I was having this conversation with someone online the other day and he said something that I found pretty difficult to believe. Somehow the conversation turned to wealth. The gentleman that I was talking to asserted very strongly that if the average person became rich, they would become bored after only a few months if they didn't have to work. He made it very clear that he would feel that way personally, but that he wasn't talking about just himself. It was his belief that pretty much everyone would want to go back to work within a year or two.
So, I thought about what an "average" person's life is like. You are startled out of a sound sleep by the clanging and clamoring of an alarm clock, cursing the person who set up this cruel torture device, only to remember that it was you. Still bleary eyed, you stumble into the shower cursing alternately as it starts out too cold and then gets too hot for comfort.
After the ritual dowsing of water and whatever other super secret things you do in the bathroom, you emerge covered in different, clean scents and dress for the day. You pour yourself a "cup of ambition", as Dolly Parton would say, and head out into gridlock on your way to the cubicle farm.
There are a few close calls, but you arrive safely at work. Then a whole new set of trials and tribulations awaits you, customer complaints, bosses demanding impossible things by the day before yesterday and other such pleasantries. Eventually, the work day ends and you head back out into the concrete jungle for your homeward journey.
When you do finally arrive home, frustrated and exhausted, often you find that you really just want to call it a day and hope tomorrow is better. Before that though there is some time in front of the television and maybe even some dinner.
If you are single, it ends there. However, if you are married, have children or both, there is so much more in between each other little detail of your day and so much less time to do it. You love your family and desperately want to spend more time with them but the focus and attention that you give to them takes away from other things that are nearly, if not just as important as they are and you find yourself being stretched too thin with no relief in sight.
Well, there is that one to two weeks a year that you shut out work and all the frustrating exhausting things that drive you nuts the rest of the time. That two percent of the year you relax and unwind. You let it all go and recharge your batteries so to speak.
And that is where my side of the discussion comes in. What if you could afford to stretch that two week vacation into a lifetime of no more alarm clocks? What would it be like, if you could wake up whenever and wherever you wanted to, refreshed because you actually got enough sleep?
Imagine with me. If you wanted to, you could hang out with the kids watching television and playing video games all day. You could go anywhere or do anything that you want. Go water skiing, travel around the world, backpack through the Appalachians, visit every theme park on the planet. Take your spouse to Rome, Paris, or Tahiti. Why pick one? Do them all. Turn that once per month hobby into a once per day thing. Pick up some new hobbies.
In my personal life, I have quite a bit of free time and I don't ever get bored. What limits me from doing a great many more things is not having the funds to do so. If there was more money available there would be more options, more things to do. Unless one is limited in imagination how can more options lead to less fun?
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Why can't we all just get along?
The late great George Carlin, one of my all time favorite comedians, used to do a bit about growing up Catholic. He would relate a lot of his experiences many of them as things that just didn't make sense to him. After all that's really what comedians do. They talk about things that don't make sense and share with their audience the wrongness of things. And that wrongness makes us laugh. It is literally what humor is.
But sometimes once the laughter dies down and you've had some time to think about things you realize things don't have to be that way. Part of making the world a better place is about first observing that something is wrong with it. And then doing our best to make it right. The particular conversation that he has about the Bible that has stuck with me the most is about the ten commandments.
He would go down the list a few times and each time he would show how one commandment was similar to one or two others. He would then say if the commandment in question was already covered somewhere else there was no need for redundancy and it could be removed. It was very well done. At the end he would have just one or two commandments and decided that they could be summed up by one simple all encompassing commandment.
Don't be an a$$#01e.
The basic premise of all the commandments is sort of the inverse of the "golden rule" . Don't do things to other people that you don't want them doing to you or anything of yours. If you think about it, this is really what the ten commandments are all about. If you wouldn't want it to happen to you, don't do it or make it happen to someone else.
Jesus apparently agreed with George Carlin. Or maybe it was the other way around. Because when questioned about what really mattered Jesus basically said "love god and love your neighbor as yourself and that's it" http://lnk.to/VfTqX
Bill and Ted agree, when asked what is important they say several times "Just be excellent to one another". So pop culture and the Bible agree. What about other religions? The Wiccan rede, An ye harm none do as thou wilt, which a great many "pagans" subscribe to seems to follow the same basic philosophy as Carlin. My understanding of Islam is somewhat limited but what I have read of the Koran does seem to lean towards peaceful living and tolerance of others. Also I have very little personal experience with Judaism but what I have seen and heard leads me to believe it is just as tolerant and forgiving as Christianity or Islam. Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are very much about acceptance and tolerance.
As far as indigenous tribes, while some have indeed been very warlike, many of them have lived peacefully off the land for hundreds or thousands of years as complete pacifists. Some of them did not even have a word in their language for the concept of war until they encountered more "modern" societies.
Nearly every major religion, philosophy and faith has George Carlin's one commandment deeply ingrained within its roots. It is the key to living in peace and happiness. It is all that is required in order for us to be able to get along with one another. But the world is in a terrible state with many people just out for themselves with no concern for others. We don't live with this world alone. We share it with other people that have the same kinds of thoughts, concerns, feelings, hopes and dreams that we do.
Why don't more of us follow George Carlin's commandment? Why not start following it now?
But sometimes once the laughter dies down and you've had some time to think about things you realize things don't have to be that way. Part of making the world a better place is about first observing that something is wrong with it. And then doing our best to make it right. The particular conversation that he has about the Bible that has stuck with me the most is about the ten commandments.
He would go down the list a few times and each time he would show how one commandment was similar to one or two others. He would then say if the commandment in question was already covered somewhere else there was no need for redundancy and it could be removed. It was very well done. At the end he would have just one or two commandments and decided that they could be summed up by one simple all encompassing commandment.
Don't be an a$$#01e.
The basic premise of all the commandments is sort of the inverse of the "golden rule" . Don't do things to other people that you don't want them doing to you or anything of yours. If you think about it, this is really what the ten commandments are all about. If you wouldn't want it to happen to you, don't do it or make it happen to someone else.
Jesus apparently agreed with George Carlin. Or maybe it was the other way around. Because when questioned about what really mattered Jesus basically said "love god and love your neighbor as yourself and that's it" http://lnk.to/VfTqX
Bill and Ted agree, when asked what is important they say several times "Just be excellent to one another". So pop culture and the Bible agree. What about other religions? The Wiccan rede, An ye harm none do as thou wilt, which a great many "pagans" subscribe to seems to follow the same basic philosophy as Carlin. My understanding of Islam is somewhat limited but what I have read of the Koran does seem to lean towards peaceful living and tolerance of others. Also I have very little personal experience with Judaism but what I have seen and heard leads me to believe it is just as tolerant and forgiving as Christianity or Islam. Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are very much about acceptance and tolerance.
As far as indigenous tribes, while some have indeed been very warlike, many of them have lived peacefully off the land for hundreds or thousands of years as complete pacifists. Some of them did not even have a word in their language for the concept of war until they encountered more "modern" societies.
Nearly every major religion, philosophy and faith has George Carlin's one commandment deeply ingrained within its roots. It is the key to living in peace and happiness. It is all that is required in order for us to be able to get along with one another. But the world is in a terrible state with many people just out for themselves with no concern for others. We don't live with this world alone. We share it with other people that have the same kinds of thoughts, concerns, feelings, hopes and dreams that we do.
Why don't more of us follow George Carlin's commandment? Why not start following it now?
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Comcast vs our Internet. Round 22
Most of what I write has a clear positive message. I do not enjoy complaining just as I know others do not enjoy hearing complaints, so I tend to do as little of it as possible. As a word of warning, I am looking for the lesson in this story, what I can learn from it. So, I apologize in advance, if there is nothing positive for you to take away from it. Also it is a bit long and I just didn't feel like splitting it up. So, here it is.
