway you slice it, what's happened can't be changed and you can drive yourself crazy dwelling on it.

Developing the trust was a learning process for me. In some cases I learned the reason why at a later time - I could see then that, as you put it, this is how it should be - and that is basically how the trust has manifested itself to me over time and that is why now I do trust that awesome highest power, whoever, whatever it is. It might be as basic to me and the universe as is molecular structure (that I doubt) but my tendency is to interpret it as something without physical properties, capable of interacting with the physical universe.

At any rate, the trust has enabled me to live, love, participate in and accept life as it is.

Thanks for the tea-time,

Brian

Wow. Thanks all. We're off on an adventure I was unable to describe in the first of these threads.

However ... Oxygen ... it seems I've neglected your kind post from the 15th. My apologies, for you were and are, um, "in the zone" on that one. (Ouch. I never thought I'd live to see myself use that phrase seriously.)

I believe that the examples and groups of people you presented (and many others) trust God to be a handy justification for their actions. In olden times, God was used to attain politcal ends and to satisfy the lusts of control freaks. Such remarks as "God commands it" were not questioned because of how tightly woven religion was into daily life. Today, with the separation of church and state being a policy (if not a practice), people of all faiths find it easier to question the old ways or else to return to them (a nod to pagans and Wiccans), causing a rift in the fundamental belief system. Threatened by the loss of a free-thinking flock, religious leaders use the separation of church and state to keep the authorities at bay while they forcibly reunite the "stray sheep" with the flock.

Let me say first that this summary is one to which I've always been very, very sympathetic. I think that history, sociology, and even cultural anthropology can demonstrate the processes you've described.

Your phrase, "trust God to be a handy justification" is a fine reflection of the issue I was hoping to communicate.

That some people seek a Faith of Handy Justifications demonstrates that God is immediately authoritative in their lives. This is where I draw my own line and begin the questions. If I might use an extreme example, I recall a letter to the editor during the 1992 election that I pick on so dearly, in which an alleged "Christian" asserted that he didn't understand the fuss about the two people murdered by a religious terrorist. His take on it was that God had willed these two [homosexual] abominations from the earth. Now it just doesn't seem "Christian" to me to hurl a bomb through the front window of a house in which human beings are asleep. Yet to connect the campaign (which wasn't about relgion, according to its supporters) to the firebombing was regarded not as an affront to the political system or to logic, but as an affront to Christians. I have never understood that. Local people of faith would decry the murder, because Murder is Wrong, but still could not shake the feeling that "they [the dead] had it coming".

Let me disclaim, please, that I'm quite aware of how unusual and severe the circumstances of this case are. But that severity might be the point.

In smaller issues, some still see things as immediate and limited enough to intervene. Books, records, ideas in general. But as we start paring away subjective behaviors, and then the ideas surrounding them (homosexuality and the Drug War are first to mind), we remove our ability to deal with them. For instance, if I were to allow the assumption that being gay is "wrong", the next question I have is how to return the misled sheep to the flock. It seems to me that, if we exclude them from the flock, and restrict how information can be exchanged regarding these sheep, it will become impossible to return them to the flock except by direct force of will.

If we ostracize homosexuality, and then remove all mention of it from libraries, textbooks, and newspapers, and don't allow people to discuss it, how can the Shepherd ever lead? (I point to George HW Bush's abortion "gag-order" which banned the use of the word "abortion" in federally-funded medical facilities, including any hospital which received a penny of public money; at one point, Bush considered revising the severity of his executive order to make it possible for those medical personnel to discourage abortion--as it was, they couldn't even say that, which was the political goal.)

Likewise: a few years back ('95 or '96, I think) a Colorado GOP Rep to US Congress proposed a law which would have banned drug-legalization efforts from the web; in fact, I could be barred, by that failed bill, from using the internet for life based on the content of my prior posts on the subject. Now, since people admit that drugs are a problem, it seems counterproductive to throw a whole bunch of people in worthless prisons and then ban the culture from talking about it.

And that's what I'm wondering about. If our goal is to create any version of a "godly" society, can that be achieved if our godly mandate requires us to achieve these means by force or apathy?

Using guns to create peace.
Using greed to create harmony.
Using dissention to create unity.
Using hate to create love.
Using ignorance to create intelligence.

