#that does not make my experience illegitimate i cannot believe i have to say this

[unicornofgt]

re my most recent gtms post: y’all do not get to decide if it was uncalled for for me to acknowledge the last year’s worth of events. it is not up to you. you do not have to like how or that i did it: it is not up to you, i do not care how you feel about it. as i said in my post, i did not make it as a call out, i made it as an acknowledgement to move forward. and to the people whose reaction was “why didn’t you just say no/that you were uncomfortable”: re-evaluate that take. i am not interested in dragging this out further than it needs to be and will not be addressing it again.

[nakhiphop]

how john calvin helped me figure out that i have obessive-compulsive disorder

Drowning. Dying alone. Small holes grouped together. We all have a “worst fear.” Mine? Being forsaken by God.

Among the cornerstones of Christian doctrine is the concept of “salvation,” or the state of being pardoned from the consequences of sin- the direst being separation from God. The equation is simple: the saved enjoy Heaven, the unsaved go to Hell. Though the Bible partly alludes to “Hell” as a place, I personally think the essence of Hell is God’s absence. In other words, Hell is where God isn’t (and conversely, Heaven is where God is).

Since the beginning of my faith journey, I’ve always feared that my faith was phony, or I mistakenly equated an emotional spiritual experience as evidence of salvation (it isn’t). Essentially, I was afraid of being unsaved… or worse, forsaken by God due to all my sinning. The sermons I remember most are based on precautionary Bible stories suggesting that God allows the heart to become hardened by habitual and intentional sin (Exod. 7:3, Rom. 1:28)- a habitual and intentional sinning that I believed I was guilty of.

“How could a real believer continue to look at pornography?” “How can a Christian have such cruel intentions?” “How could a regenerate mind still harbor thoughts of unspeakable depravity?” I’ve examined the evidence at every thinkable angle. And the more I assess and reassess the fruits of my living, I notice deeper corruption with every inspection, fortifying my conclusion: despite my many failed attempts at repentance, I’m no Christian. God has forsaken me. I’m damned.

For those of you unfamiliar with the contemporary Christian worship service format, there is often designated periods of time in which the speaker invites the non-believing attendees in the audience to dedicate their lives to Christ. In some churches, the speaker invites the non-believer to physically stand at the foot of the stage, heightening the symbolic impact and solemnity of the moment (there’s a lot of other reasons why we do this, but that’s for later). This “altar call” signifies the moment(s) of transformation. The moment(s) the soul is reborn. The moment(s) of salvation.

A Billy Graham Crusade, Greg Laurie’s Crusades, like two or three different youth summer camps… I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone up to the altar to dedicate my life to Christ.

Throughout my journey, I have discussed with every spiritual mentor my persistent fears of being unsaved. Though each of them had their unique style about them, every response was sewn with a common thread: I need to accept God’s grace. 

“Grace,” you ask? Christian “grace” is receiving from God any good thing that is undeserved, unearned, and unmerited. For example, the salvation I was speaking of earlier is an act of God’s grace; in other words, being “saved” is a gift of God- no particular action that I can (or cannot) do makes me worthy (or unworthy) of God pardoning my sins (Eph. 2). Through gentle counsel, I gradually discovered that my perception of God might be contorted, and I have adopted illegitimate conditions of salvation contingent upon moral performance (or lack thereof). “Legalism,” they call it. And for Christians, that’s baaaaad.

Though this truth made sense in my head, I still doubted my salvation and continued to reevaluate my life, respond to every altar call, repeat every sinner’s prayer, fast, pray... nothing worked. I often heard that a “peace that surpasses all understanding” is a sign of God’s exploits. I frankly don’t even know what peace means- can’t say I ever felt it. Ever. What’s wrong with me?!

In my mid-20’s, I was introduced to the Reformed Theology of the Protestant Reformation and the writings of John Calvin and his contemporaries. Since sentience, I was inculcated with Christian ideas so though discovering nothing “new” about God through the eyes of the Reformers, I believe I began to see aspects of God more correctly. Aspects such as God’s sovereignty, His elect, His predestination- concepts I previously thought little of. However, in exploring this new perspective, the pivotal realization that God’s absolute sovereignty could mean that God ultimately decides who goes to Heaven or Hell, made me uneasy. I have even heard statements to the effect of: “whoever God saves, He will save, no matter what that man does.” This, in Calvin’s terms, is called “irresistible grace.”

To my devastation, this also implies that whoever God doesn’t choose to save cannot be saved (no matter what he does), like Esau who cried bitterly but was unable to repent (Heb 12:17). I believed that this explained my perpetual feelings of being unsaved: perhaps I was just not destined to be saved. No matter what I did. I can’t be saved. It was God’s plan since the beginning to forsake me.

(Sorry in advance) This skewed interpretation really ****ed me up. My mid and late twenties was the darkest night of my soul, spawning crippling seasons of debilitating paranoia, and brooding creative projects (“I don’t need your help I’ll be okay. You’re too late to save me anyway.”). I pleaded for God while simultaneously believing that His face was turned away. In this perceived absence, I felt I was truly in Hell.

In 2020, I had somewhat of a psychiatric breakdown. The simultaneous resurfacing of past paranoias, the unravelling of new heartbreak, and a looming sentiment of doom created a perfect storm of hopelessness. I began to manifest profound physical symptoms like unilateral weakness, clonus and fasciculations, insomnia, and seemingly progressive loss of muscle function. My knowledge as a nursing instructor abetted catastrophic self-diagnoses and obsessive fixations upon my symptoms, convincing me that I was literally dying in August of 2020. Social media fueled my panic, forcing me to abandon my online networks and isolate from the world. But while I was alone, I did nothing but think and re-think. Examine and re-examine. Assess and re-assess. I didn’t sleep much.

*Takes a deep breath* Let’s skip ahead. Not long ago, I decided to seek therapy. In therapy, I discovered something that would change my life.

I strongly fit the criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

There are different variations (I have specific ones I won’t get into now) but the gist of OCD is the alternation of “obsessions” and “compulsions.” An obsession is a repeated, intrusive thought. A compulsion is performing a certain action in response to the thought. Like many people, when I think of OCD, I think of irrational fears of asymmetry and disorganization, a fear of contamination or uncleanliness, or peculiar habits like checking the stove ten times before leaving the house. Then it hit me…

Wait. That IS me.

But there’s more to it. A compulsion to an obsessive thought doesn’t necessarily mean a physical action. It could be a mental action- in other words, certain thoughts (or “triggers”) invoke certain mental responses. For example, in the “religious” or “moral OCD” subtype, whenever a person commits a morally reprehensible act, their mental response is the crippling fear that they have angered a deity (or questioning their salvation), and their physical response could be persistent, ritualistic behaviors of absolution (like confessing sins to a priest, reciting religious incantations, participating in religious ceremonies [like altar calls]). Then it hit me…

Wait. That IS me.

Suddenly, the agony of being unsaved since a youth, my tireless self-diagnosing and fear of imminent doom, my habit of checking doors, lights, air-conditioners, faucets, and burner controls several times before leaving the house, my meticulous perfectionism and punctuality, my obsession for cleanliness and organization, my strict minimalism, and a slew of other unmentionable problems that causes me to overthink, catastrophize, and agonize… it all makes perfect sense now. I’ve had OCD since I was kid.

With this new discovery, I realize that I am saved. I do believe I am swallowed by God’s grace! But my obsessive-compulsive tendencies have been berating me since the beginning. There’s still a lot I need to figure out. My journey has only begun.

Before I wrap this up, this discovery opens major questions. I would love to hear your opinions:

To what extent (if any) can mental health disorders be categorized as “spiritual warfare?”

Why do some sects of Christianity tend to diminish the plight of mental health disorders?

Why are mental health disorders especially stigmatized among some Asian-American Christians?

Aaaaand that’s how John Calvin exposed my OCD. Now you know the story behind “faith and paranoia.”

nak.

[sanoiro]

Anon Spoilery Questions & Answers

You mean in S2. The thing is that from back in S2 Mum is aware her husband has a Plan. Mum lied to Lucifer about his Father wanting to destroy him as Dad as we know now from 5x11 found his declaration of starting a rebellion... adorable...

In short, when Lucifer asks Dad how much of *this* was his Plan, Dad simply smiles and leaves. 

So the thing is it appears that both Dad and Mum knew that one day Lucifer would make it to heaven and he would be ok but the logistics were a bit harder to put down at least as it seems in Mum’s case. Mum didn’t know about Chloe for example. That is because she was banned and it seems that there cannot be omniscience between Gods or that they have some still unknown and perhaps ever speculated limitations. 

In short, Mum knew that Lucifer would go to heaven, that he would be fine eventually, perhaps even that he would become God but crucial details escaped her like why Lucifer would go, how would Dad stop being God in this universe etc. So she believed she could force Lucifer to reach the end of the Plan where he does not burn he simply is elevated to a new divine status. Sadly if Lucifer had listened to her he probably would have failed to become God and he would have died but with the turn of events he managed to reach the end of his Father’s Plan that Mum knew as a singularity. 

Yeah, it was heartbreaking. She had to witness Dan dying and Chloe as well and yet she got there seconds before Chloe was stabbed he gave Lucifer a warning although it counted for nothing really. When I watched that scene Azrael’s meta post came back to me. She was indeed the tragic figure in not just 5x16 but the whole series. 

No worries, When we are talking about a Happy Ending do we mean a conventional one? Probably yes to a point. The rest will be adapting to this new setting S5 led to. 

What I loved was that Lucifer said in the Pilot and in 5x16 that Chloe’s time was not reached yet. Meaning he knew there would be a day she would die and that was okay as that’s the course of life. When he sang, ‘I dreamed a dream’ the lyrics: 

“That we will live the years together But there are dreams that cannot be And there are storms we cannot weather“

They basically sing the song from Les Miserables where Fantine remembers how the birth of her illegitimate child came to be and how she was abandoned by her lover. She then recognises that dreams do not match reality but it’s also the point where the character of Fantine believes she just experienced her lowest point. She yet does not know she will sell her teeth, her body and eventually her life in hopes to keep part of that dream alive meaning her child. 

That is what happens to Lucifer as well, we saw in S5 that many tragic things happened to Lucifer and the ones he loved. In season 6 we do not expect a strong season but the pattern of tragedy will follow Deckerstar in my belief until a catharsis is achieved. 

There had and will have time to be together but as we saw from Dad & Mum, even for Gods life is not easy even if it is laid out in a whole eternity. As God said in the original series of the comics, He was created by external powers so yeah there will be storms that will not be able to surpass and yet fragments of their dreams will manage to survive. Whether they will have an eternity together it is not known but for sure I do expect them to never cease to be partners in life or work. 

Some things were infuriating to not been answered yes. I was expecting they would bring up Uriel and the painting. I was hurt they didn’t. I still hold hope it will happen in S6 but who knows. 

Now God essentially did tell him. Or better yet Michael did. He was given a place of misery,  of regret and sorrow to rule in hope to be able to find some clarity over his own emotional state. Now do remember that for a being like Dad millennia is not a long time. He didn’t believe he was sending Lucifer away for a long time just for the time he needed to experience what suffering was from the human perspective, for him to gain empathy and hoped - as it was shown - that eventually when he met the right people he would be able to change things for the better in a way his siblings couldn’t and in Amenadiel’s one wouldn’t as well. 

