This is just a note to those who may have seen my recent post, wherein I coined the phrase "intelligent concession". This is a bit of a play on words if you will, that came to me after a very genuine shared experience I had with some folks with whom I found it hard to agree, on a number of subjects. Having admitted to my struggles to embrace the direct points of view that they were supporting, I must also concede to the possibility that my points of view could be a result of my life's discoveries and areas of research, and in this way, easily opposed by those from other backgrounds with different life lessons. In other words, there was really no reason to part ways with the feeling from any side of the table that someone "lost" and someone else "gained" from the over-all exchange.
To further illustrate the point on which I think the focus should be, if we are to increase our chances of living together in a peaceful,or even civil manner, I pose a simple query. If a scientist believes that a certain geographical feature, a mountain, a crater, can be how ever many millions of years old, based on carbon dating or whatever testing may apply, and a person of faith believes that the same feature must only be several thousand years old, because that is what the teachings in their sacred texts explain, why can't both the scientist and the spiritualist BOTH be "right"? The answer is THEY CAN BE. Why can't someone believe at the same time that One True God can be responsible for the creation of everything, and that someone else can be interested in the study of everything in the natural world which leads to information about the make up, and clues to the creation of things. I do not believe that you have to surrender faith to concede that the Earth was formed by a series of dynamic physical events. In other words, if a firecracker explodes, and nobody saw who lit it, you still know that somehow heat was applied sufficiently enough to a fuse, which carried that heat energy to an explosive charge, which in turn exploded. If two or more people, who share common needs and dreams can agree that many of the lessons included in our sacred texts, are object lessons, whose importance as teaching tools is far more important than a literal adherence to said lessons by attaching real time time lines to events mentioned therein, then the real objective in the lessons may be achieved; agreement, and human kind living as one. Intelligent concession.
Once we can begin to agree on the smallest and least important of topics, we can begin to build the road map for true civil coexistence. This takes us back to the lessons taught by compassion. If one lives by the / a "commandment", which states that in order to obey their Creator they must not kill, then how can slaughter "in the name of God" be justified? Ever? There is only one answer. Slaughter is slaughter for the gain of man, or for malice, or for human pleasure, but never justified by doing it "in the name of God". You are either "of God" or you are not. Even as a simple state of being, you are or you are not. In action, you do or you do not. Something is, or it is not. All else is implied confusion, applied to situations either intentionally or by virtue of misguidance on the part of our teachers in their own quest for the truth.
In closing, I will get back to the original point of my note. The human race - with all of it's different peoples and societies has had many Prophets over the course of history. Many of these Prophets spoke of and taught the same truths, and followed the same path of living. The way to peace is a way of life, not a way of acting. It comes from a simple state of being. It requires confidence in the choices we make as individuals, without the need of exaltation. It requires that we act with compassion in our decision making, regardless of the beliefs or practices of those in need of our love. And it requires us to persevere, when those to whom we give unconditionally choose to attack us in return. This concept is nothing new. And in these times of global uncertainty, when the meek all over the world are turning to their political and spiritual leaders for answers, keep in mind that the Enemy is not the enemy which you are being shown. The Enemy of mankind is deception. The truth that some in places of power have and will continue to manipulate the teachings of our Prophets for physical and monetary gain is threatening to be the cornerstone for the ruin of civilization. Intelligent concession means simply that right now, whether Christian or Muslim, Creationist or Scientist, chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry ice cream lover; the only way to continue our current paths together and not destroy each other, is to hold fast to that which we have been taught and hold dear, and know that it is enough. Do not concern yourselves so much with the morality of, or with the responsibility others may have to their own ways of being. The time to begin a responsible life is now. Hatred begets hatred, war begets war, and when it all comes down to it, nobody chooses to be born into one agreed upon belief system or another, but everyone has the same right to peace, regardless of political climate, global or social status.
I also would like to point out that I know nothing.
To further illustrate the point on which I think the focus should be, if we are to increase our chances of living together in a peaceful,or even civil manner, I pose a simple query. If a scientist believes that a certain geographical feature, a mountain, a crater, can be how ever many millions of years old, based on carbon dating or whatever testing may apply, and a person of faith believes that the same feature must only be several thousand years old, because that is what the teachings in their sacred texts explain, why can't both the scientist and the spiritualist BOTH be "right"? The answer is THEY CAN BE. Why can't someone believe at the same time that One True God can be responsible for the creation of everything, and that someone else can be interested in the study of everything in the natural world which leads to information about the make up, and clues to the creation of things. I do not believe that you have to surrender faith to concede that the Earth was formed by a series of dynamic physical events. In other words, if a firecracker explodes, and nobody saw who lit it, you still know that somehow heat was applied sufficiently enough to a fuse, which carried that heat energy to an explosive charge, which in turn exploded. If two or more people, who share common needs and dreams can agree that many of the lessons included in our sacred texts, are object lessons, whose importance as teaching tools is far more important than a literal adherence to said lessons by attaching real time time lines to events mentioned therein, then the real objective in the lessons may be achieved; agreement, and human kind living as one. Intelligent concession.
Once we can begin to agree on the smallest and least important of topics, we can begin to build the road map for true civil coexistence. This takes us back to the lessons taught by compassion. If one lives by the / a "commandment", which states that in order to obey their Creator they must not kill, then how can slaughter "in the name of God" be justified? Ever? There is only one answer. Slaughter is slaughter for the gain of man, or for malice, or for human pleasure, but never justified by doing it "in the name of God". You are either "of God" or you are not. Even as a simple state of being, you are or you are not. In action, you do or you do not. Something is, or it is not. All else is implied confusion, applied to situations either intentionally or by virtue of misguidance on the part of our teachers in their own quest for the truth.
In closing, I will get back to the original point of my note. The human race - with all of it's different peoples and societies has had many Prophets over the course of history. Many of these Prophets spoke of and taught the same truths, and followed the same path of living. The way to peace is a way of life, not a way of acting. It comes from a simple state of being. It requires confidence in the choices we make as individuals, without the need of exaltation. It requires that we act with compassion in our decision making, regardless of the beliefs or practices of those in need of our love. And it requires us to persevere, when those to whom we give unconditionally choose to attack us in return. This concept is nothing new. And in these times of global uncertainty, when the meek all over the world are turning to their political and spiritual leaders for answers, keep in mind that the Enemy is not the enemy which you are being shown. The Enemy of mankind is deception. The truth that some in places of power have and will continue to manipulate the teachings of our Prophets for physical and monetary gain is threatening to be the cornerstone for the ruin of civilization. Intelligent concession means simply that right now, whether Christian or Muslim, Creationist or Scientist, chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry ice cream lover; the only way to continue our current paths together and not destroy each other, is to hold fast to that which we have been taught and hold dear, and know that it is enough. Do not concern yourselves so much with the morality of, or with the responsibility others may have to their own ways of being. The time to begin a responsible life is now. Hatred begets hatred, war begets war, and when it all comes down to it, nobody chooses to be born into one agreed upon belief system or another, but everyone has the same right to peace, regardless of political climate, global or social status.
I also would like to point out that I know nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment