As I sit here tonight in my big, comfy rocking chair, watching reruns of Big Bang Theory, sipping a cold Mello Yello, and surrounded by part of my family, I have to laugh about the irony and the reality.
The past few months have been very stressful for me. Not only was "racism," "class-ism," and "bigotry" our major topics in Comp and Rhetoric (which, if you remember, I teach); it was also the topic of the latest class I just finished for this Master's Degree, and it became quite the talking point in my circle of friends on Facebook. While it should have been a merely interesting topic to explore, for me, it became quite painful at times. I realized some things that I never had, and I felt so angry and conflicted.
As most of you know, I am a Libertarian with conservative leanings. What I never realized was that because of my political leanings - and ONLY because of my political leanings - about half of the country believes that I (people who hold my philosophy) am a racist and a bigot. "The conservatives are the party of hate," or so I keep being told. That really bothered me! Still, because I knew my life and because I realized it was just a sweeping generalization, I could dismiss it fairly well, and I moved on....But, then, as I delved deeper into the subject, I read more detail. I learned that - again that same half of the country - believes if one is white they must feel "guilty" for being white and they must acknowledge the "white privilege" they have had their entire life and "feel sorry" for minorities - the they must give minorities special treatment just to "make things equal" - (you know, Affirmative Action, extra points on SATs, etc.) - in order NOT to be racist. It doesn't matter to this "half of the country" what personal things one has in their lives - whether they are married to a black person or whether they "don't see color" - if whites don't believe in the things mentioned earlier, they are racist. That floored me! I also learned that - again that same half of the country - believes that if a person belives that Christians and other religous people should legally have the right to say, "homosexuality is a sin," or "people are sinners" then they are bigots - even if that Christian or religous person also believes in equal rights for gays - that is that gays hould be allowed to marry and have all the privileges thereof. The mere fact that a person doesn't believe that "homosexuality is a sin" is hate speech makes them a horrid bigot...
Oh, I could go on and on about all of this - but you guys get it - So, here's my point...
They say (even though they don't know me personally) that because I'm a Christian and because I lean Conservative that I am a bigot and a racist.
THEN...
I look around my living room tonight - - - my gay ex-husband is sitting beside me in the other rocking chair - our adopted, bi-racial (African American/White) son is sitting on the couch next to the ex. My current husband is sitting on the other end of the couch beside our son. We are watching Castle and waiting on dinner to be done - my ex-husband bought it for me - my new husband is cooking it for me - and we are all going to eat together tonight and watch TV and talk. We went to church earlier together...and will hang out tomorrow together....
And...
I laugh again and realize - people are idiots...if that "half of the country" honestly believes that one's political beliefs alone make one a bigot and racist - and it doesn't matter what that one's personal life is about - then that "half of the country" are absolutely, ridiculiously stupid.
My life swims in diversity - diversity sits in my living room, it sleeps in my beds, it eats on my plates and with my silverware, it rides in my car, it is what I live and breathe 24/7/365 ~ and I AM NOT racist or bigoted - I AM diversity - I AM open-mindedness - and I LOVE IT!!!!
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Seeing Yourself Realistically
As I've been working on the second master's degree, I have been asked to - and have taken - a long, honest look at myself, and I see so many things I don't like. As I look back over my life and see how much stupidity I excused in myself, and how much irreponsibility I embodied, I have a hard time believing it. I have to wonder how someone who wanted to be such a good Christian, someone who wanted to please God so badly, could have been so bad at it. It's sad that it took me until I was nearly forty to start growing up, and until I was forty-three to take a honest, long look at myself.
I never did drugs, or "sexed it up," or partied, or drank, but I had a myriad of problems that I ignored, or at least pretended "weren't that bad." I was irresponsible with money. I cared too much what people tought of me and tried too much to please them instead of God. I thought I was a "great Christian" with "so much to offer" people, when realistically, I was a walking disaster and bad testimony. No, I wasn't all bad - I had good qualities, but the utter self-blindness to my faults - the tendency to underrate things I did wrong and pretend they were someone else's fault bothers me.
It's no wonder we fail to look at ourselves for what and who we really are sometimes - it's too ugly...it's too painful...most of us DON'T want to be the "screw-ups" that we actually are or have been...but, looking at that truthfully, taking inventory, and moving forward with God's help is the only way to remedy it. Have you taken a good look in the mirror lately?
I don't need to say much more, except this - If you have known me for a long time - I'm sorry for who I was - I'm sorry for being utterly blind to my own faults and problems. I am sorry. Most of you who read this are my friends, and you have been my friend for a very long time, and you will always be...and to know you loved me, even when I was a big ball of stupidity and irresponsibility, humbles me. Thank-you for not giving up on me...I am growing up...and I moving forward...I am a work in progress...please keep praying for me.
I never did drugs, or "sexed it up," or partied, or drank, but I had a myriad of problems that I ignored, or at least pretended "weren't that bad." I was irresponsible with money. I cared too much what people tought of me and tried too much to please them instead of God. I thought I was a "great Christian" with "so much to offer" people, when realistically, I was a walking disaster and bad testimony. No, I wasn't all bad - I had good qualities, but the utter self-blindness to my faults - the tendency to underrate things I did wrong and pretend they were someone else's fault bothers me.
It's no wonder we fail to look at ourselves for what and who we really are sometimes - it's too ugly...it's too painful...most of us DON'T want to be the "screw-ups" that we actually are or have been...but, looking at that truthfully, taking inventory, and moving forward with God's help is the only way to remedy it. Have you taken a good look in the mirror lately?
I don't need to say much more, except this - If you have known me for a long time - I'm sorry for who I was - I'm sorry for being utterly blind to my own faults and problems. I am sorry. Most of you who read this are my friends, and you have been my friend for a very long time, and you will always be...and to know you loved me, even when I was a big ball of stupidity and irresponsibility, humbles me. Thank-you for not giving up on me...I am growing up...and I moving forward...I am a work in progress...please keep praying for me.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Curtain Was Torn in Half!!
Most non-Christians do not like the idea that humanity is "fallen" or "evil" and therefore in need of a savior. When presented with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many scoff, saying, "Well, a LOVING God wouldn't send anyone to hell," or "A LOVING God wouldn't put some system like that into place - a system where man is a unwilling sinner and therefore must go to hell and must be saved to avoid it...he would just let people in Heaven if he were real." And the arguments go on...but, hear me out here...