A few months ago, back in January, I wrote about what a wonderful internet provider Comcast is (http://lnk.to/oFc0m) . Since January, we have paid them over $1500 and our internet still does not work properly.
When we call in and talk to the tier 1 representatives, most of them have no idea what we are talking about. What they are trained to deal with is people who have no internet signal at all. We get asked to do things like make sure the cable modem has power and that all of our cables are connected properly. When we inform them that the problem isn't whether or not we can connect to the internet, that the problem has something to do with lost packets, high ping times and signal degradation they start drooling and jiberring like their brains have been totally blown and are now oozing slowly out their earholes.
Each time, they want to walk us through this inane and completely useless set of steps that is designed to discover why you have no signal at all. Then once we finally get it through their heads that we do in fact have a signal, just that it is a crappy one, then they move on to asking whether or not we have a wired or a wireless network set up. When we tell them that our network is wireless, but that for testing purposes we have set up one computer that is hard wired and that it is getting the same results they latch on to the wireless portion of the conversation and then claim that they can't help us troubleshoot because our network is wireless which they do not support. We could just lie to them and say its wired. But, then we would be lying.
Through a combination of threatening to terminate our service and requests to speak to management we eventually move past that part and get to the part where they offer to send out a technician. And that is where the "fun" begins.
There isn't always someone available here to meet up with the Comcast technician. Sometimes one of us needs to come home early from work or even take time off just to be here when the technician gets here. And about half of the time, the appointment is not kept due to the technician not showing up. When we remember to complain about it, after the fact, Comcast is good about crediting our account for the missed appointment.
But all of that isn't what bothers me about this. What bothers me is when I originally blogged about this back in January, we had been having this intermittent issue with our internet service for several months. We are still having exactly the same issue. Many, many, many steps have been taken. But all have been shots in the dark.
See Comcast has this one major issue that a lot of other companies have, especially larger corporations. The problem isn't that they hire idiots or that they fail to train their employees properly. While both of these are contributing factors. It is that they do not have a centralized database that all of their employees can access.
They do have a database and when we call in some of the reps we have gotten on the phone have been able to look up notes from past calls but others have not. And something a lot of people don't realize is that the technicians that Comcast sends out do not work directly for Comcast. They are licensed contractors and have no access at all to any information about what has been going on in the past.
And THAT is what makes me mad. Whenever a technician comes out to our house, we are starting a fresh round of troubleshooting as if nothing has ever been done. They know that we have been having problems for awhile and each one wants us to see them as the super hero that fixes our problem. Each one of them has a different knowledge base and believes that different things will cause the issue that we have.
Sometimes it is declared that a new modem will fix things but they don't carry them on their truck. So an appointment has to be made to get a new modem. And then either that appointment gets cancelled without our knowledge or the appointment is kept, but a different technician comes out that knows nothing about the replacement modem we are supposed to be getting.
Then this new guy asks us what the problem is and we get to start all over.
We have actually had the cable modem replaced twice. We have run our system both with a router and without. We have used five different splitters, two of which came from Comcast( two others which "Comcast" technicians suggested but weren't supported by Comcast and one we bought from Radio Shack). Comcast technicians have twice run a completely new line from the box at the back of the house into our house, drilling a hole through our wall each time. They have run a new line from the pole to the box in the back of our house. We have been told that hooked up but unused coaxial cables for cable TV can interfere with the signal. All of our coax cables have been capped except for the main one we actually use to watch TV.
Every component inside our network has been changed, many of them more than once. Our internal network works flawlessly. We can see and interact with other computers on our network even when our internet service is down. We can have in-house Skype calls at times when there is "no internet".
It is my personal opinion that these are all just shots in the dark. Nobody actually working directly for Comcast knows or at the very least is willing to admit that they know what is causing our problems.
Multiple technicians have come out and told us that they have received nearly identical complaints from some of our neighbors. We have been told multiple times, in person, that Comcast is aware of issues with their infrastructure in our area. I think the Comcast technicians know exactly what is wrong but are contractually obligated not to tell us because it would make Comcast look bad. They know that they can't fix the problem for us and aren't allowed to tell us that. So they make up some story that will let them leave as soon as possible and make it some other person's problem
Most recently we were told by a technician, at our house, that our neighbors had improperly set up their service and that as a result their signal was spiking and "slicing" across ours and causing signal degradation and loss of signal altogether at times. Another appointment was set to have an installer come out to their house and fix the problem. Comcast cancelled that appointment without telling us or providing a reason for it. Then when we called in to find out about it nobody seemed to know what we were talking about. A technician came out today and ran a new line from the box to our house. Yay another hole in our walls.
Surprise! It didn't fix things. It seemed to work fine for about ten minutes, just long enough for the cable installer to be gone. Then we started having trouble again. They are sending someone out again in another two days. We asked for billing so we could talk about getting a credit and billing suggested we wait until the trouble is fixed so they can give us the proper credit. Does anyone in their right mind believe they are going to credit us for the last 9 months or so that we have paid for a service that hasn't worked as described?
I don't believe in complaining without having a solution. But in this case there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. Comcast offers the best consumer service in our area. AT&T is a distant second. We would go with satellite but it has its own problems that are just as bad if not worse.
Perhaps there is a provider that offers high speed internet for businesses that we could convince to work with us. We are currently paying around three thousand dollars a year. That has to fall in line with what some of the business providers are charging for similar service. The only other thing I can think of at the moment is finding out what would be involved in becoming our own ISP. I am looking for other viable solutions.
A few months ago, back in January, I wrote about what a wonderful internet provider Comcast is (http://lnk.to/oFc0m) . Since January, we have paid them over $1500 and our internet still does not work properly.
When we call in and talk to the tier 1 representatives, most of them have no idea what we are talking about. What they are trained to deal with is people who have no internet signal at all. We get asked to do things like make sure the cable modem has power and that all of our cables are connected properly. When we inform them that the problem isn't whether or not we can connect to the internet, that the problem has something to do with lost packets, high ping times and signal degradation they start drooling and jiberring like their brains have been totally blown and are now oozing slowly out their earholes.
Each time, they want to walk us through this inane and completely useless set of steps that is designed to discover why you have no signal at all. Then once we finally get it through their heads that we do in fact have a signal, just that it is a crappy one, then they move on to asking whether or not we have a wired or a wireless network set up. When we tell them that our network is wireless, but that for testing purposes we have set up one computer that is hard wired and that it is getting the same results they latch on to the wireless portion of the conversation and then claim that they can't help us troubleshoot because our network is wireless which they do not support. We could just lie to them and say its wired. But, then we would be lying.
Through a combination of threatening to terminate our service and requests to speak to management we eventually move past that part and get to the part where they offer to send out a technician. And that is where the "fun" begins.
There isn't always someone available here to meet up with the Comcast technician. Sometimes one of us needs to come home early from work or even take time off just to be here when the technician gets here. And about half of the time, the appointment is not kept due to the technician not showing up. When we remember to complain about it, after the fact, Comcast is good about crediting our account for the missed appointment.
But all of that isn't what bothers me about this. What bothers me is when I originally blogged about this back in January, we had been having this intermittent issue with our internet service for several months. We are still having exactly the same issue. Many, many, many steps have been taken. But all have been shots in the dark.
See Comcast has this one major issue that a lot of other companies have, especially larger corporations. The problem isn't that they hire idiots or that they fail to train their employees properly. While both of these are contributing factors. It is that they do not have a centralized database that all of their employees can access.
