Level 7 Member
Saturday, July 4, 2009, 5:25 PM
Not being a person who studied Theology, but rather devoted my life to understanding what it truly means to love oneself, I dont truly believe, I ever was moral?
To me, morals are things that are imposed from the outside. A set of standards that a society accepts as the proper way to live. I guess I was never proper, but I always strived to be ethical. These laws were not imposed from and outside source, but rather from the source within.
Morals for me, have little meaning, becuase they can, and have changed with time. Whereas, principles and values are timeless, and live in the best part of our character, waiting to be expressed through our Soul.
Morals seem to restrict and force a person into compling against their will. This would be completely against the idea of "choice" , of which God has granted us. An ethical being, does what is right...just becuase, it is who he is.
Religions can be concerned too much with do's and donts, and can make people live falsely within themselves. Creating at times guilt, rather than salvation.
Producing people who are more concerned with what others think, than about who they truly are.
I believe I was never moral, but I know, I was always ethical. I never did anything that I didnt want to do, yet I never harmed another by what I did. I loved myself, but never more than I loved another. And the most important lesson, that came from being ethical, was the ability to worship the Truth. Truth more than love, to me, is the calling of our Highest Good. No lie should pass my lips, nor blemish my good word.
For me, it is far better to become an truly ethical being, than to conform to a more' given to us, by mere men.
Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:36 AM
After reading an editorial in my local paper regarding Mark Sandfords fall from grace, I asked myself this question.
The editorial made examples of the so called self-righteousness of the GOP. It used the idea of "Family Values" as its resource of condemnation towards the entire party. Sighting that so many Christian Conserveratives, seem to not practice what they preach. And I'm sure this is not the only area where this is a truth.
What I found so disturbing in this article was, that it used Sandfords human frailty, as a reason for the GOP "to stop telling people how to live". In essence it asked them to give up their standards and values becuase they had no right to believe that way . It was as if because of these men not living up to what they say they believed, the belief itself, should be disregarded.
What is it in our culture, that sees the need to distroy another, to make a point ? Why is it that we need to destroy, rather than understand? Is it possible for us to learn, without accusatory personal attacks?
Lets face it, we tend to point fingers at others, so that people will look the other way. But why? Why do we as human beings, need to blame others ? Why are we afraid of looking at what we do, rather than spending so much time looking for the behavior of others? We seem to express moral indignation only when it suits our need to look better, or to make a point or to win an election or an editorial?
Why arent we inherrently more focused on our untruths, than looking to "gottcha" another?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 7:35 AM
Before I offend any one, I have to say that a balance person tends to forget their gender. When the need to attacked the opposit sex is no longer a prority, gender issues tend to no longer apply. However, this statement is based upon a balanced union within oneself. It seems todays world is in the process of expansion of its femaleness.
In Iran or any Arab State, the feminine is surpressed. They treat that part of themselves as lesser on one hand, while giving much power to her sexuality. Many within the Middle East from our point of view, look adolescent when it comes to the way they view women.
I believe the idea of the" strong woman" is being hurt in todays world,. Just look at some strongly visible women who recently have had body parts broken.
Sonya Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thather. A foot, an elbow, a hip. Had these women not been on the world stage, I would never have seen this as the sign of our time.
The female nature is being battered, on more than one level. And as we all know, sometime things have to break before they can be rebuilt stronger. We also know, that when a bone is broken, it heals strong because of its break. Why these accidents caught my eye is because for a very long time I believed, that unless, and untill, the Arab States begin to accept their own feminine nature, Peace in the Middle East will never, ever, occur.
Their adolescent viewpoint of women, as the evil temptress has existed since the beginning of time. In Iran, a women walking the streets without covering her head, can be stoned. When you make the female side of your nature, subservant , silent, and surpressed, your nature is not in harmony. Oh yes, they may hold the worlds pocketbook by its strings, much like men did here before we got our equal rights. I believe are witnessing another revolution. Not the feminine movement of our civil rights, but a more gentle way to express our strengh of character.
Even President Obama, is being accused of being too soft in his outreach to the Arab world. He too is expressing this change.
Arab women now have an opportunity, at this time to draw upon the strength of our feminine nature, not against men, as we did with the feminist movement, but rather by using the inner strength of our masculine nature.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 8:51 AM
Yesterday I asked the question about the acceptance of a friend who accepts what she calls a friend, who is a constant liar. I question this relationship and much like in Iran today, would you accept or allow for a lie when you know full well it is untrue?
Today I realized , that although I understand all the reasons for a person inablility for speaking the truth, I still cant accept the lie. I can understand but I can never"befriend" it.
For me the word "friend" isnt a word I take lightly. Few of us ever encounter a relationship where ones heart is expressed completely the same in another. And it is certain that one who feels the need to lie, to another for whatever reason, could never attain my ideal of a friend.
One certainly can pontificate about what Christ would do , or accept, but I believe, just as He stood against His own temptations, He too, would never befriend the liar, again. Thats not to say that another Judas wouldnt be seeking Him, however, I firmly believe that Christ would not a accept that as part of His Character. And it is the Character of the Christ that I seek to display and to fully express.
Acceptance of another is a given, but accepting a behavior that you would never want for yourself, is something completely differnt. Does the parent befriend the lie his child wishes to make look lik the truth? No I think not. Even though the Parent knows, and loves his child, he longs for the truth that lives within his child, to be told. He longs for his child to see the Truth and be courages enough to express it.
He longs for his child to choose Truth over the lie , every time.
To be true to yourself, allows one to be true to others, it is this relationship that I seek with all who love or wish to love as a "friend".
Monday, June 22, 2009, 10:19 AM
I was speaking to a friend who spoke of a friend who she accepts, knowing full well that the person is a consistent liar. I accepted my friends word, however I immediately knew I would never be accepting of something or someone in my life.
Call my feeling judgemental, however what does it say that someone would accept a person in their life who lies? For me, befriending a liar is commiting to a false friendship. And any friend I feel is of God would be one who at least would be seeking Truth.
I could not fully trust in such a person, hence I could never fully commit to the relationship. Relationships for me are extremely important, and friendships are even more important to me, than even family. And knowing full well that a person lies to a friend, I cant in good conscience call them a friend.
After all what would be the point? To show others how accepting I am? Would I accept a murderer in my life as a friend? I may ask God for His forgiveness regarding the murderer, however I could never truly accept his act. Hence, I feel the same regarding the opposite of Christs Character, the habitual liar.
To understand more, the person who feels the need to lie, has yet accepted themselves. They have yet to stand on a principle, or have yet to understand the meaning of the Christ. It's that lack of understanding and maybe even indifference to ones Soul, that would not allow me to accept them as a friend.
I can of course accept them as a person, but never can I accept them into my heart, knowing that the words they may express, may not match those that are in their heart.
What do you think?