In Dad’s mind there was this plan in which time was not consequential it seemed to realise that time was a factor in 5x10 and in 5x11 when he realises that revelations do not just happen and you cannot just give opportunities as children grow and that means in his knowledge of where things could lead he lost grasp of the process. When you put a teen to work on an adult’s setting it will be hard. When Lucifer bans Trixie from the penthouse (the irony & parallel there!) Trixie is lost as fr her a month is a long time but in Lucifer’s perspective it’s a fair punishment for her lying and kicking him. Essentially what Lucifer did to Dad. This asymmetrical power is not always understood from neither parties. The one high in the ladder believes they are fair and look at the concept of the 1 month/millennia rather than realise what that means for their subordinate. How they handle the ban and the rejection. 

The Dad/Lucifer fail to realise what they enforce to Lucifer/Trixie. 

Now where the lightbringer is concerned I believe it was subtle. It was the focus of the whole Part 2 if not S5. Lucifer is different and what unveil’s his status is Dad’s words to Ella, where Ella provides a parallel to Lucifer. A cheerie woman who lights up with her behaviour the room. 

The Darkest the Darkness, The Brightest the Light. 

Dad could not fix Lucifer because Lucifer had to realise where he needed to focus. If you are the sun and you look yourself you will be blinded as everyone who looks directly at you that will make you believe you are a blinding effect similar to the one of darkness while you are the exact opposite so once Lucifer managed to look away from what he believed he was and see around him and urged the others to do the same, the Lightbringer was unveiled. 

Yes, we will. No, he is not gone forever but he eventually will move on. Dan’s story is not yet over despite his death. He has a long way to go still and similarly to Lee he will be provided most probably with adequate help as well as certain chances to say properly goodbye. 

[besanii]

shattered mirrors 56

WangXian ; 1280 words

Lan Wangji enters the Imperial study as he has done since he was fifteen years old and first starting out in his political career. And as always, his brother is seated behind the desk with his uncle standing to one side, both of them waiting for him—only this time, Lan Xichen is no longer wearing the dark blue robes of the Crown Prince with silver clouds along the collar, but in Imperial black. Amongst the clouds now are dragons stitched in gold, winding their way around his sleeves and the length of his robes; the formal headdress is nowhere in sight, but the usual silver headpiece has also been replaced by one of gold.

The sight gives him pause once he steps over the threshold, a stark reminder of what else they have lost in the months since the war ended.

“Your subject, Lan Wangji, greets Huangshang,” he says, sinking to his knees and touching his forehead to the tiles. “May our Emperor live for ten thousand years.”

Lan Xichen raises a hand briefly in his direction.

“Hanguang-wang may rise,” he says.

Lan Wangji rises to his feet and turns to his uncle with a shallower bow, his hands clasped before him in a wide circle.

“Huangshu.”

Lan Qiren nods. “Wangji.”

They have not spoken at much length since Lan Wangji’s return from the front lines—marred by his very public punishment and subsequent seclusion, as well as Lan Qiren’s own official duties—but Lan Wangji knows his uncle disapproves of his actions and behaviour in the past year. It shows now with the tension in his jaw and the rigidity of his spine, the way he glares at a spot just over Lan Wangji’s shoulder instead of directly at his person. Lan Wangji does not fear censure, but being the subject of his uncle’s displeasure has never been a comfortable experience.

Fortunately, however, there are more pressing matters at hand.

“Huangshang sent urgent summons for me,” he says, bowing his head as he addresses Lan Xichen once again. “Is there perhaps an important issue Huangshang wishes to discuss?”

Lan Xichen turns to the servants in the room.

“You may leave us,” he tells them.

“Yes, Huangshang,” they chorus, bowing in unison. They back out of the room in two lines, heads and bodies still bowed; the last two eunuchs pull the study doors closed behind them.

Once they are alone, Lan Xichen reaches for one of the missives on his desk and opens it. The gold fabric cover is embossed with a familiar motif that sends a uneasy chill down Lan Wangji’s back. Lan Xichen, however, sounds only thoughtful as he studies the contents.

“A messenger arrived from Lanling this morning,” he says, eyes still scanning the missive. “Jin Zixuan has renounced his title and left Lanling.”

What?

“Renounced his title?” Lan Wangji repeats, stunned. “And left Lanling?”

Lan Xichen nods gravely, refolding the missive and holding it out to him; he takes it with a bow and quickly scans the contents. Jin Zixuan, the eldest and only son of His Majesty Jin Guangshan and his queen—making him the only legitimate heir to the throne of Lanling—had been betrothed to Jiang Yanli before Yunmeng had fallen and the princess herself had vanished. Lan Wangji has had very few personal dealings with the former Crown Prince in the past, but if rumours were to be believed, he was a great deal more capable and trustworthy than his father.

“The official reason is that Jin Zixuan has taken ill and has been sent away from court to recuperate,” Lan Xichen says. “But our ambassador has written separately that, a day or so prior to this announcement, father and son had fallen out over the subject of his marriage.”

“Jin Zixuan refuses to enter into another arrangement,” Lan Wangji guesses.

Lan Xichen nods again.

“Jin-wang has been looking into prospective matches from all their major allies, both within Lanling and outside of it,” he says. “Qinghe has several princesses of marriageable age and a marriage alliance would help them gain a foothold within the court, of course, but Nie-wang has never seen eye-to-eye with Jin-wang so it is unlikely. Qishan and Yunmeng are…out of the running.”

He grimaces and falls silent. Almost three years on from the massacre, the fall of Yunmeng still weighs heavily on all of them. The ongoing search for Jiang Yanli and Wei Wuxian’s whereabouts has so far yielded no results, even with the combined efforts of Gusu, Lanling and Qinghe—although, Lan Wangji notes with disdain, Lanling had been the first to consider the venture fruitless and withdrawn their support.

“We do not have princesses of marriageable age here in Gusu,” Lan Xichen continues. “Unless we include shu princesses—but Jin-wang is unlikely to accept anything other than a princess of the di line.”

Lan Wangji is inclined to agree.

“What is Jin Zixuan’s opinion on the issue?” he asks.

Lan Qiren snorts.

“He insists that Jiang Yanli may well still be alive,” he says. He does not roll his eyes, but the disdain is evident. “He refuses to dishonour their existing arrangement unless there is concrete proof to the contrary. He would rather abandon his family than accept the very real possibility that she is already dead.”

The bluntness of his words stirs within Lan Wangji a mixture of irritation and exasperation, but he curls his hands into fists and holds his tongue. There is no sense in disagreeing with his uncle, no matter how passionately he feels about the issue, or how sympathetic he is to Jin Zixuan’s plight. But deeper still, there is admiration and envy—for Jin Zixuan’s decisiveness, for his bravery in choosing to walk away from his country, his duty and his family.

But where Jin Zixuan has many siblings waiting in the wings to fill his position, Lan Wangji is keenly aware that, without him, Lan Xichen would be alone. Their uncle may provide support and advice where he can while remaining impartial, the truth of the matter is that, ever since their mother’s death and their father’s illness and seclusion, they had learned very quickly that they could only depend on each other in the treacherous world of politics. No matter how strong his own personal desires may be, Lan Wangji cannot abandon his brother to the mercies of their political foes.

“Such devotion and loyalty should be commended,” Lan Xichen says, looking at him as he speaks. There is an infinite kindness and sympathy in his voice, with an underlying finality that brooks no argument. “Although it is a shame to lose a valuable future ally, especially as the new Crown Prince has yet to be decided.”

Lan Wangji feels a rush of gratitude towards his brother, who offers him a small smile. Their uncle huffs, clearly displeased, but does not argue.

“Do we know where he has gone?” Lan Wangji asks then. “Or what he plans to do?”

Lan Xichen shakes his head.

“Only that he has left Lanling alone,” he says. “We believe he intends to continue the search for Yanli-gongzhu and Wei-gongzi.” He gives their uncle a quick sideways glance, almost in warning, at the derisive little snort he makes under his breath. “We will, of course, continue our own search. Those in charge have been instructed to keep us abreast of the situation. I have asked them to report directly to you.”

Lan Wangji sinks to his knees and bows low at the waist, before pressing his forehead to the tiles.

“Your subject thanks you, Huangshang, for your generosity,” he says.

--

Notes:

di (嫡) - ‘legitimate’, usually in reference to the legal wife and her offspring (as opposed to concubines)

shu (庶) - ‘illegitimate’, referring to concubines and their offspring

〜〜(／￣▽)／　〜ф 

--

Master Post and ko-fi link on my sidebar!

[simonalkenmayeris-still-dead]

BITE - thought control

6/11 (questions) or 10/15

1  Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth a. Adopting the group's ‘map of reality’ as reality Simon says you don’t have to believe what he says, but more often than not, he becomes irrationally angry if he suspects that you don’t believe him, or worse, might be more informed than him

b.  Instil black and white thinking Simon’s entire blog is set up to encourage black & white thinking.  He is right, you are wrong. He is telling the truth, everyone else is lying. He is a victim, anyone who disagrees is picking on him. 

c.  Decide between good vs. evil Despite Simon being a monster who literally murders people, he is good.  Everyone he disagrees with is evil.

d. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders) If you’re part of the experiment, you’re part of the in-group.  People who aren’t part of the experiment are missing out on how cool and fun Simon is.

3.  Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words The number of people who come from Simon’s blog to mine to tell me I’m harassing him - Simon doesn’t even need to see my blog.  

Using legal jargon like referencing his attorney, or referring to libel - I really hope Simon isn’t paying $500 for an attorney, because that’s very cheap and he probably needs a better lawyer. 

Simon is also extremely good at using emotive language, which his followers then repeat without thinking.  Like telling me that I hate him or I’m angry, because obviously hatred is the only reason Simon can conceive of that anyone would criticise him.

8.  Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism Simon cannot handle criticism or analysis, we all know this.  When he does accept that people don’t believe him, it’s never because of an analysis of the facts, it’s when they send an ask to the blog stating their opinion with nothing to back it up - the same way he never backs up his own “facts”.

9.  Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed 

10.  Labelling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful He does hate religion a LOT.

11.  Instil new “map of reality” Your map of reality is you idea of what’s real.  Simon makes people doubt their map of reality and instils his own using the concept of the monster.  And while it seems far-fetched, it actually works.  

There are people who, even if they know rationally that Simon isn’t a monster, they fear that he and his cousins might exist, and change their lifestyle accordingly.

[krisreflection-theology]

The Church, The Sacraments, and its Mission MIDTERM EXAM

Our Spiritual Origin (Why should we study history?)

Growing up, I have always thought about my origins. I wonder about the structure of my family tree and wanting to see my whole bloodline. But my curiosity for these kinds of things stayed as-is. I never got a chance to get to know my relatives on my father's side since I am an illegitimate daughter. I always knew the importance of knowing your origin, how its constructed and taking pride in our identity. But probably in some cases, things are better yet untold. Nonetheless, I grew up taking pride in my own identity.

The history of the church or knowing historical theology does not only apply to those religious people but studying it means to show the origin and development of beliefs held in the present day and to help contemporary theologians identify theological errors of the past that should be avoided in the present[1]. It is important to know the past as this is where we can understand complex questions and information about our religion. This is also where we examine how the past was shaped and widens our lens of purpose. As per Dr. Thomas Power’s blog, a Wycliffe College's Adjunct Professor of Church History and Theological Librarian, he argues that ignoring the past can have terrible repercussions - is worthy of our reflection[2].

The interesting part of studying church history is it helps us learn from the mistakes of the past and avoid them. It is also to build upon their success, so we can grow from them. And helps us to appreciate the Lord's Church.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_theology [2] https://www.wycliffecollege.ca/blog/why-its-important-know-christian-history

Per Aspera ad Astra (How can you become a sacrament to those seeking the face of God?)