They do have a database and when we call in some of the reps we have gotten on the phone have been able to look up notes from past calls but others have not. And something a lot of people don't realize is that the technicians that Comcast sends out do not work directly for Comcast. They are licensed contractors and have no access at all to any information about what has been going on in the past.
And THAT is what makes me mad. Whenever a technician comes out to our house, we are starting a fresh round of troubleshooting as if nothing has ever been done. They know that we have been having problems for awhile and each one wants us to see them as the super hero that fixes our problem. Each one of them has a different knowledge base and believes that different things will cause the issue that we have.
Sometimes it is declared that a new modem will fix things but they don't carry them on their truck. So an appointment has to be made to get a new modem. And then either that appointment gets cancelled without our knowledge or the appointment is kept, but a different technician comes out that knows nothing about the replacement modem we are supposed to be getting.
Then this new guy asks us what the problem is and we get to start all over.
We have actually had the cable modem replaced twice. We have run our system both with a router and without. We have used five different splitters, two of which came from Comcast( two others which "Comcast" technicians suggested but weren't supported by Comcast and one we bought from Radio Shack). Comcast technicians have twice run a completely new line from the box at the back of the house into our house, drilling a hole through our wall each time. They have run a new line from the pole to the box in the back of our house. We have been told that hooked up but unused coaxial cables for cable TV can interfere with the signal. All of our coax cables have been capped except for the main one we actually use to watch TV.
Every component inside our network has been changed, many of them more than once. Our internal network works flawlessly. We can see and interact with other computers on our network even when our internet service is down. We can have in-house Skype calls at times when there is "no internet".
It is my personal opinion that these are all just shots in the dark. Nobody actually working directly for Comcast knows or at the very least is willing to admit that they know what is causing our problems.
Multiple technicians have come out and told us that they have received nearly identical complaints from some of our neighbors. We have been told multiple times, in person, that Comcast is aware of issues with their infrastructure in our area. I think the Comcast technicians know exactly what is wrong but are contractually obligated not to tell us because it would make Comcast look bad. They know that they can't fix the problem for us and aren't allowed to tell us that. So they make up some story that will let them leave as soon as possible and make it some other person's problem
Most recently we were told by a technician, at our house, that our neighbors had improperly set up their service and that as a result their signal was spiking and "slicing" across ours and causing signal degradation and loss of signal altogether at times. Another appointment was set to have an installer come out to their house and fix the problem. Comcast cancelled that appointment without telling us or providing a reason for it. Then when we called in to find out about it nobody seemed to know what we were talking about. A technician came out today and ran a new line from the box to our house. Yay another hole in our walls.
Surprise! It didn't fix things. It seemed to work fine for about ten minutes, just long enough for the cable installer to be gone. Then we started having trouble again. They are sending someone out again in another two days. We asked for billing so we could talk about getting a credit and billing suggested we wait until the trouble is fixed so they can give us the proper credit. Does anyone in their right mind believe they are going to credit us for the last 9 months or so that we have paid for a service that hasn't worked as described?
I don't believe in complaining without having a solution. But in this case there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. Comcast offers the best consumer service in our area. AT&T is a distant second. We would go with satellite but it has its own problems that are just as bad if not worse.
Perhaps there is a provider that offers high speed internet for businesses that we could convince to work with us. We are currently paying around three thousand dollars a year. That has to fall in line with what some of the business providers are charging for similar service. The only other thing I can think of at the moment is finding out what would be involved in becoming our own ISP. I am looking for other viable solutions.
Monday, July 21, 2014
I don't know I can't try.
When going about our daily lives people often ask us questions. They may want to understand what it is that we are doing or to understand why we are doing things a certain way. Perhaps they see something that they like and want to emulate. Or maybe they see a better way of doing things and want to suggest them to us.
We respond to these queries and suggestions in many different ways. But there are three response in particular that do not serve us. They are not empowering and do nothing to make the situation better.
When asked why we are doing a certain thing or what we think about something, especially when it is something that we need to make a choice about, a pretty common reply is I don't know. When asked to do a thing in a new way, something that we have never done before frequently we will agree to try. And then after a few unsuccessful attempts we will reply that we can't do that thing or can't do it that way.
To me these three responses should be stricken from common usage. As a matter of fact, I think we should remove the words from our vocabulary altogether. Why do I feel this way?
Simply put they are not the truth. They are excuses that often prevent the truth from coming out and certainly they block a great many breakthroughs from happening. Let's look at each individually.
Try. It is a word that means an attempt. But there is no sense of commitment in this attempt at all. We are not investing anything in the outcome of the attempt. The other thing that most people miss about trying is that the attempt is over once success is obtained. You are never trying at the same time as you are succeeding. Succeeding at a thing is doing that thing. why would you ever make it your goal to try to do something when you could make it your goal to do that thing? As yoda says "Do or do not. There is no try"
I can't. This phrase is not only disempowering. It is also a lie. With enough time, energy and drive, a person can do anything that they set their mind to. We humans have proven that we can fly, walk through fire and live underwater. It may require tools we don't currently have access to and effort we have yet to provide but We can do anything. Can't is simply an excuse. It is a statement that means we have made an attempt and given up or never bothered to make the attempt because we believe we are going to fail. When we say we can't do something what we really mean is doing that thing is not important enough to me for me to find a way past whatever obstacles there may be.
I don't know. This one, I think, is the big brother of I can't and is also a lie. And to be clear I am aware that there are things we do not know, like the exact number of stars in the universe or grains of sand on planet Earth. What I am talking about is when someone asks you how you feel or think about a certain thing or what you think the right thing to do in a situation is.
When a person asks you how you feel about something, subconsciously, an answer springs into your head immediately. You know, right away, exactly how you feel about that thing. But for whatever reason, maybe its fear of ridicule or of someone not sharing your opinion or some other consequence you don't want to deal with, more often than not a person will say I don't know.
What happens is, you decide that you need time to think about it and that you are not going to think about it now. What I don't know really means is I haven't taken the time to consciously accept how I feel and to put that answer into words that others might find acceptable. And while you are busy "not knowing" any meaningful resolution to the circumstance that involves you cannot occur.
Think about these words. Go over situations in your head that have happened in the past, both where you have used them and when others have used them. See how they don't serve us. See how these words hold us back and prevent us from reaching our goals. Then make a conscious effort to remove them from your way of being.
Be real. Be honest.
Don't try. If you haven't done something but do intend to do it declare that you are going to do it.
Don't say I can't. IF you haven't put in the time and energy to figure out how to do it freely admit it and then declare whether or not you intend to do it.
Don't say I don't know. If you are afraid of being judged for how you feel, start out your answer with that statement, but share how you truly feel. If you aren't 100 percent sure about your answer admit that, but answer the question with what you really do think based on what you do know.
We respond to these queries and suggestions in many different ways. But there are three response in particular that do not serve us. They are not empowering and do nothing to make the situation better.
When asked why we are doing a certain thing or what we think about something, especially when it is something that we need to make a choice about, a pretty common reply is I don't know. When asked to do a thing in a new way, something that we have never done before frequently we will agree to try. And then after a few unsuccessful attempts we will reply that we can't do that thing or can't do it that way.
To me these three responses should be stricken from common usage. As a matter of fact, I think we should remove the words from our vocabulary altogether. Why do I feel this way?
Simply put they are not the truth. They are excuses that often prevent the truth from coming out and certainly they block a great many breakthroughs from happening. Let's look at each individually.
Try. It is a word that means an attempt. But there is no sense of commitment in this attempt at all. We are not investing anything in the outcome of the attempt. The other thing that most people miss about trying is that the attempt is over once success is obtained. You are never trying at the same time as you are succeeding. Succeeding at a thing is doing that thing. why would you ever make it your goal to try to do something when you could make it your goal to do that thing? As yoda says "Do or do not. There is no try"
I can't. This phrase is not only disempowering. It is also a lie. With enough time, energy and drive, a person can do anything that they set their mind to. We humans have proven that we can fly, walk through fire and live underwater. It may require tools we don't currently have access to and effort we have yet to provide but We can do anything. Can't is simply an excuse. It is a statement that means we have made an attempt and given up or never bothered to make the attempt because we believe we are going to fail. When we say we can't do something what we really mean is doing that thing is not important enough to me for me to find a way past whatever obstacles there may be.
I don't know. This one, I think, is the big brother of I can't and is also a lie. And to be clear I am aware that there are things we do not know, like the exact number of stars in the universe or grains of sand on planet Earth. What I am talking about is when someone asks you how you feel or think about a certain thing or what you think the right thing to do in a situation is.
When a person asks you how you feel about something, subconsciously, an answer springs into your head immediately. You know, right away, exactly how you feel about that thing. But for whatever reason, maybe its fear of ridicule or of someone not sharing your opinion or some other consequence you don't want to deal with, more often than not a person will say I don't know.
What happens is, you decide that you need time to think about it and that you are not going to think about it now. What I don't know really means is I haven't taken the time to consciously accept how I feel and to put that answer into words that others might find acceptable. And while you are busy "not knowing" any meaningful resolution to the circumstance that involves you cannot occur.
Think about these words. Go over situations in your head that have happened in the past, both where you have used them and when others have used them. See how they don't serve us. See how these words hold us back and prevent us from reaching our goals. Then make a conscious effort to remove them from your way of being.
Be real. Be honest.
Don't try. If you haven't done something but do intend to do it declare that you are going to do it.
Don't say I can't. IF you haven't put in the time and energy to figure out how to do it freely admit it and then declare whether or not you intend to do it.
Don't say I don't know. If you are afraid of being judged for how you feel, start out your answer with that statement, but share how you truly feel. If you aren't 100 percent sure about your answer admit that, but answer the question with what you really do think based on what you do know.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
A test of courage
Today I want to talk about the past. Most people tend to look at their past deeds and either use them to bolster themselves up or to hold themselves back. Think about it.
There's the guy who thinks he is better than everyone else because of who he used to be in high school. He was the letter wearing football star and he's still lording it over everyone within earshot about how he is better than them. Look he even has proof! There's his signed mvp ball. And he was homecoming king. Or how about the local chess champion? He's smarter and more important than you because of that one tournament that nobody thought he was going to win.
Or how about the girl who was the head cheerleader? She's prettier and better than everyone else, yes even you and again she has proof. Look at all her trophies. She was uncontested queen of the "in" crowd and acts as if she still is.
And what about all the other guys and gals, the ones who were just middle of the road and didn't accomplish anything great while the others were busy being superstars? A lot of those people look at their lack of accomplishments and beat themselves up about it. They point at their past deeds and say, see I've not done anything of note yet and nor am I ever likely to.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to say that that is complete bullshit. All of it. What makes me say this? There is a card named A Stout Heart, that is part of the Legends of the Five Rings card game that I'd like to quote. It says " The only true test of courage is the last one."
See the L5R card game is about samurai protecting their clans and their empire from evil. Think about it. If a man stands up against evil five times in a row he is labeled courageous and maybe even a hero. But when evil comes around the sixth time, if he runs and hides then he is labeled a coward.
What a man has done in the past gives an indication of how he is likely to act in the future. But it is not your actions in the past that determine what kind of person you are, just as it is not the actions you intend to take in the future. It is your actions in the present that determine who you are and what kind of person you are.Maybe you made the wrong choices in the past. But every now is filled with new opportunities to make better choices.
You are not the same person you were twenty or even ten years ago. The person that had those massive successes or massive failures no longer exists. You are a completely different person with different abilities and different limitations. Don't look to your past to see what is possible for you.
Except as a source of colorful stories about the way things used to be and maybe as learning experiences, ignore the past. Create a new now that matches your goals and ideals and never look back.
There's the guy who thinks he is better than everyone else because of who he used to be in high school. He was the letter wearing football star and he's still lording it over everyone within earshot about how he is better than them. Look he even has proof! There's his signed mvp ball. And he was homecoming king. Or how about the local chess champion? He's smarter and more important than you because of that one tournament that nobody thought he was going to win.
Or how about the girl who was the head cheerleader? She's prettier and better than everyone else, yes even you and again she has proof. Look at all her trophies. She was uncontested queen of the "in" crowd and acts as if she still is.
And what about all the other guys and gals, the ones who were just middle of the road and didn't accomplish anything great while the others were busy being superstars? A lot of those people look at their lack of accomplishments and beat themselves up about it. They point at their past deeds and say, see I've not done anything of note yet and nor am I ever likely to.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to say that that is complete bullshit. All of it. What makes me say this? There is a card named A Stout Heart, that is part of the Legends of the Five Rings card game that I'd like to quote. It says " The only true test of courage is the last one."
See the L5R card game is about samurai protecting their clans and their empire from evil. Think about it. If a man stands up against evil five times in a row he is labeled courageous and maybe even a hero. But when evil comes around the sixth time, if he runs and hides then he is labeled a coward.
What a man has done in the past gives an indication of how he is likely to act in the future. But it is not your actions in the past that determine what kind of person you are, just as it is not the actions you intend to take in the future. It is your actions in the present that determine who you are and what kind of person you are.Maybe you made the wrong choices in the past. But every now is filled with new opportunities to make better choices.
You are not the same person you were twenty or even ten years ago. The person that had those massive successes or massive failures no longer exists. You are a completely different person with different abilities and different limitations. Don't look to your past to see what is possible for you.
Except as a source of colorful stories about the way things used to be and maybe as learning experiences, ignore the past. Create a new now that matches your goals and ideals and never look back.
What if there is no eternity?
Most organized religion teaches that this life is merely a precursor for that which is to come after it is over. We are told that it is just the blink of an eye as compared to the eternal life that follows. The actions of our short now, will be used to judge us and determine whether the forever that we get is one of reward, punishment or limbo.
Because we don't want the punishment or limbo we are urged to live the best lives that we can. We are instructed to do good things. We are told to be good people. That way we can get the reward. And to that end many people go beyond what is necessary even to the point of putting themselves through great misery and suffering to "ensure" that they get that reward in the end.
There is, however, no proof that such an eternal reward exists. It is entirely possible that this life is all there is with no reincarnation afterwards and no heaven, hell or limbo. If that is the case, then what reason is there to do good things. If there is no penalty for being evil, why not be evil?
Well, the thing is, there is a penalty. You may not be sentencing yourself to an eternity of burning pain, but there is always a penalty for doing bad things. While you may get something good out of harming another person, you also cannot do a person wrong without doing yourself wrong as well.
You may not see it at the time but this is always true. Other people see how you act and determine how they will or whether or not they will interact with you based on what they see and hear. You may get a little bit ahead by having unfair dealings with some people. But others that could have helped you get even further ahead will see your actions and decide they have no interest in working with you.
The same is true of your romantic interests. If you are mean or unfair in the way in which you deal with people that you are intimate with, others will see it and even if they don't see it directly, the person you are being mean to will share that information with others.
A series of such actions one after the other will gradually diminish the opportunities available to you, preventing you from being able to obtain and enjoy many of the things that you may have otherwise had. And even if that weren't the case, whether or not you are willing to admit it, you know when you have wronged someone else and when you have, your conscience isn't going to just stand by and ignore it. It will weigh on you and prevent you from enjoying other good things in your life.