Peace, harmony, unity, love ... if these are the intelligent ideals, what of the tools?

Of course, I must admit the assumptions of those five points, if they are to be deemed good ideas:

* I assume that bullets are made to make people feel better about each other.
* I assume that moral-comparative politics are the best way to get people to settle their differences.
* I assume that getting people to argue insignificant points is the best way to get them to agree.
* I assume that insulting, suppressing, and morally comparing people is the best way to tell them how praised, free, and equal they are.
* I assume that destroying information is the best way to share it.

(Well ... I'm trying to be melodramatic ... ;) )

As a society, we know what we want. We even know how we want to get there. Why, then, does it seem that, as collective, humanity runs from even the ideals that virtually all of us agree on (life, honesty, &c).

But I'm sort of rambling. There's no issue to take up here 'twixt us (perhaps because I find myself in agreement with your perspective, though it's also possible that something I've written might birth that issue.)

I want to thank you, though. There is much to think about. And I do apologize profusely for the tardiness of my response (and also for its anemic, wishy-washy, let's-cover-no-new-ground aspects).

thanx much,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Plato,

I think a key to this is to remember that the lesson might not always be for you - just as you can learn from other people's mistakes and misfortunes, others can learn from yours.

The baby that dies after a brief period is definitely a toughie. I personally have a sister that only lived 3 days, she was born when I was around 2 or 3 years old. I can tell you that her brief little life did affect all of us, and some of it in very positive ways. It made my mother appreciate me all the more, despite my numerous and expensive health problems. What makes a child more precious than being reminded they could be taken away at any second? Her death actually was the catalyst for my parents to finally marry eachother and for my father to get a better job - they realized there were very important things in life, more important than partying and just getting by. Her death forced me to become more independant - as a temporarily disabled little one, I was slathered in attention, pampered and spoiled right up until she was born and died; I was likely on the road to becoming a completely spoiled brat. Her tragedy took my parents focus off of me, which was probably the biggest gift she gave me. Her loss was also a big factor in the determination my mom had to not loose her next baby - my other sister mentioned in my last post. Her early days were very shakey too, the doctors swore she would never make it. Today, she is bigger than any of her siblings and her mother, is tougher than most guys I know, and can hold her own against anyone foolish enough to mess with her.

What benefit does this do for that lost little girl? Well, perhaps she owed us something from a previous life. Perhaps she was repaying a lesson or gift one or more of us taught or gave her. Or, perhaps one of us is destined to lay down our lives sometime in the future for her, and she was just incurring the debt that will be equalized then. I don't think this was a 'learning' life for her, it was a lesson for the rest of us. And in a way, a gift too. Years later, in retrospect, the sorrow is still there, but the gifts we recieved are still there too, and the gifts are stronger than the sorrow.

I don't think life is predisposed in that sense. I mean, you're marching off to kindergarten with the intention of learning to read...does that mean that since you know what you're going to learn you shouldn't learn it?? Knowing ABOUT something and actually KNOWING something are very different. I can choose a major at college, but until I actually do the course I can't claim the degree, y'know?

As far as why come back at all, I don't really think it's Nirvana between lives. If I continue along in the schooling analogy, death is like summer vacation between school years. If you drop out, you don't learn, you don't progress, and you end up flipping burgers for the rest of your life. I don't know what the cosmic equivalent to a McJob is, but how boring could that be for an eternity! Each life is like the next grade up, and eventually you learn enough that you graduate and don't have to go through school anymore. I think THAT is where you hit Nirvana, or whatever you wish to call it.

Wow, I haven't thought about my lost sister in years. Gosh, if she were alive, she'd be around 22 or 23 by now. But to me, she will always be this teeny, precious little thing, with a heart that couldn't beat strongly enough even for her size. :)

tiassa: Not to hold you verbatim to your last post but you said,

If our goal is to create any version of a "godly" society, can that be achieved if our godly mandate requires us to achieve these means by force or apathy?

Whose goal is that? The Christians? Hardly! I haven't met one who is anything but self-centered, self-serving, and down on everyone who isn't just like them. They call their goals laudable but they are out for themselves.

Using guns to create peace.

Guns create a type of peace. The kind of assurance you can have when walking down a street in NYC with about 30 policemen are within your sight. I will rest easier at night knowing that I have a gun to shoot an intruder with, should he be so thoughtless as to enter my home without my permission.


