Saturday, December 31, 2011

Promptz

We're back on Prompt track!

1. Explain the fear of Commitment to an idea, person, or group. Is there a benefit of not being truly 100% committed to anything?

2. Write your thoughts on these two words (without researching them): "Crystal sea" and "Ebenezer".

3. Would you do a "lesser" evil to prevent a "greater"one? Or would you do no evil and let the greater evil occur?

Response #1

We have to look at the main types of commitments because there cold be different reasons people adhere differently to each one. I have an overall theory as to why they don't (change over time and being unworthy), but we'll see where my reflections lead me.

Commitment to an Idea. You can call this "idea" an ideal, a dream, or a goal -most people usually shoot for the sky and like Michelangelo suggested they then lower their standards because they don't think they themselves can carry out the dream. So lack of Faith or Belief in Self is the first reason people don't commit to Ideas. The second is Longevity. Even if a person commits initially, they usually loose sight of the follow-through as time goes on and they aren't consistent with their commitment -and so it falls to fray. Most people aren't afraid of committing themselves to an Idea, but they do fear not reaching it in reality and so they loose sight of it and cast it off as something less significant than what they initially reached for.

Commitment to a Person. 2 reasons this occurs. Well technically 3. The first reason is the rarest: People don't trust the person they have committed themselves to. They think this person will betray that trust and leave them or betray them, so they hold back their own trust and aren't open with that person. If trust isn't in a relationship -it crumbles. The second, more common reason, is people don't trust themselves. They weigh in their mind the possibility of one person wanting to spend the rest of their lives with them and they feel that it isn't possible because they are unworthy of something like that. They then fear that their partner will tire of them and leave them. They then get insecure and are not open in the relationship. They do not commit to it because they think the other person will end it. The third reason is time and effort. It's all people can really spend of themselves. It's all we have. Time and effort. This is why people pick and choose where to invest themselves in life. Their jobs, their hobbies of interest, pets... things they love that they feel they can control and are not going to leave them anytime soon. But people are independent. So people don't commit to people because they fear if they give time and effort into a person -at some point it will end and all time and energy will have been wasted. They are insecure and do not open themselves. Whatever the underlying cause a particular person may have, the reaction seems to stay the same: Close up and don't commit fully.

If you really want to get down do it -it's a ear of Sacrifice. Of giving up your past, your present, and your future. Giving up your insecurity to be open. Sacrificing fear for love. You must give in order to receive and the greater the "get" is the greater the "give" must be. And not everyone is strong enough or brave enough to sacrifice their pride, ego, insecurity, and fear to commit themselves fully to another person.

Commitment to a Group. It's never the fear that the group will leave you -they're always going to be huddled together. The fear usually involves: 1. not fitting in with the group, 2. not fitting in with people outside the group once you've committed to being in the group, and 3. blending in with the group too much. People want to be Accepted and they also want to be Themselves. Any fear of a loss to individual identity or a judgement of a person's identity (beliefs, culture, values...) will prevent a person from committing fully to a group. You can call this the fear of Sacrificing the Ego.

I think the other issue with commitment in general is that people fear being "tied down". They think that if they "plant their flag" in the wrong belief, person, or group they will come p empty handed from it. People want to so badly to be accepted that they will Sacrifice what they love and what they should commit themselves to in order to seem appealing to everyone. If you take a stand or mark your spot, people will judge you for it. Most people want to avoid judgement.

Is there any benefit to not committing 100%. It does allow you to remain open. But you could also be 100% committed to a belief or group and still be open to the beliefs of others or other groups. You could call it 100% in your truth while adding truths you find later to your beliefs. I 100% believe in God. I also believe 100% in "ghosts". I also believe in many Buddhist teachings as well as Christian... I am committed to 100% committed to the truth and to God by whatever source they may appear.

But when people commit 100% to not committing to Anything, they are boring, dull, and cowardly. Their glass is 100% empty.

Response # 2

"Crystal Sea" and "Ebenezer". When I hear Crystal Sea I think of something Clear, reflective, shining. Crystal is a stone that is known for it's spiritual properties and also for it's clear, glassy surface. You can see through crystal -at least the chandelier kind. Very beautiful. The sea is Water -which is a clear liquid with a reflective surface. Crystal and Water have similar qualities obviously, but the elements themselves: stone and liquid are directly opposite. I imagine a Crystal sea would have Ice in it. Ice is the closest element that's water-related that is almost the same as crystal. As to where this place is or what it symbolizes or refers to specifically -I don't know.

Ebenezer Scrooge is the first thing that pops into my head. The word Ebenezer actually refers to an old, lonely, miserly, greedy man. Today we use the joking term "old gezer". But Ebenezer was more of a negative term back in its day. There use to be a lot of ebenezers running around back then -especially during the Industrial era. Little kids would have to work in dangerous factories and men in charge were often more concerned with profit then the well being of others.

Response #3. Lesser Evil versus Greater Evil. There was a Disney movie I saw once about a bunch of teenage skateboarders. Thy skated for fun, but at one point the main skater joined a professional skate team that was the rival of his skate buddies. He got money from joining that team. When his old skatefriend asked him why he betrayed them he said, "I need the money". His friend said, "W all need the money. But we choose not to get it the wrong way." In other words, money isn't an excuse to do wrong because everyone needs it.

But this doesn't involve money. It involves somebody doing something wrong to stop a greater wrong from occuring. I don't why you would have to do something wrong to stop something wrong from happening. Seem contradictory. You'd think the person would be doing something good by stopping something bad, but if the way it is done is bad -then uh oh. There was actually a debate in philosophy class that says, "Since lying is immoral, would it be immoral to lie to a Nazi and say Anne Frank wasn't in your home if you were hiding her from the Nazis?" Somebody's life is on the line. A little girls. If you lie, you are betraying the trust of someone, which in most cases would hurt them emotionally. Why is lying wrong: it hurts someone emotionally. But if the Nazi found out you lied about Anne Frank, they wouldn't be emotionally hurt, they would be pissed you prevented him from killing her. So you have to say, which is worse: Lying to someone that will feel no emotional pain from the lie other than regret that he didn't hurt you to get to Anne, or to let the Nazi through at no expense to yourself so he can murder her for being a Jew?

It's a sacrifice on your part to put the burden of a "sin" or immoral act on yourself to prevent someone else's sin of greater worldly harm. Nobody Sacrifices their own well being regularly at the drop f a hat. They only do it in extreme cases. If a case were that extreme and the person was strong enough to overcome the wrong they would do to prevent the greater wrong from happening -they could.

When it comes to souls, who stands the better chance of being saved? A brain-washed Nazi who has murdered Jews or a man who has lied to protect a little girl from being murdered? The Nazi has no compassion towards certain people (it's selective) and he has clearly misread the Bible. It would be a greater challenge for the Nazi to overcome his "sins" -especially since he wouldn't view them as wrongful- than a man who obviously has compassion and is willing to risk the well being of his own soul to protect the life of another human being.

Can it not be said that turning a blind eye to wrong doing is not itself a wrong doing? Failure to act against great evil is a form of evil in itself. When you can stand their and watch someone hurt others and do nothing -isn't that wrong? So to sin or not to sin isn't an option. If you do nothing, you allow a great evil to occur (which is wrong). If you do wrong to prevent the evil, you are doing wrong. The better option seems to be: Do wrong to prevent Greater wrong -then humble yourself and plead Forgiveness.

It's also important to remember Evil is always a perspective. Nazis said Jews were evil. Americans said Nazis were evil. Nazis said they were Christian. Christians called Hitler the Anti-Christ.

Same Bible. Vast differences in interpretation. But if God wanted men to kill and eliminate all those who were not "Christian", there would be few people on this planet left -and many others would only convert out of fear. This would not be a religion. It would be a system imposed on people. Religion implies autonomous choice. God didn't want people killed for Him. Why would He? He didn't create man so that men could kill His own creations in His name. It makes no sense.

It's confusing. But if All sins are equal in God's eyes, and the solution to overcoming sin lies in Him, then the only people who could overcome a sin -be it great or small in earthly ramifications- it would be the person who seeks and humbly asks forgiveness of God afterwards. God is the Salvation, not the Damnation. Those who align themselves to His path have the greater chance of overcoming their past wrongs -whether those acts be "great" or "small".

1 comment:

  1. "And not everyone is strong enough or brave enough to sacrifice their pride, ego, insecurity, and fear to commit themselves fully to another person."

    --- Truth. Sigh.


    "blending in with the group too much."

    --- very interesting....but I agree.

    "But when people commit 100% to not committing to Anything, they are boring, dull, and cowardly. Their glass is 100% empty."

    --- indeed. And useless for any good work.

    You response #2 was interesting, and made me smile.

    They are both ideas in the Bible, believe it or not...even "Ebenzer"...we'll get to it.

    "Why is lying wrong: it hurts someone emotionally"

    --- I think it's more than that. Lying is done for the sake of personal gain...selfishness...advantage. Hence, lying to safe a life isn't an "evil" lie. Especially if that life puts your own life more in risk, and/or puts you at a disadvantage.

    "Failure to act against great evil is a form of evil in itself."

    --- sin of omission.

    "then the only people who could overcome a sin -be it great or small in earthly ramifications- it would be the person who seeks and humbly asks forgiveness of God afterwards. "

    --- that's really what righteousness comes down to. How much of our sin we've asked God to forgive. =)


    12

    ReplyDelete