On the other hand, a person never has doubts or second thoughts about whether or not they did the right thing when they do good things. Doing good things, especially selfless good things makes us feel good. Being good to one another creates positive energy within us, within those we do the good things for and in the local universe around us.
If there is no eternal reward for having lived a good life, if this life is the only one we will ever have or at least the only one we can ever truly remember, then it falls on each of us to make this life as close to perfect for ourselves and those around us as we can. Then, if it turns out that there is a reward for the good deeds you did in this life, you get that too.
Because we don't want the punishment or limbo we are urged to live the best lives that we can. We are instructed to do good things. We are told to be good people. That way we can get the reward. And to that end many people go beyond what is necessary even to the point of putting themselves through great misery and suffering to "ensure" that they get that reward in the end.
There is, however, no proof that such an eternal reward exists. It is entirely possible that this life is all there is with no reincarnation afterwards and no heaven, hell or limbo. If that is the case, then what reason is there to do good things. If there is no penalty for being evil, why not be evil?
Well, the thing is, there is a penalty. You may not be sentencing yourself to an eternity of burning pain, but there is always a penalty for doing bad things. While you may get something good out of harming another person, you also cannot do a person wrong without doing yourself wrong as well.
You may not see it at the time but this is always true. Other people see how you act and determine how they will or whether or not they will interact with you based on what they see and hear. You may get a little bit ahead by having unfair dealings with some people. But others that could have helped you get even further ahead will see your actions and decide they have no interest in working with you.
The same is true of your romantic interests. If you are mean or unfair in the way in which you deal with people that you are intimate with, others will see it and even if they don't see it directly, the person you are being mean to will share that information with others.
A series of such actions one after the other will gradually diminish the opportunities available to you, preventing you from being able to obtain and enjoy many of the things that you may have otherwise had. And even if that weren't the case, whether or not you are willing to admit it, you know when you have wronged someone else and when you have, your conscience isn't going to just stand by and ignore it. It will weigh on you and prevent you from enjoying other good things in your life.
On the other hand, a person never has doubts or second thoughts about whether or not they did the right thing when they do good things. Doing good things, especially selfless good things makes us feel good. Being good to one another creates positive energy within us, within those we do the good things for and in the local universe around us.
If there is no eternal reward for having lived a good life, if this life is the only one we will ever have or at least the only one we can ever truly remember, then it falls on each of us to make this life as close to perfect for ourselves and those around us as we can. Then, if it turns out that there is a reward for the good deeds you did in this life, you get that too.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Nice and good. Are they synonyms?
These two words, nice and good are often associated together. When asked to think of the pinnacle of goodness many people will think of someone very much like Aunt May from the Spiderman comics. This imaginary paragon, is poor but still manages to give to charity, goes to church religiously, never hurts a soul, has a kind word to say about pretty much everyone is always willing to help someone else out and is a true pleasure to be around just about all day everyday.
But, other than the going to church part, it is really kind of hard to separate the good things that she does from the nice things. So? Does it follow that being a good person makes one a nice person? Or perhaps it is the other way around. Maybe being a nice person makes one a good person. And, if they are not directly connected, does she do those things because she is good or because she is nice?
She is both. Aunt May is a good person. She is also a nice person. It is my opinion that Aunt May has the luxury of being perfect because she isn't real. Her motivations and actions sync up perfectly simply because that is how she is scripted to be. We'd like to think that everyone is like that. But how many people really are?
At first glance it might seem to be a difficult thing to pick apart good actions from nice actions, especially when the circumstances are all pleasant. Sure it is easy to do the right thing and be a pleasant person in the best of times, but what about when you are asked to do things that are morally ambiguous or worse yet, when you are asked to do things that you know are wrong? Multiple studies have been done with controlled situations, designed to test this very thing.
A large group of people were individually told that they were going to get a reward for pressing a button as long as they pressed it whenever they were told to. There was a control group for whom the test was nothing more. Would they press the button when told to or not. There was a reward and nothing more. When told to, they all pressed the button as instructed. This simply set up a baseline. It more or less told the researchers something they already knew. When there is a clear reward for taking an action and no compelling reason not to practically everyone will take that action.
Then the real test began. An actor was paid to sit on the other side of a wall from the people being tested. The button was hooked up in such a way as to signal this actor that it had just been pressed. The actor would then cry out and appear to be someone in intense physical pain. Each time the button was pressed their anguish seemed to increase. After five or so button presses the actor "died".
What were the results of these studies? In many cases the people who others thought of as nice kept pressing the button every time they were instructed to do so right up to and even after the actor supposedly died. When asked why, they often replied that they were just following the instructions as they were asked to do. In the second world war there was a very specific group of people that had the same excuse for their extremely heinous actions. You might have heard of them. I think think they were called the Nazis?
Whereas the nice people were willing to inflict pain on others for a reward or just to follow orders, many of the people that others considered rebels, those who were rude, obnoxious, stubborn or defiant people refused to press the button once they realized that there was a direct negative consequence to another human being for their actions.
So. Yeah. I see the difference now. No, they are definitely not synonyms. Most of the people that we think of as nice are just easy to get along with simply because they are doing exactly what is expected of them and aren't putting up a fight for what is right. Their attitude is smooth because they are just coasting along following orders.
In a perfect world, the "rules" would all be good things and following the rules would always be doing the right thing. We don't live in that perfect world, yet. But we can create it. Until we do, I think I'll pick being good over being nice. How about you?
But, other than the going to church part, it is really kind of hard to separate the good things that she does from the nice things. So? Does it follow that being a good person makes one a nice person? Or perhaps it is the other way around. Maybe being a nice person makes one a good person. And, if they are not directly connected, does she do those things because she is good or because she is nice?
She is both. Aunt May is a good person. She is also a nice person. It is my opinion that Aunt May has the luxury of being perfect because she isn't real. Her motivations and actions sync up perfectly simply because that is how she is scripted to be. We'd like to think that everyone is like that. But how many people really are?
At first glance it might seem to be a difficult thing to pick apart good actions from nice actions, especially when the circumstances are all pleasant. Sure it is easy to do the right thing and be a pleasant person in the best of times, but what about when you are asked to do things that are morally ambiguous or worse yet, when you are asked to do things that you know are wrong? Multiple studies have been done with controlled situations, designed to test this very thing.
A large group of people were individually told that they were going to get a reward for pressing a button as long as they pressed it whenever they were told to. There was a control group for whom the test was nothing more. Would they press the button when told to or not. There was a reward and nothing more. When told to, they all pressed the button as instructed. This simply set up a baseline. It more or less told the researchers something they already knew. When there is a clear reward for taking an action and no compelling reason not to practically everyone will take that action.
Then the real test began. An actor was paid to sit on the other side of a wall from the people being tested. The button was hooked up in such a way as to signal this actor that it had just been pressed. The actor would then cry out and appear to be someone in intense physical pain. Each time the button was pressed their anguish seemed to increase. After five or so button presses the actor "died".
What were the results of these studies? In many cases the people who others thought of as nice kept pressing the button every time they were instructed to do so right up to and even after the actor supposedly died. When asked why, they often replied that they were just following the instructions as they were asked to do. In the second world war there was a very specific group of people that had the same excuse for their extremely heinous actions. You might have heard of them. I think think they were called the Nazis?
Whereas the nice people were willing to inflict pain on others for a reward or just to follow orders, many of the people that others considered rebels, those who were rude, obnoxious, stubborn or defiant people refused to press the button once they realized that there was a direct negative consequence to another human being for their actions.
So. Yeah. I see the difference now. No, they are definitely not synonyms. Most of the people that we think of as nice are just easy to get along with simply because they are doing exactly what is expected of them and aren't putting up a fight for what is right. Their attitude is smooth because they are just coasting along following orders.