Per aspera ad astra (or, less commonly, ad astra per aspera) is a popular Latin phrase meaning "through hardships to the stars".[1]

January 11, 2020 when I was clinically diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and being Highly Suicidal.

During this chaos that is happening inside me, I came across the Latin phrase “per aspera ad astra” and its meaning resonated with me. I read from a blog an interpretation and it says that “whenever an obstacle rises that seems to block the path forward, in reality, the obstacle has an essential function”[1]. This phrase made me realized something, it made me realize that despite my struggle with this illness, I am still here. Looking back to the 579 days of survival, I was growing. I was able to accomplished goals that I never thought I’d be able to accomplish. I saw the greatest points of my life came after every dark episode. And these kinds of obstacles have a function. God has challenged me to be more, to learn more. It may be hard to fight the battle of my illness but I access help. God knows my strength and capabilities and during those times at my lowest points, he always shows me that I was not alone. ThatI needs to hang in there as there will be great things to come my way. And these experiences had really humbled me down. My illness made me stone-cold but having empathy and compassion for other people can make you see greater things in life. I realized I cannot be selfish and get sucked in by my illness. I need to fight just like how other people do the same for me.

These experiences I had is how I can become a sacrament to people who seek God, because during my lowest point he was there. He showed me things I never imagine I can see or do. He believed in me and gives me grace. I want to show people that things will get better after hardship, after adversity. This might not make things easier, but we will definitely get some great things out of these struggles. Remember per aspera ad astra, let’s all rise higher than where we started. Through hardships to the star.

[1] https://www.holstee.com/blogs/mindful-matter/per-aspera-ad-astra

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_aspera_ad_astra

Ekklēsia (What is Church for you?)

“Ecclesia, Greek Ekklēsia, (“gathering of those summoned”), in ancient Greece, assembly of citizens in a city-state. Its roots lay in the Homeric agora, the meeting of the people.”[1]

Growing up, I was already exposed to the people who go to church. You will notice those people if they are forced or not, but I only see one thing that is pertinent to those people, they are praying for something. Hoping for something. Whether they are forced or not, they always have something to show up to, and I admire that. I believe that our effort counts because we all have our own choices. And I think those people, who show up are the people who have the most courage and never turned their back to their roots, to God.

I see this word as to how people gathered in the church to prove their faith in God, this is where are able to pour our emotions and be transparent. I see this word as the gathering of people who is full of hopes and love.

As to one of the blogs I came across, ‘The root meaning of ‘church’ is not that of a building, but of people.’[1]God is always in us, and even without a building or any physical foundation for the church, just simply being gathered together and having the same faith as one is enough to define as the church.

[1] http://www.blog.om.org/blog/2017/9/13/what-does-church-mean-to-you

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ecclesia-ancient-Greek-assembly#:~:text=Ecclesia%2C%20Greek%20Ekkl%C4%93sia%2C%20(%E2%80%9C,the%20meeting%20of%20the%20people.

THEO3: Reflection Paper 1-3 summary

[mbti-notes]

INFJ. I think I'm enneagram 9 (I know this blog isn't about enneagram, but a relevant point is they're titled "peacemakers"). I often have the ability to see things from all sides. While this can be good, I feel like I often end up repressing my feelings about things because of it. Sometimes I'll disagree or be made uncomfortable by someone and in the moment, I will be nice and agreeable, and later realize I was actually upset by what they said or did. ( 1 / 2 )

[con’t: It sneaks up on me because I’m more focused on dousing the fire than how I feel. My BIGGEST question: how do I become more in tune with what I’m feeling in the midst of conflict instead of way later? I feel like I’m dishonoring myself and “my truth” with this habit. And how do I approach expressing how I really feel after the fact? (And discerning when its really worth pivoting back to an earlier argument.) There was a point where I was starting to assert myself, but I got angry at the wrong people for the wrong reasons. In the beginning my anger was understandable, but I was very stubborn about not letting go of that anger instead of being sympathetic and working to resolve the conflict. It caused a lot of damage. I wouldn’t want to repeat that failed effort of asserting myself. How do I know when to show feelings of anger? Thanks so much!]

Read the articles about emotional well-being and communicating through conflict, as well as related tags, because this topic has come up several times from infjs before. If you need more than that, there are book recommendations on the resources page about these topics. You describe poor judgment, which means that your Fe-Ti functions require better development. It seems you overindulge Fe and have difficulty drawing appropriate emotional boundaries, too easily getting tied up with what people do or think. When your emotions get the better of you, you misuse Ti and Se, hurt morphs into anger, and you indulge the impulse to attack, only to deeply regret it. Aside from this, infj problems almost always trace back to dysfunctional Ni and one’s problematic beliefs/assumptions about the world. Let’s delve into your belief system and the assumptions you make…

Labeling oneself a “peacemaker” is rather useless when you have no insight into why you manifest this behavior. It’s obvious that this label is part of your persona and thus an unconscious source of pride. However, every source of pride is also a potential catalyst for your downfall. In FJs, playing “peacemaker” is inextricably tied to a deep-seated fear of conflict, which in turn is often accompanied by a deep-seated fear of hurt and rejection, which in turn is often rooted in low self-worth and the belief that one’s own needs and desires are illegitimate or “selfish”. “Peacemaker” doesn’t sound so hot when you put it like that, does it? It seems you don’t yet possess a deep enough understanding of your beliefs about yourself.