* I assume that bullets are made to make people feel better about each other.

No, guns make people feel better about themselves. If I am armed, criminals will think twice about bothering me.


I'm trying to be melodramatic ...

Yes, and you did a fine job. Kinda reminds me of a comment I made about Satanists, oops, let's not go there! ;)

As a society, we know what we want.

This is an assumption. A BIG one. I would say that most people THINK they know what they what. Then again, my ex-wife NEVER knew what she wanted. ;)

Where would you like this thread to go from here?

Adlerian

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> <font color = "red">"Everybody wants to rule the World."</font>

This was a fun thread, everyone.

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited May 20, 2000).]

Alderian--

Hold away ;)

As I said ... if. The thing is, that American society, to say the least, seems to have this vague ideal and really thinks it can achieve it through its current methods.

It isn't about guns, per se. But we'll build prisons and hire more police. We'll build economy and create jobs. But bringing educational standards past a bare minimum is like pulling teeth. Now, I'm nowhere near anti-immigration. I like to think of myself as comfortable in a diverse world; but if the only reason we're importing technology workers is because our high school graduates aren't qualified, well .... We want less crime, just never quite enough to pay for the solution that's less profitable in the short-term. In the meantime--and I would humbly remind you of the word "if" and also of how we interpret "godly"--we censor information, nitpick, divide, and so forth, all in an effort centered around one or another group's limited definition of morality. I might even be able, someday, to make a case that stress in the capitalist workforce is pushing domestic violence numbers up. It isn't that I dislike capitalism, but I think we now work for our economy in an obligatory sense--slaves to the machine. All of it leads us away from our ideals of a peaceful, educated society. That I personally dislike guns is almost irrelevant, because I've carried other weapons with notions of my defense. But I'd rather help build a society where guns and cartilege-saw knives aren't "necessary".

The whole point I'm driving after with this entire thread is that some "godly" behavior is definitely not. It seems that people often find their own selves too important in God's schemes. If I pick on a specific brand of Christian conscience: I recall in the summers around 1992 and '93, anti-abortion operatives descended on specific cities, plaguing medical clinics with violent protests and vandalism; this trend would continue until the extremist murder of Dr. David Gunn stained the entire protest movement. But even if the protesters accomplished their goal of convincing a potential patient to not have an abortion, what good could the shoving and spitting and throwing of things possibly do the fetus in question? As I said, a very specific brand of Christianity.

Now, it seems to me that these people trust God to compel their actions; that is, they trust that they should be instruments of judgement before the Day.

I assert the same of Muslim fundamentalists who haven't stopped brawling since about 700 CE.

I don't understand the theologies of a couple of a couple of fights in India, but I'm quite sure the massacre of an entire trainload of people can't be good for God's mood.

If I can look back to that damned election one more time, during the '92 Oregon campaign, a number of Christian clergy organizations published statements in the voters' guides defended the position of homosexuals in society. Broader discussions of that issue focused on a couple of points:

* If one establishes that homosexuality is a sin:
--Are they condemned in this moment, or do they have opportunity to repent and reconcile?
--How does one foster that repentence by restricting communication and information?
--How does one foster that reconciliation through ostracism?

Thus, as the various arguments would go, it seems counterproductive to the Christian mission, in this case, to support the divisive ballot measure. The theological aspect of it was that these homosexuals had their entire lives to come to God, and God alone could judge them.

Now, it seems to me that if one must have a problem with homosexuals, this is the way to do it, by trusting God, as such, to know what, why, when, how, and so forth.

And that's sort of the difference I'm after.

If we are compelled to immediate action for godly-inspired purposes, do we not have a responsibility to consider whether our chosen course of action accomplishes a greater, godly good? If we are compelled to action, and cannot bring that greater good, are we truly acting in a godly manner? If we cannot bring that greater good, should we then trust our God to know the score?

For all the things we, as a society, think we want, I'm constantly amazed at how deliberately we'll run stark-raving in the opposite direction.

Economy, morality, property, government, economy--for all we claim these things to endow, it seems that much human detriment comes from their execution; I wouldn't call this shocking news by any stretch, except that it really does seem that we would rather combat the detriment than change the method to reduce detriment. That combat is a wasted effort.

I remember back in '92, Clinton made some crack about "When you hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer, the one thing you know is that you don't want to do it again." Referring to the Bush presidency, he remarked: "I think Americans have a sore thumb." Or something to the effect. (I will forego the irony that when we put the hammer down the next time, we had a headache.)

I think as long as we blindly trust that God is compelling this or that righteous action, we're doomed to this cycle of increased Things Which God Needs to Compel Us Against.

I would assert that if we trust an all-knowing God to know all things, we can trust that certain things will be settled at their appropriate time. To the redemptive religions I would advise: Leave 'em alone ... maybe they're productive to your peaceful society; besides, God will have plenty of chance to judge them when they're dead.

That's pretty much what I was after.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa: Again, I commend you for a well thought-out post. Let me offer a few comments, if I may. First of all, as I see the issue, people who call themselves Christian and are out to mandate "Christian morality" do so because there is something that makes them uncomfortable i.e. abortion, homosexuality, pornography, whatever. As I have known these people, and I have known them well, there are out to make these changes to make the world into a place that they can feel safe in. Excuse me, that's not the reason that a Christian should be doing those things IF they are reading and believing in the Bible. The Bible says that we are to stamp out immorality in our OWN lives first and then love others into the Kingdom because GOD is dishonoured by sin, anyone's sin. So as far as what you are saying about homosexuals, I would agree entirely. That does not mean I think that society should accept a behavior that is deleterious to society as a whole and I believe that homosexuality is. But I believe that homosexuality is a symptom that society is sick. The illness itself is selfishness. So I would say that I agree with your ideas about this.

But I do have a comment about this:

The whole point I'm driving after with this entire thread is that some "godly" behavior is definitely not. It seems that people often find their own selves too important in God's schemes. If I pick on a specific brand of Christian conscience: I recall in the summers around 1992 and '93, anti-abortion operatives descended on specific cities, plaguing medical clinics with violent protests and vandalism; this trend would continue until the extremist murder of Dr. David Gunn stained the entire protest movement. But even if the protesters accomplished their goal of convincing a potential patient to not have an abortion, what good could the shoving and spitting and throwing of things possibly do the fetus in question? As I said, a very specific brand of Christianity.

I am assuming you are referring to Operation Rescue, which I was a part of and had many friends who were involved as well. First, could you refer me to the articles that contain the pictures of the acts you mentioned? I find it hard to believe that they occurred. I have seen spitting and such but it was ALWAYS from the side of the Pro-Abortion people.

As far as the murder of Gunn, this was AFTER F.A.C.E. was passed. A thinly disguised attempt to stop people from exercising their right to protest in peace. It was the groups like Operation Rescue that kept the nuts and the fringe elements away from the clinics by forming a hedge around the clinics. When that hedge was lifted all hell broke lose. Congress was directly respondsible for the violence perpetrated against the clinics by removing the clinics' only protection which was the pro-life people. I fought hard with our then congressman to have him vote against FACE but he voted for it and in the next election I used my political power, for I was in office myself at the time, to elect his opponent.

F.Y.I. Fetus means "little one" in Latin. In all my years I have NEVER seen a more blatant case of disseminating lies as that done by the Media when it came to abortion. I have been to
Washington many times to "march for life" and the numbers that they always give out are was skewed. I have the pictures and they ALWAYS report the numbers lower than they actually are during that march. It was that experience which was repeated in front of my eyes over and over and over again which caused me to little faith in the media. I saw their lies with my very own eyes and have the pictures to prove it.


All the best,


Adlerian

Alderian--

You've got me on the abortion thing. Sorry, I didn't save a whole summer's worth of newspapers in 1992, '93, or '94. And I didn't videotape all of CNN. But you're telling me that no violence occurred against the potential mother/clients of the clinics? If it's that important to you, and you can't believe that these things happened, then I suppose I'll be happy to find those articles for you. Give me about eight months, though, so I can be definitive. ;)

Now ... why Christianity is even important is that groups like Operation Rescue go out with a declared Christian mission. However, in the end, it's beside the point.

It's beside the point only because this isn't actually about Christianity, guns, drugs, or even God, necessarily.