In a perfect world, the "rules" would all be good things and following the rules would always be doing the right thing. We don't live in that perfect world, yet. But we can create it. Until we do, I think I'll pick being good over being nice. How about you?
Monday, July 14, 2014
Do as thou wilt pt2
Sure, homosexuality is a sin but so are all of those other things. What's that saying again? Oh yeah, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Measuring them just by their actions and the directions in their own book, few if any Christians have any right to say anything about what anyone else
is doing, other than to observe that the other person is ALSO not following the Bible.
Now let's talk about those Christians that just want to follow the New Testament. After all if you've read both it almost seems like the Old Testament and New Testament God are two different guys. The Old is full of fire and brimstone and punishment. The New is a more loving understanding God. Who wouldn't want to just skip the icky part?
But is that really okay? I mean wouldn't that be like if your Dad handed you a list of chores that he wanted done and it was two pages long and you just decided to do the second page because it was shorter? But it's okay though right? You did the whole second list, every item on it.
Having said that there is very little in the New Testament on who can and can't sleep with who, especially when looking for man on man or woman on woman action. But there is something interesting that Jesus said in the book of Matthew Chapter 22.
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Read that last part again. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. In other words the whole Bible and its message can be boiled down to two things. Love God first and foremost and love your neighbor as yourself.
That kind of reminds me of the Wiccan Rede, An ye harm none, do as thou wilt. At first glance the two might not seem the same but, many Wiccans believe that the whole universe and everything within it is a single being, that we are part of everything. In such a belief system, harming God, harming your neighbor, harming the world in general and harming yourself are all the same thing.
If this is your belief system, essentially, following this advice that it is okay to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming anyone else makes you just as "sinless" as a person who follows every dictate of the Bible to the letter. If Wiccan law and Christian law are pretty much the same where does the intolerance come in?
And last but not least (for now) where is the part of the Bible that says we should be angry and hate filled towards those who do sin? There are plenty of places where it says to avoid them if possible and a great many more where it says to avoid being like them. But to hate them? It specifically says the opposite. We are to love all our neighbors not just the sinless ones.
What should that look like? Even under Old Testament law it should be more like a parent chastising/punishing an unruly child. Someone that you truly love you are hesitant to cause pain and suffering to, even if it is for their own good in the long run. When was the last time you saw or even heard of someone preaching intolerance showing any hesitance whatsoever to condemn or in fact cause injury to someone that they labeled a sinner?
is doing, other than to observe that the other person is ALSO not following the Bible.
Now let's talk about those Christians that just want to follow the New Testament. After all if you've read both it almost seems like the Old Testament and New Testament God are two different guys. The Old is full of fire and brimstone and punishment. The New is a more loving understanding God. Who wouldn't want to just skip the icky part?
But is that really okay? I mean wouldn't that be like if your Dad handed you a list of chores that he wanted done and it was two pages long and you just decided to do the second page because it was shorter? But it's okay though right? You did the whole second list, every item on it.
Having said that there is very little in the New Testament on who can and can't sleep with who, especially when looking for man on man or woman on woman action. But there is something interesting that Jesus said in the book of Matthew Chapter 22.
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Read that last part again. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. In other words the whole Bible and its message can be boiled down to two things. Love God first and foremost and love your neighbor as yourself.
That kind of reminds me of the Wiccan Rede, An ye harm none, do as thou wilt. At first glance the two might not seem the same but, many Wiccans believe that the whole universe and everything within it is a single being, that we are part of everything. In such a belief system, harming God, harming your neighbor, harming the world in general and harming yourself are all the same thing.
If this is your belief system, essentially, following this advice that it is okay to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming anyone else makes you just as "sinless" as a person who follows every dictate of the Bible to the letter. If Wiccan law and Christian law are pretty much the same where does the intolerance come in?
And last but not least (for now) where is the part of the Bible that says we should be angry and hate filled towards those who do sin? There are plenty of places where it says to avoid them if possible and a great many more where it says to avoid being like them. But to hate them? It specifically says the opposite. We are to love all our neighbors not just the sinless ones.
What should that look like? Even under Old Testament law it should be more like a parent chastising/punishing an unruly child. Someone that you truly love you are hesitant to cause pain and suffering to, even if it is for their own good in the long run. When was the last time you saw or even heard of someone preaching intolerance showing any hesitance whatsoever to condemn or in fact cause injury to someone that they labeled a sinner?
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Do as thou wilt pt1
Today I want to talk about intolerance and ignorance. There is a great deal of it in the world and it comes from people around the world that follow many different religions. From what I have seen the biggest amount of intolerance comes from Christian and Islamic teachings. I am not as familiar with Islam. So for now the discussion will primarily revolve around Christianity.
During the time that I was a Jehovah's Witness, and indeed for several years afterwards, I spent many hours reading and cross-referencing passages in the Bible. I have read it from cover to cover and have a better memory of and understanding of it than most people that I have met and talked to.
There are Christians, a great many of them in fact, who believe that if you are not following the whole Book down to every last letter and detail that you are not a true follower of God and that you are going to end up in a not so pleasant place after you die. Most of those people have no idea what is in their Bible, at least not anymore than whatever their local preacher tells them on Sunday.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Been to any good stonings lately? What about a woman defending her man?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
Did you know that wearing a polyester/cotton blend was a sin?
Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
There are literally dozens more examples just like this. In the interest of conserving both time and space I will just list a few of the other things that the Bible prohibits.
Tattoos, shaving your beard, fortune telling, divorce, and eating bacon are all no-nos. All of these things are in the Bible. Do you know any adult Christian who stones their bad children, wears no clothing made of two different types of fabric, has no tattoos, doesn't shave, has never been divorced and won't eat bacon?
I hate to say it, but from my perspective it seems like the man lovers and the bacon lovers are going to the same place. Sin isn't about personal preference, about what you are comfortable with. According to the Bible sin is about what God is or isn't okay with. You don't get to pick and choose what is or isn't a sin. It is all there in black and white.
During the time that I was a Jehovah's Witness, and indeed for several years afterwards, I spent many hours reading and cross-referencing passages in the Bible. I have read it from cover to cover and have a better memory of and understanding of it than most people that I have met and talked to.
There are Christians, a great many of them in fact, who believe that if you are not following the whole Book down to every last letter and detail that you are not a true follower of God and that you are going to end up in a not so pleasant place after you die. Most of those people have no idea what is in their Bible, at least not anymore than whatever their local preacher tells them on Sunday.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Been to any good stonings lately? What about a woman defending her man?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
Did you know that wearing a polyester/cotton blend was a sin?
Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
There are literally dozens more examples just like this. In the interest of conserving both time and space I will just list a few of the other things that the Bible prohibits.
Tattoos, shaving your beard, fortune telling, divorce, and eating bacon are all no-nos. All of these things are in the Bible. Do you know any adult Christian who stones their bad children, wears no clothing made of two different types of fabric, has no tattoos, doesn't shave, has never been divorced and won't eat bacon?
I hate to say it, but from my perspective it seems like the man lovers and the bacon lovers are going to the same place. Sin isn't about personal preference, about what you are comfortable with. According to the Bible sin is about what God is or isn't okay with. You don't get to pick and choose what is or isn't a sin. It is all there in black and white.
Monday, July 7, 2014
My thoughts on "gay"
Society in general abhors abnormality or so we are led to believe.The LGBT community is out of the ordinary so we should hate them right? Well what about celebrities, people whose lives we celebrate. Their lives are abnormal. Why don't we hate all of them?
I am a heterosexual male. Many of my friends are either gay or bisexual. In my local group my preferences are abnormal. Should my friends tear me down for my choices? They are open and loving and accepting of my way of being just as I am of theirs. Having different sexual preference just means that we are not compatible sexual partners. We can still be good people and good friends.
My point of view, I realize is very liberal. As long as you aren't trying to enforce your way of being onto me and saying that I have to be just like you, I really don't care what you do behind closed doors. And I don't think anyone else should either. It's not like homosexuals are going to out breed the heterosexuals. So what's the problem?
Sure if everyone "chose" to become gay the world population would suffer and we would all eventually die out. But, that simply won't happen. No matter what is said or done, some people will always decide to have children. And remember, all of this started with just a single couple right?
Most of the gay bashing that I have ever seen or heard of has occurred out of fear. But fear of what? A rational, sane, logical person has nothing to fear from the homosexual community in general. Men that fear gays are often afraid of being raped by them. Now for an extremely small portion of the population, that might be a legitimate concern. But the person who would perpetrate this heinous crime would most likely still do it and have an easier time of it if they were straight. So, shouldn't that then be simply fear of a sexual predator and not fear of a gay person?
In my opinion, the only people who have any real fair reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong are those that subscribe to an organized religion whose holy scripture specifically declares that what these people are doing is wrong. For example, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. So, good Christians are required by their religion to be heterosexual AND to inform those who are not heterosexual that they are sinning.. The Bible does not however say that we should hate those who sin. It specifically says that we should love them even more and that through love and understanding they may come around to the "right" way. I don't really believe that last part, but it is in there.
Now on to the topic of choice. I say that being gay is not a choice, just as being straight is not a choice. I've heard and seen many times peer pressure being applied to a person to get them to be like everyone one else. I have often heard the phrase "well have you tried not being gay?" People who ask you to try being straight or not being gay are really asking you to pretend to like something that you don't, to be someone that you aren't.
I think an example here is in order. I am a carnivore. I can and will eat vegetables, sometimes and in limited amounts, but I do not like to. I could go the rest of my life without eating any meat. I could. But I won't. I do not get enjoyment out of eating vegetables. Meat on the other hand I enjoy very much. Being a carnivore is a preference. I don't choose it. We don't actually choose our preferences They are just things that simply are..
Also, if I have a craving for pork, chicken or beef are not gonna cut it. Sure, they will sate my immediate hunger, but the desire for pork is not going to go away until I have pork.
Sexuality is the same way. Being intimate with a man or a woman is a choice. Preferring to be intimate with a man or a woman is not a choice. It just is what you like. The only choice is what you do about that preference.
And last but not least, you have no right to even claiming what your preference is, if you haven't tried out the alternate options. If you have never had a tomato before, you don't know what it tastes like. Stating that you don't like tomatoes and doing your best to avoid them just makes you look foolish.
I tried being with a man sexually. I didn't like it. I think I could go for being a lesbian though.
I am a heterosexual male. Many of my friends are either gay or bisexual. In my local group my preferences are abnormal. Should my friends tear me down for my choices? They are open and loving and accepting of my way of being just as I am of theirs. Having different sexual preference just means that we are not compatible sexual partners. We can still be good people and good friends.
My point of view, I realize is very liberal. As long as you aren't trying to enforce your way of being onto me and saying that I have to be just like you, I really don't care what you do behind closed doors. And I don't think anyone else should either. It's not like homosexuals are going to out breed the heterosexuals. So what's the problem?
Sure if everyone "chose" to become gay the world population would suffer and we would all eventually die out. But, that simply won't happen. No matter what is said or done, some people will always decide to have children. And remember, all of this started with just a single couple right?
Most of the gay bashing that I have ever seen or heard of has occurred out of fear. But fear of what? A rational, sane, logical person has nothing to fear from the homosexual community in general. Men that fear gays are often afraid of being raped by them. Now for an extremely small portion of the population, that might be a legitimate concern. But the person who would perpetrate this heinous crime would most likely still do it and have an easier time of it if they were straight. So, shouldn't that then be simply fear of a sexual predator and not fear of a gay person?
In my opinion, the only people who have any real fair reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong are those that subscribe to an organized religion whose holy scripture specifically declares that what these people are doing is wrong. For example, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. So, good Christians are required by their religion to be heterosexual AND to inform those who are not heterosexual that they are sinning.. The Bible does not however say that we should hate those who sin. It specifically says that we should love them even more and that through love and understanding they may come around to the "right" way. I don't really believe that last part, but it is in there.
Now on to the topic of choice. I say that being gay is not a choice, just as being straight is not a choice. I've heard and seen many times peer pressure being applied to a person to get them to be like everyone one else. I have often heard the phrase "well have you tried not being gay?" People who ask you to try being straight or not being gay are really asking you to pretend to like something that you don't, to be someone that you aren't.
I think an example here is in order. I am a carnivore. I can and will eat vegetables, sometimes and in limited amounts, but I do not like to. I could go the rest of my life without eating any meat. I could. But I won't. I do not get enjoyment out of eating vegetables. Meat on the other hand I enjoy very much. Being a carnivore is a preference. I don't choose it. We don't actually choose our preferences They are just things that simply are..
Also, if I have a craving for pork, chicken or beef are not gonna cut it. Sure, they will sate my immediate hunger, but the desire for pork is not going to go away until I have pork.
Sexuality is the same way. Being intimate with a man or a woman is a choice. Preferring to be intimate with a man or a woman is not a choice. It just is what you like. The only choice is what you do about that preference.
And last but not least, you have no right to even claiming what your preference is, if you haven't tried out the alternate options. If you have never had a tomato before, you don't know what it tastes like. Stating that you don't like tomatoes and doing your best to avoid them just makes you look foolish.
I tried being with a man sexually. I didn't like it. I think I could go for being a lesbian though.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
To trust or not to?
Years ago, while going through a transformational workshop, I had an experience that I would like to relate to you. There were a little over a hundred of us in this large meeting room at a local hotel. During one of the breaks all of the chairs were removed from the room. When we came back in, the room was completely open and spacious.
The trainer informed us that we were about to do an exercise on trust. The instructions were simple. Each of us was to go around the room and in a ten minute period of time have a single interaction with as many of the others as we could. We weren't required to talk to everyone and we could pick and choose who we did and did not interact with. But the interaction itself was very specific. We were to walk up to a person, smile, look them right in the eye and say either "Hi, I trust you" or "Hi, I don't trust you". Loud dance music was played so that even though we were all together in the same room, each conversation was a private one.
Now the thing here is, none of us knew each other. We were all different people from different walks of life who had each independently signed up for this class. So there were no no preformed relationships. The only things people could base their decisions on was what the other person looked like or sounded like when they walked up and said hello.
For many people this was a very eye opening experience. In some cultures people almost never look each other in the eyes because it is seen as a sign of aggression. They never make a direct personal connection with anyone. For some people, they found out that although they had previously thought they were very trusting of others, in reality, they didn't trust anyone. By the end of the ten minutes a whole lot of people were crying, some with happiness many more with the sadness of realizing the way they made choices just wasn't working for them. We got to see how we judged other people and how other people judged us. A great many breakthroughs were had that day.
Afterwards, there was another break and all the chairs were brought back in. Once we were all back, seated comfortably, the trainer passed a microphone around the room and asked us all to share our experiences. Most of the people said they found themselves saying more often than not that they did not trust the people they were interacting with simply because they were strangers. Many of the people that said they did trust the person they were saying hello to was because they were attracted to that person in some way.
I found my experience to be unique among all of the people that chose to share because I trusted everyone. I said hello and told every person I talked to that I trusted them. Was I just doing this to curry personal favor or to make them smile or in the hopes that they would say they trusted me back? Nope. It was the absolute truth.
See, I don't look at trust like most other people do. The commonly held belief is that if you trust a person you believe they won't do anything to hurt you. So, based on that if you believe a person won't hurt you, you say you trust them and if you believe they will, you say you don't trust them.
What I believe is a little different than that. I believe that each person is the most important person in the world to themselves. It is also my belief that people are generally good and want to do the right thing. But, when a conflict of interest occurs a person will, nearly without fail, do the thing that is good for themselves, regardless of how it affects others. I believe that it is hardly ever the intention of another person to hurt me, it is just more convenient than harming themselves.
A complete stranger, one whom I know nothing about and knows nothing about me, has nothing to gain by hurting me. There is no reason for me to believe they have any intention of hurting me. So, I trust them. Now that is not to say that my guard is completely down and inviting an attack. I am not an idiot. I take each new piece of information that comes in and modify my opinions based on circumstance. In other words, I am open and loving until shown that it is inappropriate for the circumstance.
The only way to be fair to everyone is to treat them all exactly the same way. By default, I could trust no one or I could choose to trust everyone. The first just seems like a sad sad way to live your life, don't you think?
The trainer informed us that we were about to do an exercise on trust. The instructions were simple. Each of us was to go around the room and in a ten minute period of time have a single interaction with as many of the others as we could. We weren't required to talk to everyone and we could pick and choose who we did and did not interact with. But the interaction itself was very specific. We were to walk up to a person, smile, look them right in the eye and say either "Hi, I trust you" or "Hi, I don't trust you". Loud dance music was played so that even though we were all together in the same room, each conversation was a private one.
Now the thing here is, none of us knew each other. We were all different people from different walks of life who had each independently signed up for this class. So there were no no preformed relationships. The only things people could base their decisions on was what the other person looked like or sounded like when they walked up and said hello.
For many people this was a very eye opening experience. In some cultures people almost never look each other in the eyes because it is seen as a sign of aggression. They never make a direct personal connection with anyone. For some people, they found out that although they had previously thought they were very trusting of others, in reality, they didn't trust anyone. By the end of the ten minutes a whole lot of people were crying, some with happiness many more with the sadness of realizing the way they made choices just wasn't working for them. We got to see how we judged other people and how other people judged us. A great many breakthroughs were had that day.
Afterwards, there was another break and all the chairs were brought back in. Once we were all back, seated comfortably, the trainer passed a microphone around the room and asked us all to share our experiences. Most of the people said they found themselves saying more often than not that they did not trust the people they were interacting with simply because they were strangers. Many of the people that said they did trust the person they were saying hello to was because they were attracted to that person in some way.
I found my experience to be unique among all of the people that chose to share because I trusted everyone. I said hello and told every person I talked to that I trusted them. Was I just doing this to curry personal favor or to make them smile or in the hopes that they would say they trusted me back? Nope. It was the absolute truth.
See, I don't look at trust like most other people do. The commonly held belief is that if you trust a person you believe they won't do anything to hurt you. So, based on that if you believe a person won't hurt you, you say you trust them and if you believe they will, you say you don't trust them.
What I believe is a little different than that. I believe that each person is the most important person in the world to themselves. It is also my belief that people are generally good and want to do the right thing. But, when a conflict of interest occurs a person will, nearly without fail, do the thing that is good for themselves, regardless of how it affects others. I believe that it is hardly ever the intention of another person to hurt me, it is just more convenient than harming themselves.
A complete stranger, one whom I know nothing about and knows nothing about me, has nothing to gain by hurting me. There is no reason for me to believe they have any intention of hurting me. So, I trust them. Now that is not to say that my guard is completely down and inviting an attack. I am not an idiot. I take each new piece of information that comes in and modify my opinions based on circumstance. In other words, I am open and loving until shown that it is inappropriate for the circumstance.
The only way to be fair to everyone is to treat them all exactly the same way. By default, I could trust no one or I could choose to trust everyone. The first just seems like a sad sad way to live your life, don't you think?
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Accountability and Responsibility
Our prisons are full of "innocent" men. I'm sure you've heard it before. How many inmates will honestly say "yep I did bad things that I shouldn't have done. I deserve to be here." ? It is a very small number to be sure. But if you break things down rationally step by step most of them will agree to the individual logical steps that end with them spending time in jail.
It is commonly accepted that most people cannot govern themselves. Therefor there must be laws and people to enforce them. There do need to be penalties when those laws are broken to discourage people from breaking them. And most people are aware that going to jail is a potential consequence of breaking those laws. Yet still the guilty often say that they do not belong in jail. That what happened is not their fault. Why is this?
When we hold a person accountable for something we are saying that they are responsible for that thing. These two words are often used almost as synonyms for one another, as they should be. If the problem isn't with the terminology then where is the breakdown?
It's with the people.As children our parents are responsible for everything that we do. They can be and often are held legally accountable for any actions that we take. This is okay because when we are children we are too young to properly understand what is right and wrong and what the repercussions of our actions are. That's practically the definition of being a child.
It is the primary job of a parent to teach their children what is right and wrong and that every action or inaction has consequences. Then when we become adults, we can be mature responsible adults that are truly accountable for our every action. Sadly many of our parents failed to instill this sense of morals and ethics into us, just as their parents failed to instill it in them.
And so it is that we have hundreds of thousands of people doing things every day in this country, things which they know are wrong, yet claiming that its not their fault. They say he made me do it or she tricked me into it. But that is not the truth..
If a person lies to you, blackmails you or threatens to hurt you in order to get you to do something wrong, that doesn't absolve you of responsibility. If you did something wrong you did something wrong. They are not responsible for the thing that you did. You are. They are just responsible for their part in getting you to do it.
Laying blame on another person does not change the actions you took.You are responsible for every single thing which you decide to do. You, as an adult, can and will (trust me) be held accountable for every single thing that you do.
We, as a country, as a world, need to start instilling this in ourselves and our children because our prisons aren't going to get any less populated as long as people can always point a finger at someone else instead of admitting that what they did is their fault and theirs alone.
It is commonly accepted that most people cannot govern themselves. Therefor there must be laws and people to enforce them. There do need to be penalties when those laws are broken to discourage people from breaking them. And most people are aware that going to jail is a potential consequence of breaking those laws. Yet still the guilty often say that they do not belong in jail. That what happened is not their fault. Why is this?
When we hold a person accountable for something we are saying that they are responsible for that thing. These two words are often used almost as synonyms for one another, as they should be. If the problem isn't with the terminology then where is the breakdown?
It's with the people.As children our parents are responsible for everything that we do. They can be and often are held legally accountable for any actions that we take. This is okay because when we are children we are too young to properly understand what is right and wrong and what the repercussions of our actions are. That's practically the definition of being a child.
It is the primary job of a parent to teach their children what is right and wrong and that every action or inaction has consequences. Then when we become adults, we can be mature responsible adults that are truly accountable for our every action. Sadly many of our parents failed to instill this sense of morals and ethics into us, just as their parents failed to instill it in them.
And so it is that we have hundreds of thousands of people doing things every day in this country, things which they know are wrong, yet claiming that its not their fault. They say he made me do it or she tricked me into it. But that is not the truth..
If a person lies to you, blackmails you or threatens to hurt you in order to get you to do something wrong, that doesn't absolve you of responsibility. If you did something wrong you did something wrong. They are not responsible for the thing that you did. You are. They are just responsible for their part in getting you to do it.
Laying blame on another person does not change the actions you took.You are responsible for every single thing which you decide to do. You, as an adult, can and will (trust me) be held accountable for every single thing that you do.
We, as a country, as a world, need to start instilling this in ourselves and our children because our prisons aren't going to get any less populated as long as people can always point a finger at someone else instead of admitting that what they did is their fault and theirs alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)