Serious question for you to reflect on: What’s wrong with conflict? You seem to treat it as the end of the world. Expanding on the first point, a false self-image means that you cannot accept the reality of who you are. You bristle when the mirror of your social interactions reflects back to you your true face, as your unconscious fears get triggered and your dark side quickly emerges. In other words, perhaps you fear conflict because it reflects back to you the truth that you’re not as agreeable, understanding, accepting, acceptable, etc, as you want to believe you are, and/or the fact that the world doesn’t actually live up to your desires and expectations. Instead of confronting your fears within and getting to the bottom of your problem, you seek to “manage” it out there in the world. You want to manipulate the social environment to suit your comfort level, but you can’t fully admit that this is what you want because then you sound like a “selfish b*tch”, so you have to couch everything in nice sounding words like “peacemaking” or “asserting”, etc. You’re basically asking me to provide you with permission to put yourself first, but it’s just part and parcel of the same old pattern: put others first, resent, put myself first, shame, rinse, repeat. As you hinted at, it’s pointless to ask me when it’s okay to get into an old pattern again.

You ask “how do I know when to show feelings of anger?” Wrong question. Ask “how is it that I got to be so angry?” Anger is at level 10 and you wait until 11 before you even consider the possibility of doing something, then you seem taken aback that you’re basically ready to attack someone like a frothing animal. Anger is merely a cowardly extension of sadness, and sadness often comes from feeling hurt. You are afraid of feeling hurt (because it reveals your darkness), you are afraid of appearing hurt and vulnerable (because that would disrupt social harmony and your self-image of how you promote social harmony), so how can you acknowledge your hurt let alone express it? You want to express your feelings when you can’t even accept that they exist. You suppress them until they morph into something ugly.

You’re not owning your emotions but rather misattributing them to an outside source, believing that “they made me angry”, so you wait passively for that external trigger to go away or you surmise that the resolution (or closure) lies in confronting THEM and maybe “correcting” THEM so that they agree with you. You’re turning anyone who disagrees with you into an enemy or traitor rather than taking a genuine interest in their viewpoint. If someone says something disagreeable to you, why is it not a viable option to simply say at that moment “I disagree” or ask “why do you believe that”? What do you think would happen? Do you believe that a civil discussion isn’t possible as soon as there is disagreement? And why is it not a viable option to simply allow someone to have their opinion, assuming that their personal opinion has no tangible impact upon you?

It seems you haven’t reflected on your beliefs about what makes for good communication. Many immature FJs actually treat communication as opportunities to fish for affirmation, but communication is about forging connection, which can’t happen when people can’t express themselves authentically. And how can you express yourself authentically when you can’t accept your own feelings and emotions? Perhaps you naively believe that communication must ALWAYS be positive, “peacemaking”, “agreeable”, a kumbaya circle, etc. Then you’re living in fantasy and you hope for something fake. There are always going to be disagreements because every individual has their own unique experiences that result in a unique viewpoint. You get stuck on disagreements because you fail to understand that confronting the negative is necessary for reaching the positive; it is through carefully exploring differences that people come closer together and develop appreciation for each other. Why do you think people naturally become LESS racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, the more they interact with the people they deride? Disagreements can be a good thing when you know how to utilize them to foster deeper understanding. Fear of conflict means that this option is completely closed off to you, since communication immediately shuts down the moment you get triggered.

Overindulging Fe means being oversensitive to social feedback. This happens because there is no clear understanding of the difference between “your business” and “none of your business”. You say you “have the ability to see things from all sides”. Do you really? It sounds like a myth that you like to perpetuate about yourself (false self-image). If you have this ability, then why do you begrudge differences of opinion? Do people not have a right to their own individual thoughts and the freedom to feel their own feelings? If you have this ability, then why do you downplay or devalue your own side? Are you not a person and do you not deserve to have your own thoughts and feelings? Believing something is true doesn’t make it true. You claim a fair-mindedness that is betrayed by your unfair approach to disagreement. You’re not that good at seeing things from all sides, but if you insist on believing you are (false self-image), then how are you going to improve this ability? Isn’t the truth closer to this: “I only have the ability to see the sides that closely resemble mine”?

Healthy Fe is fair-minded, respectful, and compassionate. But do you want to be these things because it would absolutely destroy you to learn that you are NOT these things (egotistical intention), in which case, every social interaction becomes a looming threat as every conflict reflects back to you your unexamined darkness? Or do you truly understand the value of Fe and aim to express it properly (authentic intention)? If you are truly fair-minded, it wouldn’t trigger you to hear differences of opinion and you wouldn’t take other people’s business so personally. If you are truly respectful of everyone’s humanity, you would not disrespect yourself or become excessively critical of people just because you feel hurt or afraid. If you are truly compassionate, you would know how to extend compassion to yourself and resolve negative social situations through patient empathetic dialogue. Work on Fe.

[pro-bee]

“Reunion” part 2

Part 1 is here

THE CONVERSATION IN THE BASEMENT

UGH MY FEELINGS

Now first up, I hate that they retconned Ziva’s origin story at NCIS to make it so that Eli ordered Ziva to kill Ari to fool Gibbs or whatever. It’s such a disservice to Ziva and her story.

BUT.

I do like how Ziva handled it here, and it makes Eli even more evil, which is fine by me, because he is the worst. He is the guy who had Ari’s mother killed as payback without any regard for how it would affect his son, apparently, so, like, I have no trouble believing he would be fine ordering the hit on his own son, who was, to be fair, homicidal and in need of “neutralizing.”

Anyway.

What I mean is that this displayed so much of Ziva’s humanity, and what shapes the core of her character. 

Gibbs is understandably angry, because that whole incident in “Kill Ari Part 2″ is what cemented their bond, which took them all through season 3 to “Hiatus” and beyond, and here he thinks that’s been shaken to its core, that it was all a lie, that the woman he came to think of as a surrogate daughter (and let’s be real, his relationship with Ziva is unlike any of the others’, even with Abby). Which in turn rocks Ziva, because the last thing she wants is for Gibbs to ever think she would be so callous and cruel.

And that’s what it comes down to: Ziva may act like she doesn’t care what people think of her, but she absolutely cares about Gibbs, and if he doesn’t love her, then I would bet she thinks no one can.

Her explanation is so practical and so Ziva, but also shows so much of her heart. Yes, her father ordered her to kill Ari, but she took the mission precisely to save him. Because until the very last second she didn’t believe that her brother -- HER BROTHER -- was capable of such cruelty, and she was going to do everything in her power to prove it, including saving his life so he could plead his case. 

Ziva is ride or die with her loved ones, and every brief mention of Ari indicates that he was her world -- or at least she adored him. He wasn’t some long lost illegitimate sibling spoken of in hushed tones. She was as close to him as Tali, and obviously looked up to him, to the point where she believed everything out of his mouth, despite the clear red flags, because HE WAS HER BROTHER. To everyone else he was an asset, to her he was probably her protector and her idol. (See: Gibbs.) 

So when she sensed an injustice against Ari? Of course she was going to try to straighten it all out. Surely as long as she kept him safe, they would be able to work together to prove his innocence. Not realizing the odds were stacked against her because a) Eli and b) Ari actually was a psychopath. (Just because Eli was right doesn’t make him right, you know what I mean?)

(Which it turn makes me even sadder for Ziva, because it’s like there wasn’t a single person, or at least a single male, in her life before NCIS who didn’t use her as a pawn.)

Stop for a second and think about what it must have been like growing up actually thinking you were nothing more than a chess piece for your father/country/whatever in their latest mission, and thinking that was totally normal? No wonder Ziva is so fucked up still — how can you build any kind of self-esteem when you are essentially an action figure to be disposed of at someone else’s convenience?

I digress.

So, Ziva agreed to be Ari’s handler not to eliminate him, but to save him. Which is who she is, and she will not apologize for it to Gibbs, because she absolutely believes she was right. “He was my brother, and you were nothing.” WHICH IS RIGHT. It doesn’t mean she was playing Gibbs — it’s that she loved her brother so wholeheartedly, and obviously she would protect him over a perfect stranger. Just like now, she would protect Gibbs at all costs too, and he wouldn’t expect anything different. And if it were Gibbs in the position of protecting his loved one, he would agree with her too.

And the conviction in her voice — the need for him to believe her — is so important. Because she doesn’t care if Mossad or her father believed she was capable of killing Ari, because she probably thinks as little of them as they do her. But she can’t stand the thought of Gibbs believing she could do that, because he would know what it would do to her, does know what it’s done to her every day since that happened.

“Eli is all but dead to me, and now the closest thing I have to a father believes— He was my brother.”  That part ALWAYS gets me. This is what it comes down to: Gibbs has been more of a father to Ziva in 3 years than Eli had been her entire life. He’s never done anything to put her in jeopardy and has always put her well-being first, whereas Eli thought nothing of sending his daughter into a kamikaze mission for some stupid revenge on a faceless terrorist. I mean it doesn’t even come close, right? The show always jokes about Gibbs being the father figure of the group, but this is the first time anyone has said it out loud, and Ziva is admitting that Gibbs is that person in her life, and she cannot lose that. Because he is her port in the storm, in the sense that his protection and nurturing and love has fulfilled a need in Ziva that she’s never been able to fill in her life. She’s basically had no parental guidance, at least not since her mom died (whenever that was), and Gibbs offered that kind of sanctuary that anyone who is lucky enough to have loving parents knows. And she finally had that.

So now it’s hitting her that her “dad” thinks she’s just like Eli, and could easily dispose of her own brother for an inconsequential mission. And that hurts, more than any barb Abby or Leon or even Tony could throw her way. Because that would just confirm her own worst fears about herself, which would crush her. Even when everything is murky with Tony or even Eli, Gibbs has been her rock, and she’s facing the possibility that that may vanish, too, and it nearly breaks her.

Also breaking her? The fact that her brother is gone. As much as the show doesn’t really dwell on a lot of these emotional traumas, Ari has been one of the few that has actually come up consistently over the years for Ziva. Not enough for my liking, but enough that you always know how conflicted Ziva is about it. That she always has to reconcile her cherished memories of her siblings as a child to what happened to them as an adult. And more than that, that she is GRIEVING Ari, still. That pain has never gone away — not in her breakdown in Gibbs’ hospital room in “Hiatus,” not when she’s being questioned by Bashan in “Shalom,” not here. “He was my brother.” And now he is gone. And the pain is still raw.

Cote de Pablo does such a good job in this entire scene. Ziva’s heart is on her sleeve, and she’s trying to hold it together and say what she needs to say, be as practical as possible, but her emotions do get the best of her, because obviously she’s still in a delicate state herself, and this entire experience and its aftermath is stirring up all these unresolved issues and feelings she’s been burying for years. She pleads with Gibbs to believe her and forgive her and just love her the way she is, but she chokes when it comes to “he was my brother,” because deep down she’s still the girl grieving her brother, but she also can’t stand to think her “dad” would think so low of her. It’s painful and beautiful.

ALL THIS BEING SAID.

ZIVA NEEDS A HUG.

THE END OF THIS SCENE DEMANDS A HUG.

NOT A GIBBS INSCRUTABLE GLARE.

I mean I get it — Gibbs still isn’t sure what to believe and it’s a lot to take in — but goddamn Ziva is breaking and the girl has been through hell and back and SHE NEEDS A FUCKING HUG YOU GUYS.

Also back to my anger at the retcon: If Ziva was supposed to kill Ari, then why the insistence in the official report that Gibbs killed him? And why was Ziva so relieved that he kept her secret for so long when she moved to DC? IT’S BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE WRITERS!!! There was actually no need for this retcon, ugh.

Anyway.

Enjoy my feelings!!! 

[misscrawfords]

Rose! How do you feel about Emma and its various adaptations?

