Namaste Bruce,
Thanx for the input, it appears folks do feel strongly about the topic but is it the topic of the thread?
We seriously don't need the 'he hit me first' we can all move on and get over it, can't we? Sure Bob, state by state things are changing...they are changing from within, they are changing because constituents are emailing, postcarding, calling, mailing their congressmen, senators, etc. There are many activist groups you can join/support...the blessing of our gov't is that it can and is overthrown every few years.
I don't think they were even aware they might be engaging in personal attacks. A lot of what they said, from what I saw, was intended to be hypothetical.
If people know they're going to have an emotional exchange where they engage in personal attacks, they'd probably withdraw immediately before they
get stuck.
Although cyberpi got involved, he wasn't attacking and wasn't being personal, though I suppose he was rather provocative because the comments were about people's attitudes and behaviours. Hypothetical statements. Cyberpi was probably the most hypothetical of the three involved in the exchange. In a sense he wasn't really that deep into it at all.
When we get into personal attacks, we often don't know and don't believe we could ever get
stuck into one. We don't go into it with a
sure commitment to fight and fight to the end because we don't know that there's a fight going on. We
don't commit to one, so we don't think there is one. We let loose comments and remarks as a response, but keep a distance . . . or so we think we do. We don't see our words as an attack either as we don't see them as personal. We see ourselves as being hypothetical.
What we let loose is
commentary, not insults. But that, I suppose, serves to further provoke or insult someone who really feels like there's a fight going on and he/she is the victim. Commentary, not an insult? As John McEnroe says,
you cannot be serious. Ironically, commentary can be insulting.
Cyberpi was certainly giving commentary. That was perhaps Quahom's intention as well. Bob's story is that of a protest of a fight going on somewhere else in this world, outside of CR. Bob sees an enemy, a persecutor, but Quahom does not, so he doesn't see a fight. I guess that fight has been uploaded on CR and was brewing in the last few posts. His message is "you have hurt me, your commentary hurts me and this inconsiderate commentary is a sign of your hatred."
No doubt, the commentary may not be hatred, but I suppose it's a sign we might be inconsiderate about someone's personal feelings. A powerful businessman, politician or religious leader with a lot of power and influence could use that power and influence for unethical and malign activities. He does not hate the people he wrongs, does not see himself as malign and therefore not evil. The poor and feeble have struggles that the rich and powerful do not have to confront, so the rich and powerful can't see how they're persecuting the poor and feeble because they don't understand their struggles.
Have you ever been depressed or screwed up? Lost control? I have. If you're one of those people who are in control, you might find it hard to sympathise with people who don't have control. To you they're always making excuses for their failures. A lot of us have personal issues, emotional needs, emotional obligations. A lot of us can't do much about
the life we're born into. If we are depressed or are deeply emotional, I believe a lot of the time we just have to allow ourselves to feel what we need to feel -- let it run its course.
If we've got emotional needs and emotional obligations, it's often very hard to change how we feel. It's like something has hit you on the head and no matter how hard you try, you can't wish the pain away. It has to go away by itself.
If we believe that God accepts as we are, that God can except someone who has been hit on the head and can't wish the pain away, someone that has to allow the pain to heal over time, then we may be able to accept someone who associates, emotionally, with a kind that isn't part of the norm. Though this isn't the topic of the thread, I believe in theory that there are some who are truly "otherwise inclined" in terms of how they feel about those of whom they yearn.
Persecution on those who are "otherwise inclined" has to do with the belief that there is no such thing as "otherwise inclined," that it's just a way in which unscrupulous, self-absorbed or self-centred people can unfairly gain social, political and financial benefits not accessible to "ordinary" people.
It's said by many to be lifestyle choices, but not all of us have sufficient will power to "wish away" a state of mind that won't let go of us and won't go away or leave us alone. I suppose in theory, we could simply destroy it, once and for all, in an instant if we had the right attitude and mindset. Through experience we get better at "wishing away" destructive states of mind because we've been there, done that. But if we have never seen or tasted it, only the passing of time can allow us to conquer it. We need to allow the passing of time so that if we do, eventually conquer our personal problems, we know why life has to play itself out the way it does.
This might sound like a ridiculous thing to say, but I actually don't condemn people for being selfish, self-absorbed or self-centred. It is a natural instinct to care about and value yourself. I believe it's the way we do it that should be seen as "right" or "wrong." If we classified all self-caring and self-serving attitudes as wrong there wouldn't be any purpose for the joys of life. When people judge, criticise and condemn us, we would protest that they don't understand us. They often don't. Who knows our lives better than us? They have certain expectations of us, but who are they to tell us what we should be doing?
If there is a purpose for God it is so that selfishness can be given its proper place. God knows how we think, how we feel, what we need and want. He knows what's important to us. He knows how to deal with our selfishness that society and the people around us do not because they don't have the power to comprehend minds they cannot see.
Being able to change doesn't mean that there is no such thing as "truly otherwise inclined." If there is such thing as "truly otherwise inclined," it is as true as the sky is blue when we go through a phase where we are "otherwise inclined." A plant goes through many stages in its growth and in reaching its full potential. We wait patiently for that plant to reach its final stage. Why don't we let God take care of the process instead of dictating right and wrong? By dictating right and wrong we interfere with the natural growth process.
Since there is "truly otherwise inclined" there will also be "not truly otherwise inclined" and such people must be identified so that they will not receive the benefits bestowed on the people who truly identify with that state of mind. Just as marriages fail, there must be a termination of the contract. If you cease being "otherwise inclined" after some time, or it is discovered that you lied about your "state of mind" (like cheating and adultery) the benefits will need to be withdrawn. I'm aware that in some states of the U. S., adultery is actually a criminal offense. Likewise for those who lie about their "state of mind." The system could work.
Strangely enough though, I'm not sure if adultery being a criminal offense has actually stopped people from cheating on spouses. Plus what about the pain of being married to the wrong person?
Can't cheat and find another?
