… THINGS CHANGED.  I don’t know when but I think I lived in a fog.  I remember great people.  I did not appreciate them but I remember tm.M.

Today someone asked me a simple question.  Who speaks for America?  I wanted to show knowledge, but honesty got in the way.

The following questions ruined my day.  Who is the religious leader in the U.S.?  Who is the voice of the Democrat party?  Who speaks for the Republican part?

Then it got ugly.  What is the number 1 album right now? Who are the Kadashians?  Who are the Jenners?  What are they famous for?

I came home and searched the net.  WE ARE DOOMED.

 

 

 

 

I like to read.  I like to understand the technique a writer uses.  What is the message behind the words.  On a blog site that, to me, is the reason for the read.

Oftentimes I can’t see the meta-message in one read.  The angry writer, the one with the ax to grind is easy to uncover.  Even a dainty glass makes a harsh sound when it meets the floor.

After a few reads I begin to see the pattern.  Good writing, nice pictures, open words cannot hide the soft complaint.  The soft complain takes a lot of words, always takes the side of the weak, the poor, the huddled masses.  On the surface it is beautiful.  Underneath bubbles a writer that can only use words to fight an unforeseen emotion that flows on the page.

The sad aspect of these writings comes from understanding the culture that promotes soft complaining.  The culture can then demonize any words they disagree with.  A brash speaker or writer is chastised because s/he does not fall into lock step.

There lies a Christian principle in this writing.  I wish I had paid more attention to the nuns but I was busy soft complaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…the less we think. There are other ways to say this but I feel this statement captures the majority of them.
My mother used to say, “If we were all the same religion we’d fight amongst ourselves.” She also told me the way to catch a bird one only needed to “put salt on its tail.” Well while I was resting after chasing a bird and keeping the salt from spilling, it dawned on me what my mother meant,
My mother is long gone, I am retired, yet her words live on – at least in my blogs, if not my thoughts. She possessed common sense wisdom. She often wrestled with common sense and the “prevailing wisdom.” She saw this wisdom as a tool for people with money and power. She got that one dead on.
To exemplify my point, I took a look at FaceBook posts in my area. I live in a foreign country with a large diverse North American population. In some ways this population is a microcosm of the U.S. with small clusters of thought patterns that actually could be measured.
One FaceBook post spoke of how great it was to hear the voices of so many people and the added feel of connection to them. Another post expressed how stupid people mainly used FaceBook. Most of the people I know are not on FaceBook, but they have beliefs about issues discussed on FaceBook as well as why they are not on FaceBook.
My mother repeated “if you want to believe in anything you can. You don’t need proof. And if there is proof against your belief then just get enough people to agree with you and that is proof.” Little did I realize the wisdom of her words. “That’s how religion became a big business.”
Throughout the years, I watched my mom’s faith, in the existence of God, wane. I remember just she and I sitting on her back porch when she asked if I believed in God. I sat in silence as I realized my mother’s wisdom had come to a crossroad. I did weekly rounds at a children’s cancer unit. I turned to my mother and said, “If you work on a children’s cancer unit, you know there is no God.” She sat there looking straight ahead.
Back to FaceBook. The beauty of FaceBook appears in its uncanny ability to reveal the death of thought. (you might throw in morality as well) A New York newspaper had a front page about Bill Cosby the read He said, She said (50 times). He deserves that. But someone posted a Hillary Clinton lie sheet. The same she said and the repetition of the facts that countered her statements. You’d a thought someone shot the Pope. Local posts DEFENDED her. No reason, no counters except one that said “your candidate lies more.”
First there was no mention of another candidate. It appeared that the post suggested there is Hillary and ‘your’ candidate. A lie is a lie and it shouldn’t matter how many or who tells them. I hear things like, “gotta vote for someone” Or “they are all the same” or “the ballot box is rigged” or ” your vote doesn’t register.”
The Huffington Post ran a piece (I have to read it as my email is AOL and they bought HP) that they were, in fairness, taking Donald Trump off the entertainment page and putting him on the political page. They made it clear they would report his unworthiness. In the weeks that followed they printed things about Trump that met a new low in journalism. They used scare headlines that the article did not support. Their bias may have opened the eyes of many as to how things are reported.
I accept all opinions. I do not judge, at least openly. Internally I might say WTF? I head to the internet and look up the science, the religion, the politics. Then I contact a few people who I know can add to this information. Then I garner an opinion.
I do not share that opinion unless certain conditions exist. One, I trust you. Two, you have an open mind and are not looking to support an agenda. (I know a very well read and educated liberal thinker who I admire for his knowledge. I ask him for information and he gives me his readings. He calls me a righty. I go to my far right friend and ask the same question and get his opinion. He calls me a lefty). Three, my opinion will make a change. If I am just blowing smoke or if I have learned you will say, “But the Bible says….” or “everyone agrees” I will not offer my opinion because your opinion is the right one.

The biggest sin is IGNORANCE.

I fear not knowing a responsible answer to a problem.  Unlike years past, we have the internet to allow us to peruse the information.  The problem now is how do you ferret through so much information because most is opinion.

