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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Peer Pressure. Another double edged sword.

Why do we make the choices that we do? Why do we do or not certain things in our life? In a perfect world there would be two very simple answers to these questions. Conscience and desire. In a perfect world our decisions would be based solely on doing some combination of what we know to be right and what we want to do. And in the absolute best of circumstances what we want and what is right would be the same.

But we don't live in that perfect world do we? There is another thing which creeps in and often takes control over our decision making process. That thing is peer pressure. And it is certainly not a simple thing. It is complex and often angst ridden and frustrating. We quite often know what we want to do and what we should do, but due to peer pressure we end up making a different choice. Why?

While thinking about this today, I came across an article someone had posted on Facebook entitled

15 Things You Don't Owe Anyone At All (Though You Think You Do)

The bottom line is really fear. How does this work? How is it that much of our decision making process is ruled by fear? Well to understand that we really need to take a look at what peer pressure is. According to dictionary.com peer pressure is social pressure by members of one's peer group to take a certain action, adopt certain values, or otherwise conform in order to be accepted.

I think a little more in depth of an explanation is needed. Generally your peers are the people whose opinions matter to you. They are all of your friends and family. Most of us decide that being cool in their eyes is important. And we will often go to great lengths, many times violating our own personal code of ethics and our personal desires in order to be accepted by our primary peer group(s).

We fear not being cool or accepted by the opinions of those that matter to us and often that alone will cause us to do terrible, mean, sometimes downright despicable things. We feel forced to act a certain way even if we are not being told exactly what to say or do. Much of the time the actions of our peers and the surrounding circumstances very strongly imply what we are "supposed" to do. 

If you are out with a group of your friends and they happen to pick on how someone is dressed or looks, some facet of their social life, their race or sexual preference, it is hard for some of us to stand up to the bullying and make them stop attacking their target. It is the right thing to do, but still not very easy. Our desire to do the right thing is overridden by our fear of not being one of the "cool kids". You can deny that it matters to you until you are blue in the face, but if you give in to peer pressure, then being accepted matters to you.

Peer pressure is what causes us to allow our families to have such a big say in our lives, even after we become adults. We want their acceptance so even though they no longer have any legally binding control over us we nod our heads and say they are right and do pretty much what they want, so that they will still love and accept us. 

Truth be told, anyone that holds their love and acceptance hostage to you agreeing with what they say or do isn't worth looking to for love or acceptance. You should be who and what you want to be independent of what others are going to say or think. 

Now having said that, is peer pressure always a bad thing? Well it is the collective thoughts and opinions of how you should and shouldn't act according to your friends and family and to a larger degree the whole world. Aside from it being wrong, to a certain degree, peer pressure is what keeps most of us from acting out in horribly violent ways when something doesn't go our way. From time to time nearly all of us have scary vile chaotic thoughts. 

We think awful things like, I wonder what that person's brains would look like oozing out of their ears if I hit them with this hammer just right. Or, if I kill this person they won't be making my life a living hell anymore. If I open the passenger door and kick this person out of my car while we are doing sixty I won't have to listen to this insufferable nagging. We don't act on those thoughts, because it is wrong and because we think about how everyone else will react to such a horrible scene.

So while peer pressure can steer us wrong, it can also keep us on the up and up. Until we reach that perfect world, where what is right and what we desire are constantly uniform, use common sense to show you when a few dashes of peer pressure are okay and when you should stand firmly against the tide for what you believe in.