It's about that guiding principle that is within us all, how we define it, how we regard it, and how we behave in relation to it. Were the torturers of days past "humble" before God? They would say yes; they fear God, therefore they humbly submit to His (dubiously inspired) wish to murder and torture. Muslim fundamentalism? I would cite the Koran's instruction to combat injustice as the reason for all of that infighting, but at what point does the struggle for justice become more unjust than the injustice fought against? To take God out of the picture: why throw debtors in prison? If the guiding principle is the recovery of funds, what purpose was found in throwing debtors in prison?

Christianity is an unfortunately willing target in issues like these. To the one hand, there is the fact that in the US, most people are familiar with Christian principles, and also a religion with which I have a lifetime of familiarity. To the other, there are enough individuals out there calling themselves Christian who are perfectly willing to fuel the fire. But in the end, this transcends most labels. "Americans" is one I'm willing to leave because we can, for academic purposes, contain the phenomena inside cultural and political borders and watch the microcosm.

But the godly--idyllic, if we wish--society we envision; those broader concepts we teach children about Life, Liberty, and Justice; what was so wrong about those shining, noble concepts that, when we discovered they weren't quite real, compelled us to leap screaming into the frenzy and exacerbate the problem that much more?

In economic terms, I suppose the problem is purpose: I assert that Americans are slaves to the system. We place our faith not only in the idea that our economy is the best way to do it, but also in the reasons for having faith. Is it "America: work hard, live well", or "America: work hard and do your duty to the economy". Most people I know choose the second in practice, though they will insist on the former. I see the trend in media and cultural expressions, as well. Writers and musicians are aware of it, but since they're writers and musicians, nobody's listening to them because they can't objectify it. I point to local elections to help explain this trend. "Anti-tax demonstrations" or "revolts", as some explain them, come in the form of votes against funding for good ideas; "It isn't so much that it's a bad idea, but that the government has too much of my money so I'm putting my foot down." How corrupting is this, in the long run? It's an irresponsible demonstration to not fund local education on the grounds that your Lexus tabs are too expensive. It's irresponsible, but we accept it because it's not running through the streets with spray paint, smashing and tagging everything in sight. Here's brilliance: as a tax revolt in King County, Washington, we terminated funding for our Emergency Medical Services. :(

In religious terms, I think it really is a matter of trust, as we've been covering. I apologize if people think I'm focusing too much on specific issues, but they're culturally compelling, in that we fight over them every election or two, and they're wonderful examples of the device I'm after. But the moment of trust should be according to the chosen god. It's not like the Christians, Muslims, and other groups staining the nobility of their own mission don't have written instructions. And I understand the fight is in how to read them. And that's the point. Would the Christian God, for example, prefer that you interfere, persecute, and generally meddle in His name? Or would the Christian God prefer that you carry on your life and love Him and praise Him and trust that He knows enough to handle things On His Own?

(I'm at work, gotta run ... hope I didn't leave too much out. Otherwise, we'll get back to it.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa:

Let me address these one by one. First, before I begin I have to commend you on your attitude. Rarely have I seen anyone address topics that were “hot” emotionally with such aplomb. It is refreshing and points towards a good thinker. It is hard if not impossible to think clearly when the body is pumping out adrenaline like a geyser.

Now, as far as the stories from the Media are concerned I have already explained that I doubt their veracity. The video footage that you may have seen was undoubtedly out of context. There was violence at those sites when the Pro-Abortion people showed up. They taunted teased and generally harassed the people that were there trying to save human lives. I know, I was there. I have had many friends in the Media since 1974 and many of them were close friends who let me in on the “agenda” of the Media, and friend, their agenda does not involve truth. They slant the issues time and time again. I thought I made it clear that I have proof that the Media lies to inculcate their own belief system into a nation of sheep. I have some bias here I am sure, yet the facts are the facts. I saw what I saw with my own eyes and counted the people in the photos just to make sure I was not mistaken. From that day, as I said, I have never trusted the Media to tell anyone or me the truth, it’s not what they are about.


It's about that guiding principle that is within us all, how we define it, how we regard it, and how we behave in relation to it. Were the torturers of days past "humble" before God? They would say yes; they fear God, therefore they humbly submit to His (dubiously inspired) wish to murder and torture. Muslim fundamentalism? I would cite the Koran's instruction to combat injustice as the reason for all of that infighting, but at what point does the struggle for justice become more unjust than the injustice fought against? To take God out of the picture: why throw debtors in prison? If the guiding principle is the recovery of funds, what purpose was found in throwing debtors in prison?

I total agree. To me the issue is about the Ego. People doing in the name of God what makes them feel good. It is not about religion, it’s about selfishness.

Christianity is an unfortunately willing target in issues like these. To the one hand, there is the fact that in the US, most people are familiar with Christian principles, and also a religion with which I have a lifetime of familiarity. To the other, there are enough individuals out there calling themselves Christian who are perfectly willing to fuel the fire. But in the end, this transcends most labels. "Americans" is one I'm willing to leave because we can, for academic purposes, contain the phenomena inside cultural and political borders and watch the microcosm.

You have a microscope? Cool beans! ;)

But the godly--idyllic, if we wish--society we envision; those broader concepts we teach children about Life, Liberty, and Justice; what was so wrong about those shining, noble concepts that, when we discovered they weren't quite real, compelled us to leap screaming into the frenzy and exacerbate the problem that much more?

An awesome question from a thinking mind. I love it! :D Are you saying that the concepts aren’t real? I believe the answer here is the Ego once again. Each individual wanting for himself that which he thinks will “buy” him autonomy and in other cases pleasure, pleasure without temperance, pleasure without regard for the suffering it might inflict on others.


In economic terms, I suppose the problem is purpose: I assert that Americans are slaves to the system. We place our faith not only in the idea that our economy is the best way to do it, but also in the reasons for having faith. Is it "America: work hard, live well", or "America: work hard and do your duty to the economy". Most people I know choose the second in practice, though they will insist on the former. I see the trend in media and cultural expressions, as well. Writers and musicians are aware of it, but since they're writers and musicians, nobody's listening to them because they can't objectify it.

I agree with this 100%.


I point to local elections to help explain this trend. "Anti-tax demonstrations" or "revolts", as some explain them, come in the form of votes against funding for good ideas; "It isn't so much that it's a bad idea, but that the government has too much of my money so I'm putting my foot down." How corrupting is this, in the long run? It's an irresponsible demonstration to not fund local education on the grounds that your Lexus tabs are too expensive. It's irresponsible, but we accept it because it's not running through the streets with spray paint, smashing and tagging everything in sight. Here's brilliance: as a tax revolt in King County, Washington, we terminated funding for our Emergency Medical Services.

Politically I have been changing as I age, once a diehard Democrat/Socialist, then a conservative Republican/Capitalist, now a Libertarian. So you can guess what I think about the government wanting ANY of MY money. I have been in a high tax bracket (38%) for years now and I also give to social causes. In fact I give to many, I recently indicated on this board that I joined the NRA, in fact, I joined 4 organizations in the last 2 weeks. I have worked in soup lines and am a member of the NAACP. I believe that to give to others who are less fortunate than I am is good for both of us unless they resent the help (I have seen this) or come to expect it sans gratitude. I don’t get any of the “good feeling” that I get when giving to those less fortunate than myself when Big Government (read Brother) takes it from me by force. It is coercion plain and simple.

In religious terms, I think it really is a matter of trust, as we've been covering. I apologize if people think I'm focusing too much on specific issues, but they're culturally compelling, in that we fight over them every election or two, and they're wonderful examples of the device I'm after. But the moment of trust should be according to the chosen god. It's not like the Christians, Muslims, and other groups staining the nobility of their own mission don't have written instructions. And I understand the fight is in how to read them. And that's the point. Would the Christian God, for example, prefer that you interfere, persecute, and generally meddle in His name? Or would the Christian God prefer that you carry on your life and love Him and praise Him and trust that He knows enough to handle things On His Own?

I believe I understand now (finally) what you are driving at. I see the answer “as God wants us to trust Him for the very air we breathe”, but when we are confronted with unrighteousness we are to stand up for what is right and true. By standing up I am referring to things like the way we vote or saving the lives of those who cannot save themselves.

All in all, some very good thoughts. By the way, your thoughts weren’t too bad either. ;)

Hope this helped,

Adlerian :)

Adlerian,

If I might be so bold but I think that when you say :

yet the facts are the facts. I saw what I saw with my own eyes and counted the people in the photos just to make sure I was not mistaken. From that day, as I said, I have never trusted the Media to tell anyone or me the truth, it’s not what they are about.


aren't you falling for the fallacy of composition ;) ?

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !