Human beings are a complicated species. Sometimes I wonder if man just further complicates what isn't meant to be? Our species is a tangled web of thoughts, emotions and actions that in the midst of miraculous and complicated systems, is, at times, a trainwreck and when we we think about it, we are just happy that those brilliant complicated systems don't follow suit.
What is really scary is that within all we are, we are to somehow manage our own lives...and, if all that isn't scary enough, all while some people don't believe in God to make it all work?
Among such complicated thoughts and feelings, have you ever been told you think too much? Have you ever wondered if it means that those that think, think more than those that say such things? Do you wonder, at times, if they even think at all? I am sure they may think that way about us.
I have been plagued with thinking deeper for as many years as I have been "awakened to our awful situation," some longer than others and others far longer than I but as I thought about it and I know it may sound dumb but I still shudder in embarrassment when I realize I didn't used to think at all, much less care. I think the reason is because I never knew to care. I wonder if I was taught why I should, if I would have? I don't know. If that isn't problematic enough, now that I do care, I think I understand more about what I question far better than I used to but still fail to understand how to appeal to others that have not been through what many us have.
In thinking about all of the issues we face and how to deal with them, not only have I found that issues are issues but I needed to also realize the need to figure out how to either deal or not deal with issues. I mean, they won't go away on their own, right? If issues bother you enough, you would have to do something about them right? I mean, you wouldn't walk with a pebble in your shoe without ever removing it would you? Would you drive on a flat tire? Not eat when hungry, etc? If these personal issues are bothersome and we would do something about them, why it is not the same for everyone and related to every issue?
Are there people that would not do what they feel needs to be done in their lives? I mean, if we are going to be consistent in our argument, if one sees issues, they should know they need to be corrected at some level, shouldnt they? Perhaps whether people do or don't act is not dependent upon whether it is an issue but if the issue is tolerable enough to act or not?
As I recall, this condition is consistent with human nature right? It's even written in our Declaration of Indpendence, that people would rather suffer a bit than to have to remove that pebble in their shoe. The difference between the pebble in the shoe and the tyranny of govenrment is obviously if one remains tolerable, it may continue to be but generally speaking the other only remains tolerable for a time and as the intoleration increases then something must be done. This, I think, is when the complacent act.
People will act when:
People believe in an issue and that requires an action,
People are unaware of the issue or the action but are told to act or have succumbed to some sort of pressure to act.
People trust another that tells them about the issue and the required action (whether truthful or not) and they act.
People accidently fall into the issue or the action under some other form of delusion even, at times without thier knowledge.
People will not act:
People are unware of an issue,
People are unaware that the issue requires action
People deny the issue or that it needs attention
People either know or dont know but wouldn't care to act anyway, and certainly not aware of how that inaction could affect them, others or both.
Knowing human nature and the laziness of man, it isn't rocket science to understand why over time anything man touches declines from its original state. Take civic engagement for example or any other issue, it is all, in one way or another, the same.
People may or not act but most often before they do, what commonly happens? People look for ways out of what they know needs to be done so they make excuses. "The car isn't that bad, the marriage isn't that bad, the house isn't that bad, the oppression I am experiencing isn't that bad etc." My personal pet peeve is that people tend to look for ways to blame others expecting others to do what they, themselves, know they should be doing. If the car is that bad, whose fault is it? Marriage, house, government? Who was to blame in the first place? ourselves. Most people are stuck in "crab in pot syndrome" you know, when there are certain crabs that realize where they are and try to get out only finding out there are other crabs that want to pull that crab back into the pot? In human terms, If one steps out or deviates from the general trend or narrative there is pressure to conform and get back into line that may even include force.
Many may know I am what I call a "civic engineer." (It is far more tolerable than someone proclaiming to be an "activist.") When I had finally recognized the condition of all these degrading things was somewhat my fault, I realized my desire to want to do more. I felt like it made me more of an American and fueled my increased desire for action, I was the exception rather than the rule. It helped me realize that in our country that the degrading condition wasn't anyone else's fault but what I wasn't doing. I failed to maintain what we were given. Americans have been derelect in their duties for decades.
Speaking of "crab in pot," another example is that of the quest for truth. In this I also see several types of people. For the lack of better terms to make my point and not to offend, let's call them simply People 1 and People 2.
People 1: These are people that feel they know something from either hearing or reading about it and right or wrong will defend it no matter if it is logically proven wrong, unbiblical or inconsistent, and not so much on the merits of what they know but what they believe it means to them or who they heard it from. A classic example is a president, media, pastor or a family member and because people hate being wrong, they would rather live a lie than to realize they were wrong and admit it. Most American's are People 1.
People 2: These are people that spend time desiring only the truth and are open minded enough to go wherever the evidence takes them. Even if it undermines their current worldview and rather than making declaratory statements about what they know to be true they take a less aggressive tone and proclaim only what they think to be true and why and if that changes, they openly admit that change.
Let's take Israel and the LGBT agenda as examples since they are hot issues:
People 1: People 1 claim to be a God-fearing christian constitutional Patriots. They hate to see the government abuse and corruption in their country and frequently state their frustration of the federal govenrment exceeding its authority. When the issue of Israel comes up and the question of support, People 1, although they can't explain why, believe that the government should exceed its authority to support a congressionally undeclared war because it is Israel either because they were told to or trust those that told them. In other words what they believe now trumps what they apparently knew and the inconsistency is exposed.
I may also add another example being the issue relating to the LGBT agenda. People 1 complain about the government allowing the agenda and special rights and so on but when one of their children happens to support the movement, all of a sudden People 1 instead of supporting and defending the constituion, they waver in support for their family member instead, apparently not realizing the inconsistency of their worldview or that they don't care, not realizing the harm this type of thinking causes far beyond just their family.
People 2: People 2 are readers and researchers, constantly looking for the truth wherever they can find it. They recognize that the truth being what it is, it doesn't waver, it isn't inconsistent and it may even offend others that don't posesses it or care and they are chastised for it no matter how right they are. The trouble with People 2 is that as they may take great pains to point out the inconsistency of ones thinking, but they see in a very short time that the logic of People 1 has been replaced with emotion rather than a strong consistent intellectual defense.
Examples of People 2 may be that if the constitution limits the federal government to few and defined powers, they believe and know any allowance to exceed such authority will result in an abuse of government, no matter what the issue is or the excuse people use to make such exceptions. If the constitution, for example, states clearly that the US can't go to war without a declaration from congress, if there is no declaration, the US cannot enter into war, period.
If People 2 have children that support the LGBT agenda (which is far less likely than People 1) or any other issue, People 2 being consistent in their worldview, standing on principle, cannot change that principle unless they become like People 1. People 2 adhere to a consistent standard and any deviation from that standard means there is no adherance to a standard and thus why America is suffering as it is. I also believe this is where the issues are created between party and American's in general.
If People 2 desire to know the truth, they do not have the luxury to waver whether its family, church, civil govenment or even employment and because they don't, they will be mocked and reviled for it because those that mock not only don't realize they are People 1 but also don't understand what makes People 2. You could say that the Republican neocons are also People 1 but think they are People 2 or wish people to think so when only People 2 know for sure.
When comparing People 1 and People 2, which do you find more like God's desire for His followers? I think the answer is clear. As I hope I have stated clearly, Christians only have one real choice. If they wish to be like God and do God's work and adhere to His laws, commandments, statutes and ordinances, the only option they have is to be or become People 2.
"Let your Yes be yes and no be no, let the law be what it is, let light be separated from the darkness and truth from the lies, season from season, let man woman and child be who they are and even allow nations to be nations and people be people because contrary to what we hear today, God created all things... each thing is defined by what it is and if it included things that weren't part of what is, it wouldn't and couldn't be called or be a part of what is because it would now become what was." Tom Munds
If God and His laws don't change, then it is clear that order comes from the consistency of His plan. God's followers are therefore People 2 and therefore, I might then even argue the identity and worldview of God's People.
Are you a People 1 or a People 2? If People 2 is harder than being a People 1 are you up for the challenge? Are you so stuck on what you think and feel or what you heard because you trust who told you without knowing or are you someone willing to be open enough to take a position on an issue and in the name of truth willing to change your position if the truth warrants that change? Are you also humble enough or open enough to accept that change?
The quest for truth is not for the lazy or the faint at heart, it takes work, heartache and humility and the ability to stand when the pressure comes against you. It takes knowing you could be the only one in a crowded room or state or country that disagrees with the masses and it may take you to stand. Are you willing to stand when and if it is required? Even if alone?
Will you approach what you learn and wish to share with others with anger and aggression or will you approach it with humility knowing we all don't know everything? Will you blame others for not being like you or would you help enlighten people to want them to become more like you in knowing the truth or even talking about what you know and why? Will you develop trust in people or will you demand it?
I didn't wake up one day and decide to do what I do, or to know what I know, It began as a subtle feeling recognizing when something was wrong, I desired to learn what it was and to expose it as well as consider solutions to such issues. As the issues increased so did my engagement and passion for the truth. Would you be willing to learn or would you prefer just to rant about what you think may be the truth and possibly being wrong? There is a difference.
The entire globe is in peril and the the freest nation is being destroyed. I believe a huge part of that problem is that too many people think they know the truth and don't and those that know it are being condemned by those that think they know it.
Comments