Ah, you use LOGIC.  You understand the author, the media, the agenda and you find something that can either be replicated or fits logic.

For example. we go to the ice cream store.  You are diabetic and cannot adequately control your type 2 diabetic numbers. We both order ice cream. IWe sit and talk .  You love chocolate ice cream and I like Vanilla.  You ask me if I like chocolate and I say I do not like it.

Next topic.  You ask if I like Hillary Clinton.  I say I do not like her.  You ask why and I say she has told so many lies that I get vertigo.  I tell you three lies that she has told.  Not my opinion, but lies told  under oath to Congressional panels. The lies are so egregious that the FBI wants to indict her as is reported by the media.

You are angered at my words.  You ask if I am a Republican and I say I am independent.  But you can’t control your upset.  You tell me about the sins of other people as if that makes her sins okay.  You don’t deny the lies you simply spin them.

The ice cream story and the Hillary story are one in the same.  You don’t get upset because I DON’T LIKE chocolate.  You accept my preference.  I do not challenge your grown up decision to eat a food that is injurious to your health and you allow me to not like chocolate.  We each have our own preferences.

I tell you my preference, in response to your question, about another issue and you take exception.

But you don’t stop there.  You ask, “Do you like Trump?”  By the tone of your voice and the look in your eyes I know there is nothing I could say to appease my first opinion.  So I try a different, yet truthful, tact.  “He is arrogant and rich but I give him credit for not lying.”

The fire of liberal thinking has been lit.  The barrage of racial injustice, gun control, abortion, women’s rights all start flowing so fast and with such force that I have to back up.

Then you ask me why I seem to dislike liberals.  This is followed with an accusation that if you don’t like liberals then you must be … wait for it … a REPUBLICAN.

Sorry to disappoint your hate rant but I am very close to the center of the political spectrum.  I first believe that there is only one party and they set up this divide for people who have no logic to spew hatred and dismay at others who do not agree with them.

Even educated people lose focus and become incensed that another opinion can exist in their world view.  I learned to keep quiet because I want friends who understand that my preference for ice cream is no different than my preference for other things.  It is my preference.  I have my reasons and I can back them up.  End of discussion.  How that leads to your dislike of me is the reason I don’t like liberals.

“Oh, you think the right wingers don’t hold extreme judgements?”

“The extremes of either side (I watch the VIEW) needs to be excluded.   I sat eating ice cream with a lesbian, a liberal and a right wing religious person.  We each expressed our ice cream preferences.  They talked, I listened (fearful of expressing an opinion on any topic).  Afterwards the lesbian and the right wing religious person became good friends.  The liberal thinker showed anger at the conservative and “felt” sorry and confused for the lesbian.

There are 8 million stories in the naked city this has been one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even people of faith need logic.

I had the occasion to come in contact with a variety of Christian believers this week.  I asked them questions to understand their logic.  They agreed on many things.  One there is nothing in the Old Testament that contradicts the New Testament.

People who interpreted the Bible differently from them just didn’t understand the meaning of God’s word.  And all religions, religious sects, had reinterpreted the Bible to suit their (the sect’s) self interest.

HUH?

But just because you don’t have a church and read the Bible, doesn’t the mean that you are a sect?

Completely ignored.  I have come to accept this snub as a Biblical “business as usual” response.

I presented some scholarly writings that said the Bible, what scattered pieces of it remain, are stored around the globe.  Originally written in Hebrew then translated to Greek and re translated into English.  There are over 50 English translations.  The most popular translation is the King James Bible where one scholar stated there are over 14,800 questionable translation in that version.

I would think that would cause a reader, any reader, to pause and reflect.  “People can make any claims they want,” said the unsected Bible reader.

Huh?

Let me try to get my head around this.  The Bible, the Word of God, is incomplete and scattered around the world.  You have never seen the original and even if you did you wouldn’t be able to understand it because it is in a different language.  But somebody or a group of somebodies, translated it into Greek.  And it was then re translated into varying interpretations of English.

Forgive my suspicions but might one expect that God might have known that His word might be destroyed with time let alone that there would be other languages.  And that He might use the actual names of the countries or people that would be there at the end of tome.  Heck, I’ve been through over 20 “end of times” events.  It now sounds like a car sales commercial

“That’s what faith is — the belief in the unbelievable.”

“So I could put my interpretation on the Bible and I could call it my faith?”

“You could, but it wouldn’t be the Words of God”

“Huh?”

“You see, the Words must be accepted to be understood.”

So I took this information to the woman I love and repeated this conversation.  I told her these three Bible readers had a different interpretation of Matthew’s passage of being ‘yoked’.

She cannot be involved with a man who does not accept Jesus as she does, according to this scripture.  “But these men said that you have misinterpreted that passage.”

“That would mean that my brothers, family and friends are all wrong.  I don’t think so.”

“Huh?”

I pondered this logic system for a long time.  I could not understand, with that logic, why they are not voting for Hillary.  They regretted having voted for Obama.

GO FIGURE.