Dichotomy
I am not comfortable about the way the church* discusses the dichotomy between the strong/weak, wealthy/poor, etc. We talk about it like God is going to stick it to all the people who we see as being richer or stronger than ourselves. This is not a God I believe in. A truly loving God would never do this. He would treat us all as equals. Otherwise, we are all screwed. If you are reading this blog, you have a computer which puts you much better off than over 90% of the world. If you believe that God loves only the poor, then God doesn't love you. The same goes for strength. Western society seems to follow this all encompassing idea of individuality which leads us to define ourselves, essentially through strength of some kind.
I agree that material things and a belief in that type of materialistic security will probably hinder spiritual growth at some point. The funny thing is we all preach it, but rarely ever follow it. Finding personal strength is a good thing, but you cannot forget that we will always be dependent on another source, beit the world or of a spiritual source.
I think any message found in Christianity which stands for revenge of any kind should be ignored and dismissed from Christianity. It is not loving to expect God to avenge us, nor should we want to be avenged.
*By the church, I mean the conventional church. If you look at the songs commonly sung and the passages used and sermons given, certian ideas occur often and are seen as being commonly accepted without question.
Its takes two to collide
I've begun to see that as much I as I want blame myself for a situation, the blame could never fall squarely on me. Even if I wrong someone, it does not justify backlash. There is another way to see the world and another way to respond to these situations.
This is not meant to be used to blame someone else so that I feel better. This is merely a release from trying to control more than I can control and accepting the consequences of my actions by seeing that I am not the only player in my life.
People respond as they will. I will most likely offend/hurt someone at some point. Forgiveness or lashing out is their choice. It is not my fault that they respond the way that they do. All I can do is merely accept my mistakes and do my best to heal the wrongs.
Without Communication
What if there was a community where there was no communication, including obvious body language like sign language? Would people who are well intentioned and in tuned with the world around them be able to function? I am curious if people would be able to work off of selfless ambishon alone. Perhaps routines like eating schedules would synchronize automatically. How would interaction varhy? What about matters of expressing love? For example, how would couples come to be/function together.
This kind of society could only exist theorically. There are times when communication is required. However, in avoiding speec (or other types of language that have grammatical structure) you avoid a lot of problems. To some degree these problems that are avoided would be replaced with new ones.
It would be interesting to see a society that strives to approach the theorical case: Where all forms of language are used only in cases necessity and useless banter is avoided. A selfless society that holds an inward focus and exploration as being paramount.
Destiny
I don't subscribe to this idea of God-chosen destiny. It makes no sense how God chose a person for a task. How!? Did you hear him? Was there a vision? Was there a visitation? Such thinking lends itself so easily towards self-glorified actions that are proclaimed to be from a higher source. Also, it does not let a person be responsible for his actions. It is either Gods or the devils fault/guidance. Why not have it that you were open to a higher way instead of following a selfish ambishion? Instead of God choosing you, doesn't it make more sense that you are choosing to follow God through a particular action, and that through that action you are finding God?
Continuity
Is it possible to have a mathematical system where f(x)=1/x is a continuous graph? Perhaps f(x)^2? We are taught that f(0) is undefined. What if it was just an axiom and it could be defined such that the number line was instead a circle where positive infinity looped back onto negative infinity.
If we thought the universe as being observed as a black hole from another point of reference, couldn't light that seems to go off to infinity actually loop back? Then the universe would be mirroring onto itself.
Purpose of Education
The purpose of education is the evolution of thinking and to continue this evolutionary process. Thus, our schools strive for the evolution of the masses by each individual's evolution of mind. I think it is narrow minded to see it an only personal evolution. Also, that this type of evolution is not purely darwinistic. It should not be one individual succeeding relative to others, but instead everyone striving to succeed together. The only thing that should exist according to the darwin principle of "the strongest survive" should be ideas and implementations of those ideas. And so, things that are more true (or closer to the truth) succeed over those which are not. Ultimately, schools should teach its students to strive for truth and how to thirst for it in all areas of their life.
I don't think today's schools are moving towards that at all. They seem to be striving towards looking good marks wise, and the system itself is getting lazy.
Gandhi on Religion
"...I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful seach and study and discussion with as many people as I could meet, that all religions were true, and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism...
"So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, that not a Christian should become a Hindu, or if we are Moslems that not a Hindu or a Christian should become a Moslem, nor should we even secretly pray that anyone should be converted, but our inmost prayer should be that a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Moslem a better Moslem and a Christian a better Christian.... I broaden my Hinduism by loving other religions as my own....
"I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith. This implies the belief in the truth of all religions and respect for them..."
- The Essential Gandhi
The Blame Game
Its wierd how when some one is upset about something we so quickly sympathize or shut down. I'm trying to figure out how did you interact with that. The impulse is to draw back and try to almost ignore it. I don't think this is the best way to respond. But then how should one respond? And it worth getting involved? Could any good come out of that?
Sept 30th Addition:I think there are a lot of things in our lives which we make a big deal about in the moment, but really have no long term effects. These moments really don't matter and should be treated as such. In this case, I think the best way to interact with someone that is caught up in the moment should be just that: treat it as something that doesn't matter. Now I don't mean try to talk the person down. That just seems like a form of sympathizing. The danger with sympathizing is that I would be (in a round-about way) confirming that the moment is a big deal, because well... by interacting with the person it is as if it is a big deal for them and thus confirms that it is a big deal. If it is not that, then I would end up contradicting everything the person says, and they simply wouldn't listen to me. Why would someone listen to you when they believe the complete opposite?
Purhaps a good way to proceed is to continue on your merry way (what ever that may mean in the circumstance) in a way that agrees with the fact that the moment is not dentramental. Sure, there may be some reaction from the other side to try to convince you otherwise, but in standing my ground I can provide a different view in a way that could be very powerful. Ha! Maybe we could call this emotional passive resistence.