Imagine a situation - a place - a universe where there are definite boundaries - where there is good and evil - good and evil with clear boundaries - imagine that universe ruled by that absolute - then there is God - he is 100% good, there is no evil in him - in fact, he can't be touched by evil...and he has created man so he won't be alone - so he will have someone who chooses to worship him - someone who wants to be with him...we all understand that, don't we? We don't want someone to be with us because they are forced to be or because they are brainwashed to be...so, God creates man...and God tries to keep his creation away from the evil side of the universe...but, man uses his free will, and he walks into sin...and God knows, that because of the absolutes of the universe, because he can't fellowship with sin - because sin damns a soul to the evil side and to hell, that a price must be paid for redemption - there is no other way - so, he does the only thing that can be done - that is if he wants to save his creation - he comes in human flesh - Jesus Christ - and he lives among us, and he dies on the cross - not just dying, but taking the punishment of the sins of the entire world - of everyone who ever has or does or would exist - and he pays the price for us...and on the third day, he rises again...victorious over sin and death...God has made a way where there seemed to be no way...
And one of the most important verses in that story is Matthew 27:51 " At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split." ......The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom....what's that? The curtain in the temple was an eight inch thick drape that hid the temple from the "Holy of Holies" - see, before Jesus' death, no one was allowed in the presence of God due to sin and holiness except the high priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year to offer up a blood sacrifice for the sins of God's people...and it was such a nerve-wracking experience, so dangerous, (for if the priest had sinned or hadn't done his duties right, he would die the minute he went in there) that they put a bell on one foot of the priest to listen and make sure he was still alive, and a rope on the other foot to pull him out in case he died in there...BUT, the minute Jesus died...things changed - the curtain was torn in half - and not from the bottom to the top as men could have tried to do, but from the top to the bottom - God did it...Why? Because Jesus made the way - he paid the price - THROUGH HIM, we are no longer sinners, but we are holy - we have HIS holiness as ours...and we are reconciled with God and we can enter the Holy of Holies at any time - we can be in God's presence at any time...high priests, sacrifices, and fear is no longer necessary...why? Because God loved us and came FOR us...
THAT'S a love story - not a story of hate or exclusion...
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever would believe in him would not die, but have eternal life."
Amazing that we have the most loving story of redemption ever written, that we have the ONLY God who came for his people instead of making them work their way toward him...yet, ours is condemned as the most "hateful, dangerous" religion out there...
Where ever you stand on faith - Christianity - atheism - agnosticism - whatever - it is something worth pondering about, is it not?
He is Risen, just as he said!
Imagine a situation - a place - a universe where there are definite boundaries - where there is good and evil - good and evil with clear boundaries - imagine that universe ruled by that absolute - then there is God - he is 100% good, there is no evil in him - in fact, he can't be touched by evil...and he has created man so he won't be alone - so he will have someone who chooses to worship him - someone who wants to be with him...we all understand that, don't we? We don't want someone to be with us because they are forced to be or because they are brainwashed to be...so, God creates man...and God tries to keep his creation away from the evil side of the universe...but, man uses his free will, and he walks into sin...and God knows, that because of the absolutes of the universe, because he can't fellowship with sin - because sin damns a soul to the evil side and to hell, that a price must be paid for redemption - there is no other way - so, he does the only thing that can be done - that is if he wants to save his creation - he comes in human flesh - Jesus Christ - and he lives among us, and he dies on the cross - not just dying, but taking the punishment of the sins of the entire world - of everyone who ever has or does or would exist - and he pays the price for us...and on the third day, he rises again...victorious over sin and death...God has made a way where there seemed to be no way...
And one of the most important verses in that story is Matthew 27:51 " At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split." ......The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom....what's that? The curtain in the temple was an eight inch thick drape that hid the temple from the "Holy of Holies" - see, before Jesus' death, no one was allowed in the presence of God due to sin and holiness except the high priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year to offer up a blood sacrifice for the sins of God's people...and it was such a nerve-wracking experience, so dangerous, (for if the priest had sinned or hadn't done his duties right, he would die the minute he went in there) that they put a bell on one foot of the priest to listen and make sure he was still alive, and a rope on the other foot to pull him out in case he died in there...BUT, the minute Jesus died...things changed - the curtain was torn in half - and not from the bottom to the top as men could have tried to do, but from the top to the bottom - God did it...Why? Because Jesus made the way - he paid the price - THROUGH HIM, we are no longer sinners, but we are holy - we have HIS holiness as ours...and we are reconciled with God and we can enter the Holy of Holies at any time - we can be in God's presence at any time...high priests, sacrifices, and fear is no longer necessary...why? Because God loved us and came FOR us...
THAT'S a love story - not a story of hate or exclusion...
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever would believe in him would not die, but have eternal life."
Amazing that we have the most loving story of redemption ever written, that we have the ONLY God who came for his people instead of making them work their way toward him...yet, ours is condemned as the most "hateful, dangerous" religion out there...
Where ever you stand on faith - Christianity - atheism - agnosticism - whatever - it is something worth pondering about, is it not?
He is Risen, just as he said!
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
An Open Letter to You
This is an open letter to all of you who have gotten angry at me, who have distanced yourself from me, and especially for those of you who have cut your friendship with me in the past year - this is something I've needed to say for a long time, and I'm ready to say it...
If you have thought of me as intolerant or bigoted or "Right-wing crazy" this past year, you are wrong. If you have thought yourself tolerant and progressive, but have been mad at me, distanced yourself from me or have walked away from our friendship because of my political leanings, then YOU are the one in the wrong. You are the intolerant, NON-progressive one...
I am one of THE MOST tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, empathetic people on this planet. I put my money where my mouth is every single hour of every single day when it comes to love, compassion, and open-mindedness. I don't just "talk" about it like many of you...I actually DO it. In fact, many of you "talk" about how people should act and treat others, but when you see me actually DOING it, you say, "You're stupid, Tammy."
What do I mean?
Well, let's see if I can explain...
I am good friends with my ex-husband - even though he told me after 16 years of marriage that he is gay, that he never loved me "that" way, and that he only married me to "try and do the right thing by Christianity." I helped him move out; I helped him get a place of his own; I have worked diligently to make sure our boys love him and do not think ill of him; I have never talked badly about him; he comes to visit our boys every six weeks or so, and I have always had him stay with us so he can be closer to them, I truly still care about him, and we are good friends...but, many of you "progressives" have said, "Tammy, you're an idiot! I would have kicked his ass if he did that to me."
I adopted a bi-racial son - NOT because I'm afflicted with "white guilt" or some kind of stupid, liberal altruism; but because I wanted another baby, and I TRULY DO NOT SEE any difference in us as humans - black, white, purple-polka-dotted, I really, honestly see NO difference...and I work like crazy to make my students see the world the same way.
I am the "safe haven" for the LGBT students at our high school (and any of the kids who define themselves as "misfits" for that matter.) They KNOW that Madden loves them - they KNOW they are accepted by me. They come to me for counseling; they come to me to cry; they come to me to celebrate; they come to me to introduce their new "significant others." They know they always have a place with me...a non-judgmental, loving place...
I am married to a man who is our "house husband." He doesn't work - hasn't been able to find a job in nearly a year now...but, it's OK...he's a GOOD man, and he's a GREAT stay-at-home dad/husband...and if God doesn't see fit to ever give him another job - that's OK...I've got this and will take care of our little family...and again, here, many of you "progressives" are saying, "You're an idiot, Tammy. I'd kick him to the curb."
I am the true progressive...I am the true definition of tolerance...I think everyone should be allowed to live and let live...I think the conservatives can think and believe and say what they want...I think the liberals an think and believe and say what they want...and I think each and every one of them should have the right to - and it shouldn't be silenced...in our diversity is our strength...in silencing one side - EITHER side, we move toward pure, unadulterated Fascism.
I am NOT betraying the "liberals" or my liberal friends by saying the conservatives should be allowed their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions...nor am I betraying Jesus by saying that I have no business telling liberal friends what to do or not to do...one cannot legislate morality...one cannot shove it down people's throats...but I can introduce them to and help them find the Way, the Truth, and the Life - Jesus Christ, who loves them unconditionally.
Anyway, the point is this...
If you have walked away from me - you are wrong. You are the intolerant one. You never really knew me or loved me, because if you did, you would never have walked away from me...for I am one of the most true, loyal, fierce friends you would EVER have...I would FIGHT for you, no matter what your beliefs...I would always be by your side; you could always count on me...it's who I am...
Yes, several of you hurt me...you offended me...and I wish you would see that...and apologize...but whether you ever do or not, know this - I am always going to be here for you...I am always going to be waiting if you ever need anything...my friendship doesn't run away because of political beliefs, votes, or opinions...or even because you betrayed me...
If you have thought of me as intolerant or bigoted or "Right-wing crazy" this past year, you are wrong. If you have thought yourself tolerant and progressive, but have been mad at me, distanced yourself from me or have walked away from our friendship because of my political leanings, then YOU are the one in the wrong. You are the intolerant, NON-progressive one...
I am one of THE MOST tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, empathetic people on this planet. I put my money where my mouth is every single hour of every single day when it comes to love, compassion, and open-mindedness. I don't just "talk" about it like many of you...I actually DO it. In fact, many of you "talk" about how people should act and treat others, but when you see me actually DOING it, you say, "You're stupid, Tammy."
What do I mean?
Well, let's see if I can explain...
I am good friends with my ex-husband - even though he told me after 16 years of marriage that he is gay, that he never loved me "that" way, and that he only married me to "try and do the right thing by Christianity." I helped him move out; I helped him get a place of his own; I have worked diligently to make sure our boys love him and do not think ill of him; I have never talked badly about him; he comes to visit our boys every six weeks or so, and I have always had him stay with us so he can be closer to them, I truly still care about him, and we are good friends...but, many of you "progressives" have said, "Tammy, you're an idiot! I would have kicked his ass if he did that to me."
I adopted a bi-racial son - NOT because I'm afflicted with "white guilt" or some kind of stupid, liberal altruism; but because I wanted another baby, and I TRULY DO NOT SEE any difference in us as humans - black, white, purple-polka-dotted, I really, honestly see NO difference...and I work like crazy to make my students see the world the same way.
I am the "safe haven" for the LGBT students at our high school (and any of the kids who define themselves as "misfits" for that matter.) They KNOW that Madden loves them - they KNOW they are accepted by me. They come to me for counseling; they come to me to cry; they come to me to celebrate; they come to me to introduce their new "significant others." They know they always have a place with me...a non-judgmental, loving place...
I am married to a man who is our "house husband." He doesn't work - hasn't been able to find a job in nearly a year now...but, it's OK...he's a GOOD man, and he's a GREAT stay-at-home dad/husband...and if God doesn't see fit to ever give him another job - that's OK...I've got this and will take care of our little family...and again, here, many of you "progressives" are saying, "You're an idiot, Tammy. I'd kick him to the curb."
I am the true progressive...I am the true definition of tolerance...I think everyone should be allowed to live and let live...I think the conservatives can think and believe and say what they want...I think the liberals an think and believe and say what they want...and I think each and every one of them should have the right to - and it shouldn't be silenced...in our diversity is our strength...in silencing one side - EITHER side, we move toward pure, unadulterated Fascism.
I am NOT betraying the "liberals" or my liberal friends by saying the conservatives should be allowed their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions...nor am I betraying Jesus by saying that I have no business telling liberal friends what to do or not to do...one cannot legislate morality...one cannot shove it down people's throats...but I can introduce them to and help them find the Way, the Truth, and the Life - Jesus Christ, who loves them unconditionally.
Anyway, the point is this...
If you have walked away from me - you are wrong. You are the intolerant one. You never really knew me or loved me, because if you did, you would never have walked away from me...for I am one of the most true, loyal, fierce friends you would EVER have...I would FIGHT for you, no matter what your beliefs...I would always be by your side; you could always count on me...it's who I am...
Yes, several of you hurt me...you offended me...and I wish you would see that...and apologize...but whether you ever do or not, know this - I am always going to be here for you...I am always going to be waiting if you ever need anything...my friendship doesn't run away because of political beliefs, votes, or opinions...or even because you betrayed me...
Friday, November 30, 2012
Moral Relativism and Christianity
Here are a few questions I received in response to yesterday's blog:
"How do you reconcile Evangelical Christianity with moral relativism? Are you suggesting there are no moral absolutes such as those set forth in the Bible? If there is no definition for abuse then how is anyone taken to court?"
First, let me define moral relativism - "Metaethical Moral Relativism - The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons" (Stanford).
As a Christian myself, I cannot reconcile Evangelical Christianity with moral relativism. I don't think it's possible. Let me define one essential part of Evangelical Christianity so I can address this better. One of the paramount hallmarks of Evangelicals is "Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible" (Eskridge). In layman's terms, Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant and infalliable in its original manuscripts, and kept together supernaturally in its current 66 books by God himself.
Obviously if Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - inerrant and infalliable - then Evangelicals believe that there are moral absolutes, and that those moral absolutes come from the Bible, and therefore straight from God. That is, God is the one and only, absolute basis of morality. Yet, there are still "gray areas" in Christiainity - there are deeds/actions that the Bible does not mention specifically, and therefore a person is left to pray and work that out with God themselves. For instance, smoking - some believe smoking is a sin because it "defiles" the body. However, many others do not believe that smoking is a sin because it is not mentioned specifically in the Bible. With areas such as these, where there is no specific Biblical mandate, one might be able to argue that there is some "moral relativism" inside Christianity. But, whether or not one accepts that these gray areas are actually a form of "moral relativism," that one must still admit that there are, other, definite moral absolutes in the Bible.
Now, if my friend is asking, can Evangelical Christianity be reconciled with moral relativism outside the Christian faith...of course it can! If everything "is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons," then anyone who does not believe the Bible, while they may believe in some of the same "morals" that a Christian does, are not going to believe that those morals originate with God...they are not going to see God as any sort of absolute...Christianity - to a non-Christian, is completely relative.
I have spent a lot of time today wondering why these questions were asked of me...I know that I never intended to imply that Christians believe in moral relativism, nor did I intend to imply that everyone believes as I (or other Christians do) in moral absolutes - and after re-reading my post, I don't think I did. My post was about progressives who claim that their "tolerance" is the same as the word "tolerance" as defined in the dictionary...and I didn't even mention Christians in that regard......So, I wondered still; why was I asked this? Then, I thought perhaps the question was asked because my friend was thinking something like this - - - "Tammy claims constantly to be 'tolerant,' yet she is an Evangelical Christian...and since Evangelical Christians believe in absolute morality, they cannot be 'objective' and therefore they, and she, cannot truly be tolerant..."
If that is why the question was asked - let me say this. While I do believe that many things are definitely defined as "sin" in the Bible, and if someone were to ask me, I'd tell them what I believe...I do not believe God gives me the right to tell people, uninvited, that they need to "stop" doing what they are doing. I do not believe God gives me the right to try and push my religious beliefs upon others beyond just sharing the Gospel with them. I believe that God tells me very cleary NOT to be judgemental of others.......But, still, since I do believe in moral absolutes, do I truly fit the definition of "tolerent" as given in the meme in question? No, I admit, I do not...however, in thinking about it...I realize what I do fit...or at least what I strive passionately, every single day to live, is "agape love" - that is pure, unconditional love for others - and that, I think, is far better than tolerance.
Some may ask, "Why do you write this blog or FB posts, then? You tell people they are wrong; and unconditional love wouldn't do that." To that I would answer - Wrong...Love - true love - has an obligation to point out wrong...to point out mistakes...to point out problems...for if one really cares about another, that one is going to want the best for the other...and I do want the best for our world...for the people around me...for the people I love. And, since I am passionate about justice...I always have been...I usually write about it. Whenever I see anything I perceive as injustice, hypocrisy, or unfairness; I address that - usually not from a Biblical standpoint, either (for I know many people in my circle of acquaintances and friends do not believe the Bible), but rather from a personal "we need to be fair" standpoint...and I try to show why we truly "need" to be fair - logically - rather than just offering personal, emotional appeals...I do that so hopefully, I can help enlighten people and persuade them that certain roads are perilous, and that they are not looking at things logically or in the long-term.
It all comes back to this very basic analogy of the dichotemy I see every day - A person says, "We MUST be tolerant! We MUST accept people...NO...MATTER...WHAT if we want to be loving, open-minded, and non-abusive!! We MUST be tolerant....and, just so you know, I will NOT TOLERATE you not being tolerant!" And...................my brain explodes...
I hope I've sufficiently answered the question...but, if not, feel free to leave a comment or another question here or on Facebook...
Peace, Love, and Mello Yello!
"How do you reconcile Evangelical Christianity with moral relativism? Are you suggesting there are no moral absolutes such as those set forth in the Bible? If there is no definition for abuse then how is anyone taken to court?"
First, let me define moral relativism - "Metaethical Moral Relativism - The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons" (Stanford).
As a Christian myself, I cannot reconcile Evangelical Christianity with moral relativism. I don't think it's possible. Let me define one essential part of Evangelical Christianity so I can address this better. One of the paramount hallmarks of Evangelicals is "Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible" (Eskridge). In layman's terms, Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant and infalliable in its original manuscripts, and kept together supernaturally in its current 66 books by God himself.
Obviously if Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - inerrant and infalliable - then Evangelicals believe that there are moral absolutes, and that those moral absolutes come from the Bible, and therefore straight from God. That is, God is the one and only, absolute basis of morality. Yet, there are still "gray areas" in Christiainity - there are deeds/actions that the Bible does not mention specifically, and therefore a person is left to pray and work that out with God themselves. For instance, smoking - some believe smoking is a sin because it "defiles" the body. However, many others do not believe that smoking is a sin because it is not mentioned specifically in the Bible. With areas such as these, where there is no specific Biblical mandate, one might be able to argue that there is some "moral relativism" inside Christianity. But, whether or not one accepts that these gray areas are actually a form of "moral relativism," that one must still admit that there are, other, definite moral absolutes in the Bible.
Now, if my friend is asking, can Evangelical Christianity be reconciled with moral relativism outside the Christian faith...of course it can! If everything "is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons," then anyone who does not believe the Bible, while they may believe in some of the same "morals" that a Christian does, are not going to believe that those morals originate with God...they are not going to see God as any sort of absolute...Christianity - to a non-Christian, is completely relative.
I have spent a lot of time today wondering why these questions were asked of me...I know that I never intended to imply that Christians believe in moral relativism, nor did I intend to imply that everyone believes as I (or other Christians do) in moral absolutes - and after re-reading my post, I don't think I did. My post was about progressives who claim that their "tolerance" is the same as the word "tolerance" as defined in the dictionary...and I didn't even mention Christians in that regard......So, I wondered still; why was I asked this? Then, I thought perhaps the question was asked because my friend was thinking something like this - - - "Tammy claims constantly to be 'tolerant,' yet she is an Evangelical Christian...and since Evangelical Christians believe in absolute morality, they cannot be 'objective' and therefore they, and she, cannot truly be tolerant..."
If that is why the question was asked - let me say this. While I do believe that many things are definitely defined as "sin" in the Bible, and if someone were to ask me, I'd tell them what I believe...I do not believe God gives me the right to tell people, uninvited, that they need to "stop" doing what they are doing. I do not believe God gives me the right to try and push my religious beliefs upon others beyond just sharing the Gospel with them. I believe that God tells me very cleary NOT to be judgemental of others.......But, still, since I do believe in moral absolutes, do I truly fit the definition of "tolerent" as given in the meme in question? No, I admit, I do not...however, in thinking about it...I realize what I do fit...or at least what I strive passionately, every single day to live, is "agape love" - that is pure, unconditional love for others - and that, I think, is far better than tolerance.
Some may ask, "Why do you write this blog or FB posts, then? You tell people they are wrong; and unconditional love wouldn't do that." To that I would answer - Wrong...Love - true love - has an obligation to point out wrong...to point out mistakes...to point out problems...for if one really cares about another, that one is going to want the best for the other...and I do want the best for our world...for the people around me...for the people I love. And, since I am passionate about justice...I always have been...I usually write about it. Whenever I see anything I perceive as injustice, hypocrisy, or unfairness; I address that - usually not from a Biblical standpoint, either (for I know many people in my circle of acquaintances and friends do not believe the Bible), but rather from a personal "we need to be fair" standpoint...and I try to show why we truly "need" to be fair - logically - rather than just offering personal, emotional appeals...I do that so hopefully, I can help enlighten people and persuade them that certain roads are perilous, and that they are not looking at things logically or in the long-term.
It all comes back to this very basic analogy of the dichotemy I see every day - A person says, "We MUST be tolerant! We MUST accept people...NO...MATTER...WHAT if we want to be loving, open-minded, and non-abusive!! We MUST be tolerant....and, just so you know, I will NOT TOLERATE you not being tolerant!" And...................my brain explodes...
I hope I've sufficiently answered the question...but, if not, feel free to leave a comment or another question here or on Facebook...
Peace, Love, and Mello Yello!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tolerance or Hypocrisy?
In 1987, an American photographer and artist named Andres Serrano, created one of his most controversial pieces of art - which is hard to believe if one searches and reviews all of his work. Most of it is so disturbing and vile, that I would not recommend that my readers go look at it. If you are curious like I, and not faint of heart, then have a peek, but don't say I didn't warn you. The pictures are sexually explicit, grotesque, and vile. So, again, to say that in 1987, one of his more infamous pieces of art gained national attention for being controversial, is saying quite a bit.
This piece of "art" (and I use the term loosely) is a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's own urine, and some think mixed with his own blood. This piece is called "Piss Christ." When it debuted in 1987, art critics raved about it, calling it, "mysterious and beautiful" (Eldridge 211). "The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects." (Johnson) In fact, Serrano received $15,000.00 in taxpayer money for this piece of "art."
There was, of course, an uproar about this piece, and the funding it received. Conservatives fought against it, saying it wasn't art, but was indecent rubbish. This piece of 'art' coupled with another artist's homoerotic photographs of himself became the basis of the "1990 enactment of a law imposing a decency standard." (Biskupic) This of course, upset artists all over America. They were very afraid that their freedom of expression was going to be taken away. In response to this perceived threat, the artists brought a lawsuit. "The law became a rallying point for artists in many disciplines who claimed their ideas were being chilled and their rights to free expression violated." (Biskupic) This case went all the way to the Supreme Court who decided there was no restriction on free speech, that there was "no evidence that the decency standard suppressed expression, even of work that might be thought unpopular or offensive." (Biskupic)
Seems the Supreme Court was right, for the law didn't restrict art in any way. Serrano himself went on to publish, and display in famous art galleries, picture after picture of everything from his own feces, to shots from a NY morgue of dead bodies in various states of decay, and he is still considered one of the great artists in the US. Other artists have done much worse in the years between then and now. Each time there has been a mention of "decency restrictions," the Left has come to defense of the artists and the art - calling the decency restrictions "censorship." The ACLU, the New York Times, and other people of the Left have decried any such voice of "censorship" and have fought vehemently for the right of the artist to create and display anything and everything. That is, until today...
Today, Glenn Beck, conservative talk-radio host, decided to try the patience and hypocrisy level of the Left, so he conducted an experiment. He took a picture of a Mason jar filled with an amber fluid with an Obama bobble head doll submerged in it, and he put it for sale on eBay - all proceeds going to charity. Then...the fallout began. Michael Moore, liberal "documentary" maker and extreme left-winger posted on his Twitter feed that Beck had taken this picture, but he said he "would NOT post a link to it" (so appalling it was.) His followers began to tweet about Beck and say that he was a "bastard," a "son of a bitch," and an "idiot." They said he was "abusing the first amendment," and should be "slapped," "submerged in his own urine," "submerged in a vat of urine with other Republicans - with an airtight lid on it, so they'd suffocate," and that he "should be charged with treason and his citizenship taken away." (Twitchy) Left-wing new sites and blogs blew up with talk of "disrespect" and "insanity." Ebay pulled the auction and banned it, saying it was not "decent." For the record, Beck revealed later that the bobble head was not submerged in urine, but in beer. (Examiner)
This serves to illustrate one very important thing to the general public - to those who don't follow public and social and political events - the Left can be very hypocritical. They will fight for their right to do anything they want...they will justify it as long as it suits them...and then they will turn around and in the SAME situation - if it doesn't work "for" them, condemn someone and call their behavior repulsive and hateful...let me say that again...The Left will say that if a "right-winger" does the SAME think a "left-winger" does, it suddenly becomes very, very wrong.
This morning, when I read this article, while I was amused and disturbed at the same time, I didn't think this would merit a blog post, but after seeing a meme that someone posted about tolerance, I knew I had to write this.
The meme said:
"As a liberal, I am constantly being accused of being intolerant for not accepting someone's (sic) hateful or repressive convictions; it's as if tolerance has come to mean accepting someone else's views regardless of what they are or who they effect (sic) Wrong. Being tolerant does not mean arbitrarily respecting everyone and accepting everything. There are things that no one should tolerate, such as bigotry, suppression of liberty, denial of equal rights, and abusive restrictions. I try to preach and practice tolerance, but I do not have to tolerate your intolerance. There is never an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse." - The meme also gives the dictionary definition of tolerance - "A fair, objective, and permissive attitude to those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc. differ from one's own. Freedom from bigotry."
This sounds good from a quick, surface reading...but if one is to take the meme for what it actually says, coupled with the definition of tolerance given, then the person who created this meme is a complete hypocrite. Why? They are defining what is bigoted and what is not...they are defining what is offensive and what is not...they are defining what is hatred and what is not...they are defining what is abuse and what is not...and if one is going to truly follow the definition of tolerance given, then one must also accept the word "objective" that is in the definition; and if one does, then one cannot (not may not, nor should not, but CANNOT) define for oneself what is bigoted, offensive, hateful, or abusive. One must stay completely objective and have no subjectivity about himself......for if one fell prey to subjectivity, that mere acceptance of defining such connotative words would nullify the entire meme. The second problem with this meme is that the person writing it *is* tolerating - in themselves, nonetheless - "suppression of liberty" (of the person with whom they disagree); "denial of equal rights" (to the person with whom they disagree); and (whether abusive or not) "restrictions" on people with whom they disagree. The meme creator is, in every single way, negating their own argument.
The story of the artist above is a perfect object lesson in this - In case #1 - An American submerged a publicly revered icon (at least to a high percentage of people) in urine and photographed it, and that photograph won prizes, received funding from tax payers, and was partially the basis of a Supreme Court case fighting FOR the First Amendment right of "freedom of expression." BUT...a different American submerged a publicly revered icon (at least to a high percentage of people) in a jar of beer and photographed it, and that photograph was called "disgusting" and "vile" and "bad enough to merit stripping a man's citizenship" ...and it was called these things by the SAME people who fought FOR the rights of the American in case #1...
It's a double-standard. It's hypocrisy.
See, people...you can't have it both ways...you can't claim tolerance and progressive-thinking, and then turn around and be intolerant and regressive. It's illogical.
Works Cited
Biskupic, Joan. "'Decency' Can Be Weighed in Art Agency's Funding". The Washington Post. June 08, 1998. Print
Eldridge, Richard Thomas. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art. Cambridge University Press. 2003. Print.
"Glen Beck Reveals Artistic Side with Obama in Pee-Pee." Twitchy.com. November 28, 2012. Wordpress.com. November 29, 2012. Web
Johnson, Jennifer. "NEA's Cloudy Future". Albion Monitor. April 09, 1998. Monitor.net. November 29, 2012. web.
.
This piece of "art" (and I use the term loosely) is a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's own urine, and some think mixed with his own blood. This piece is called "Piss Christ." When it debuted in 1987, art critics raved about it, calling it, "mysterious and beautiful" (Eldridge 211). "The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects." (Johnson) In fact, Serrano received $15,000.00 in taxpayer money for this piece of "art."
There was, of course, an uproar about this piece, and the funding it received. Conservatives fought against it, saying it wasn't art, but was indecent rubbish. This piece of 'art' coupled with another artist's homoerotic photographs of himself became the basis of the "1990 enactment of a law imposing a decency standard." (Biskupic) This of course, upset artists all over America. They were very afraid that their freedom of expression was going to be taken away. In response to this perceived threat, the artists brought a lawsuit. "The law became a rallying point for artists in many disciplines who claimed their ideas were being chilled and their rights to free expression violated." (Biskupic) This case went all the way to the Supreme Court who decided there was no restriction on free speech, that there was "no evidence that the decency standard suppressed expression, even of work that might be thought unpopular or offensive." (Biskupic)
Seems the Supreme Court was right, for the law didn't restrict art in any way. Serrano himself went on to publish, and display in famous art galleries, picture after picture of everything from his own feces, to shots from a NY morgue of dead bodies in various states of decay, and he is still considered one of the great artists in the US. Other artists have done much worse in the years between then and now. Each time there has been a mention of "decency restrictions," the Left has come to defense of the artists and the art - calling the decency restrictions "censorship." The ACLU, the New York Times, and other people of the Left have decried any such voice of "censorship" and have fought vehemently for the right of the artist to create and display anything and everything. That is, until today...
Today, Glenn Beck, conservative talk-radio host, decided to try the patience and hypocrisy level of the Left, so he conducted an experiment. He took a picture of a Mason jar filled with an amber fluid with an Obama bobble head doll submerged in it, and he put it for sale on eBay - all proceeds going to charity. Then...the fallout began. Michael Moore, liberal "documentary" maker and extreme left-winger posted on his Twitter feed that Beck had taken this picture, but he said he "would NOT post a link to it" (so appalling it was.) His followers began to tweet about Beck and say that he was a "bastard," a "son of a bitch," and an "idiot." They said he was "abusing the first amendment," and should be "slapped," "submerged in his own urine," "submerged in a vat of urine with other Republicans - with an airtight lid on it, so they'd suffocate," and that he "should be charged with treason and his citizenship taken away." (Twitchy) Left-wing new sites and blogs blew up with talk of "disrespect" and "insanity." Ebay pulled the auction and banned it, saying it was not "decent." For the record, Beck revealed later that the bobble head was not submerged in urine, but in beer. (Examiner)
This serves to illustrate one very important thing to the general public - to those who don't follow public and social and political events - the Left can be very hypocritical. They will fight for their right to do anything they want...they will justify it as long as it suits them...and then they will turn around and in the SAME situation - if it doesn't work "for" them, condemn someone and call their behavior repulsive and hateful...let me say that again...The Left will say that if a "right-winger" does the SAME think a "left-winger" does, it suddenly becomes very, very wrong.
This morning, when I read this article, while I was amused and disturbed at the same time, I didn't think this would merit a blog post, but after seeing a meme that someone posted about tolerance, I knew I had to write this.
The meme said:
"As a liberal, I am constantly being accused of being intolerant for not accepting someone's (sic) hateful or repressive convictions; it's as if tolerance has come to mean accepting someone else's views regardless of what they are or who they effect (sic) Wrong. Being tolerant does not mean arbitrarily respecting everyone and accepting everything. There are things that no one should tolerate, such as bigotry, suppression of liberty, denial of equal rights, and abusive restrictions. I try to preach and practice tolerance, but I do not have to tolerate your intolerance. There is never an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse." - The meme also gives the dictionary definition of tolerance - "A fair, objective, and permissive attitude to those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc. differ from one's own. Freedom from bigotry."
This sounds good from a quick, surface reading...but if one is to take the meme for what it actually says, coupled with the definition of tolerance given, then the person who created this meme is a complete hypocrite. Why? They are defining what is bigoted and what is not...they are defining what is offensive and what is not...they are defining what is hatred and what is not...they are defining what is abuse and what is not...and if one is going to truly follow the definition of tolerance given, then one must also accept the word "objective" that is in the definition; and if one does, then one cannot (not may not, nor should not, but CANNOT) define for oneself what is bigoted, offensive, hateful, or abusive. One must stay completely objective and have no subjectivity about himself......for if one fell prey to subjectivity, that mere acceptance of defining such connotative words would nullify the entire meme. The second problem with this meme is that the person writing it *is* tolerating - in themselves, nonetheless - "suppression of liberty" (of the person with whom they disagree); "denial of equal rights" (to the person with whom they disagree); and (whether abusive or not) "restrictions" on people with whom they disagree. The meme creator is, in every single way, negating their own argument.
The story of the artist above is a perfect object lesson in this - In case #1 - An American submerged a publicly revered icon (at least to a high percentage of people) in urine and photographed it, and that photograph won prizes, received funding from tax payers, and was partially the basis of a Supreme Court case fighting FOR the First Amendment right of "freedom of expression." BUT...a different American submerged a publicly revered icon (at least to a high percentage of people) in a jar of beer and photographed it, and that photograph was called "disgusting" and "vile" and "bad enough to merit stripping a man's citizenship" ...and it was called these things by the SAME people who fought FOR the rights of the American in case #1...
It's a double-standard. It's hypocrisy.
See, people...you can't have it both ways...you can't claim tolerance and progressive-thinking, and then turn around and be intolerant and regressive. It's illogical.
Works Cited
Biskupic, Joan. "'Decency' Can Be Weighed in Art Agency's Funding". The Washington Post. June 08, 1998. Print
Eldridge, Richard Thomas. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art. Cambridge University Press. 2003. Print.
"Glen Beck Reveals Artistic Side with Obama in Pee-Pee." Twitchy.com. November 28, 2012. Wordpress.com. November 29, 2012. Web
Johnson, Jennifer. "NEA's Cloudy Future". Albion Monitor. April 09, 1998. Monitor.net. November 29, 2012. web.
.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Why Not More Thankful?
What a shame we only stop once a year for a day of Thanksgiving...and I don't mean the turkey, stuffing, and cranberry sauce...after all, we "pig out" all the time in this country...look at all the restaurants around you...look at the size of the portions at those restaurants...look at our waist measurements!! We "eat" like it's Thanksgiving quite often......No...what I'm talking about is this - it's a shame we only stop one a year for a day to give thanks...
Why aren't we more grateful? Why don't we have a heart so full of thanksgiving that it just spills out? Do we really even understand all we have to be thankful for? I think too often we don't...instead of looking at what we *do* have and being awed...being grateful...we tend to focus on things we *don't* have, things we *wish* we had...and that makes us ungrateful for what we do have...
Let's take Thanksgiving Day as just one example - it used to be its own holiday - a day for families to gather...a time for food, and fellowship, and fun...a time to give thanks...but, now, it's not much more than a "diving board" for Christmas...a launching pad for more greed and dissatisfaction and ungrateful behavior...
Before the turkey is gone, before the leftovers have been eaten, before the dinner we ate is even digested...people will be in line tonight at stores all over the country...some will stay out for multiple hours, some will camp out, some will wait in line - getting more annoyed and more angry as time passes...they'll get PO'd at a person who tries to skip in line...or who tries to grab the item they have their hand on...or who bumps into them in the rush...Someone will probably get hurt...if it's like the last few years, someone will be killed when people trample like out-of-control wildebeests into a sale...and we'll read about it tomorrow or watch it on the news...a life lost tonight...to what? To a sale to get a TV for $128...or to get a DVD for $1...to get a pair of jeans for $10?
And here's the saddest part...we don't need another TV...if your house is like ours, and I'm guessing it probably is, you have a TV for nearly every room...We have five TVs...One in the living room, one in our bedroom, one in the boy's bedroom, one in the girl's bedroom, and one in Ray's office/man cave...No, they're not all "flat-screens" - they're not all "new" - but the work...So, let me ask you...who needs five TVs? No one! Do we need another DVD? No, we don't watch the ones we've got. "But I need it for a present!" Really? Do you honestly think that $1 DVD is going to get "worn out" from being watched by someone else? My guess is they may never even open it...and if they do, they'll watch it once...then it'll go to Goodwill or in a yard sale...Do we need another pair of jeans? No, you know we don't...I mean, if most people are like me, they literally have a closet full of clothes...some that they never wear...
So, what's the matter with us?
We can claim it's because we want to "give" nice gifts to others...but, is that $1 DVD, is that $10 pair of jeans, is that $128 TV even what people want? My guess is this - if faced with a choice...your child would 10,000X rather spend the day with you playing and talking and laughing - uninterrupted - by other people, by the Internet, and by GASP, your phone - than they would have the $128 TV...and you KNOW as well as I do how useless those $1 DVDs are when you get them as gifts...or even worse, those silly little "gift items" that stores stack everywhere over the holidays - I mean, really? Another lousy car mug that leaks...or another nose hair trimmer? Come on...wouldn't your friend rather have coffee with you one evening - just to talk...to burn stress...to hang out? Probably...And dad? Wouldn't he rather have his grown boy or girl come over and spend the day with him - like old times - than to get another hokey necktie?
We all know this down deep...so, what *is* wrong with us?
We're greedy...we're lazy...we're disconnected...we're selfish...we're bored...we're discontent...and for what reason? The law of diminishing returns...The more we get...the more we want...we have to have the next gadget...the new car...the bigger house...we have to have what the guy down the street has...and to take a day to spend with someone...a friend...a child...a parent? That's too personal...it's too risky...it's too time-consuming...it's easier just to throw another tacky sweater in a box and give it to someone and think we've "done our good deed" for them...we are a society that shirks any possible risk of pain...love? Not real love thank-you...it might get me "hurt" later on...what if they leave me...what if they cheat on me...what if they move away...what if they die? Yes..what if they do?
For you see...again, we have the problem of very little foresight...what will we want in years to come? What will we wish in years to come? What will we regret?
I can say this - I've never seen anyone wish for more "stuff" as they age...I've never seen anyone come to the end of their life and wish they had more money....or a newer car...or a bigger house...the only thing I've ever seen people in those circumstances wish for is more time with the people they love...some way to go back and "re-do" their lives so they focused on their family and friends more than material things...but, then, it's too late...
BUT...the reason I write this today is that it's not too late for us!! We are still alive...we are able to make choices that will affect our future...we are still able to choose people over "things" - and I am convinced that someone who makes that choice - to focus on love, friends, and family rather than work or money or "things" - will never regret it...but will, instead, have Thanksgiving in their heart always...everyday...
My challenge to you? Make a choice today - even a small one - to put people ahead of "things" - see if you regret that small decision...if you do, then go back to your eternal chase for satisfaction through things...if you don't...then let it carry you into more and larger decisions to put people first...
Happy Thanksgiving
Why aren't we more grateful? Why don't we have a heart so full of thanksgiving that it just spills out? Do we really even understand all we have to be thankful for? I think too often we don't...instead of looking at what we *do* have and being awed...being grateful...we tend to focus on things we *don't* have, things we *wish* we had...and that makes us ungrateful for what we do have...
Let's take Thanksgiving Day as just one example - it used to be its own holiday - a day for families to gather...a time for food, and fellowship, and fun...a time to give thanks...but, now, it's not much more than a "diving board" for Christmas...a launching pad for more greed and dissatisfaction and ungrateful behavior...
Before the turkey is gone, before the leftovers have been eaten, before the dinner we ate is even digested...people will be in line tonight at stores all over the country...some will stay out for multiple hours, some will camp out, some will wait in line - getting more annoyed and more angry as time passes...they'll get PO'd at a person who tries to skip in line...or who tries to grab the item they have their hand on...or who bumps into them in the rush...Someone will probably get hurt...if it's like the last few years, someone will be killed when people trample like out-of-control wildebeests into a sale...and we'll read about it tomorrow or watch it on the news...a life lost tonight...to what? To a sale to get a TV for $128...or to get a DVD for $1...to get a pair of jeans for $10?
And here's the saddest part...we don't need another TV...if your house is like ours, and I'm guessing it probably is, you have a TV for nearly every room...We have five TVs...One in the living room, one in our bedroom, one in the boy's bedroom, one in the girl's bedroom, and one in Ray's office/man cave...No, they're not all "flat-screens" - they're not all "new" - but the work...So, let me ask you...who needs five TVs? No one! Do we need another DVD? No, we don't watch the ones we've got. "But I need it for a present!" Really? Do you honestly think that $1 DVD is going to get "worn out" from being watched by someone else? My guess is they may never even open it...and if they do, they'll watch it once...then it'll go to Goodwill or in a yard sale...Do we need another pair of jeans? No, you know we don't...I mean, if most people are like me, they literally have a closet full of clothes...some that they never wear...
So, what's the matter with us?
We can claim it's because we want to "give" nice gifts to others...but, is that $1 DVD, is that $10 pair of jeans, is that $128 TV even what people want? My guess is this - if faced with a choice...your child would 10,000X rather spend the day with you playing and talking and laughing - uninterrupted - by other people, by the Internet, and by GASP, your phone - than they would have the $128 TV...and you KNOW as well as I do how useless those $1 DVDs are when you get them as gifts...or even worse, those silly little "gift items" that stores stack everywhere over the holidays - I mean, really? Another lousy car mug that leaks...or another nose hair trimmer? Come on...wouldn't your friend rather have coffee with you one evening - just to talk...to burn stress...to hang out? Probably...And dad? Wouldn't he rather have his grown boy or girl come over and spend the day with him - like old times - than to get another hokey necktie?
We all know this down deep...so, what *is* wrong with us?
We're greedy...we're lazy...we're disconnected...we're selfish...we're bored...we're discontent...and for what reason? The law of diminishing returns...The more we get...the more we want...we have to have the next gadget...the new car...the bigger house...we have to have what the guy down the street has...and to take a day to spend with someone...a friend...a child...a parent? That's too personal...it's too risky...it's too time-consuming...it's easier just to throw another tacky sweater in a box and give it to someone and think we've "done our good deed" for them...we are a society that shirks any possible risk of pain...love? Not real love thank-you...it might get me "hurt" later on...what if they leave me...what if they cheat on me...what if they move away...what if they die? Yes..what if they do?
For you see...again, we have the problem of very little foresight...what will we want in years to come? What will we wish in years to come? What will we regret?
I can say this - I've never seen anyone wish for more "stuff" as they age...I've never seen anyone come to the end of their life and wish they had more money....or a newer car...or a bigger house...the only thing I've ever seen people in those circumstances wish for is more time with the people they love...some way to go back and "re-do" their lives so they focused on their family and friends more than material things...but, then, it's too late...
BUT...the reason I write this today is that it's not too late for us!! We are still alive...we are able to make choices that will affect our future...we are still able to choose people over "things" - and I am convinced that someone who makes that choice - to focus on love, friends, and family rather than work or money or "things" - will never regret it...but will, instead, have Thanksgiving in their heart always...everyday...
My challenge to you? Make a choice today - even a small one - to put people ahead of "things" - see if you regret that small decision...if you do, then go back to your eternal chase for satisfaction through things...if you don't...then let it carry you into more and larger decisions to put people first...
Happy Thanksgiving
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)