Sorry for the delay in answering - blame the school trip!

I love Emma. I wrote my dissertation partly on it (also on Northanger Abbey, Rob Roy and St Ronan’s Well) and while I loved it before I loved it even more after studying it. All of Austen’s novels are extremely well plotted, but Emma might just be the best. It’s like a detective novel in that respect (and has been described as such on multiple occasions) because you can pick up on clues to what’s really going on all the way through but on a first read, you don’t see them. Miss Bates unintentionally reveals details that can be explained by Frank and Jane’s secret relationship but they are hidden in her verbal overloading. Emma’s own thoughts betray her unknown interest in Mr. Knightley, and his actions point to his love for Emma. And so on. 

Jane Austen is also being radical in her use of literary conventions and genre in Emma (as she is in basically all her novels). She has the tightest mystery plot ever written at this point hidden directly inside a novel that sticks strictly to the conventions of romantic comedy. She even goes overboard with it - successfully navigating three couples to appropriate happy endings. However, within that solid structure, she plays with expectations and conventions in a subtle way and this is where I get really excited.

First we have Emma herself, a heroine “nobody but myself will like”. Austen clearly loved questioning and pushing conventions of who was allowed to be a heroine. Her previous novel, Mansfield Park, gave us Fanny who most people at the time found disappointing after Elizabeth Bennet and modern readers (unjustly IMO) hate, and she followed Emma with Anne Elliot who was far too old to be a romantic heroine according to contemporary standards. In the middle we have Emma Woodhouse, a meddling snob. She’s got a lot in common with Mr. Darcy actually and her character development in terms of recognising the bad behaviour she is guilty of and the prejudice she feels towards those of a lower social status is pretty similar. But while Darcy and his character development is held up as beautiful and heroic and romantic, Emma is frequently condemned as dislikable. I do wonder why that could be… Personally, I love Emma. She’s clever and shrewd and funny and, honestly, is there anyone who doesn’t think Miss Bates is annoying and doesn’t want to throw a tantrum at the prospect of being upstaged by Mrs. Elton? Are you, dear reader, such a paragon of rational enlightenment and charitable feeling? Would you instantly see through Frank Churchill and resist his flirtations? Would you be best friends with Jane Fairfax and not be just a little bit jealous of her and how much Mr. Knightley everyone seems to admire her? Have you never said something cutting and regretted it? Are you perfect, reader, ARE YOU? Come on. Emma is one of us. She messes up, she judges badly, she says cringeworthy stuff in inappropriate situations, she gives bad advice - she’s human. And she deals with it without losing her positive outlook and she does grow, enough to “deserve” her happy ending (though that’s a loaded concept) but not so much it’s unrealistic. And what makes her likeable through it all are that her intentions are good. Emma is not a bad person who has to become good and “be redeemed”. She is a fundamentally warm and caring person who needs to have some bad habits of thought and action corrected by guidance and experience. Emma’s intentions and understanding are good from the beginning.

Emma’s also interesting because, yes, she does change, but if you put her in the context of the genre she inhabits, she also gets to keep a lot. Basically, in another novel, Emma would have to pay significant penance for her bad behaviour before she would be allowed to marry Mr. Knightley and she would have to prove that she is a changed woman and is absolutely not going to continue meddling and will be a good and submissive wife. Usually this also involves giving up the dangerous reading of novels which have led her astray. Several points. Firstly, Emma is not a novel reader, she is a novel writer. Emma is described by various critics as “an avatar of Austen the author” and if you read the novel through the prism of Emma being an author, things become really fascinating. Beautiful, illegitimate Harriet Smith is the heroine of Emma’s novel and obviously Emma-as-author wants to discover that she is really the long lost daughter of Somebody and give her a socially advantageous marriage. Emma’s matchmaking attempts are the workings of a novelist plotting with characters. Emma is creating her own world. This is radical stuff, in a society where female novelists were looked down upon. Emma has the means and independence and cleverness to write a story of her own - and she is comically bad at it. This is one way in which Austen plays with genre. Secondly, it is not at all clear that Emma does give up her matchmaking at the end of the novel. Austen is coy when she floats this suggestion about Mrs. Weston’s daughter: “[Emma] would not acknowledge that it was with any view of making a match for her, hereafter, with either of Isabella’s sons”. Does this suggest that maybe Emma isn’t as cured as she should be? Thanks to Austen’s levels of irony it’s impossible to tell, which is the point. Thirdly, Emma is the only Austen heroine to have real financial and social clout. Emma really does rule Highbury and at the end of the novel, instead of being subsumed into her husband’s world, he in fact moves in with her (however temporarily). This is practically the Regency equivalent of her keeping her name after marriage. She and Mr. Knightley are social equals and she does not leave her home or her sphere of influence when she marries. The only other heroine this would be true of is, interestingly enough, Fanny Price. But Mansfield Park is notoriously inward looking and Fanny’s ending allows her to truly become a Bertram which is what she wanted all along for better or worse. And Fanny and Edmund’s social status and influence are much less significant that Knightley and Emma’s are.

Something else to bear in mind when thinking about Emma’s character is that, despite her social power and wealth, she also lives an extremely confined and limited life. She is essentially a carer for her stultifying and claustrophobic father. She has never left the environs of Highbury. She is surrounded by people who jump to her every command and shower her in praise, both deserved and undeserved. The only person who criticises her is also in love with her. The only eligible men in her world before the arrival of Frank Churchill are her brother-in-law who is 16 years older than her, and the obsequious vicar. Yes, she can remain a spinster but even a rich spinster cannot maintain the sort of power she currently holds when faced with a married woman like Mrs. Elton (who is a real threat to her), but her alternatives are bleak. A woman of her rank and fortune should be having a London season and meeting other young people of her rank and forming external connections. Because of her father’s passive control over her, Emma has none of these opportunities. Even Fanny Price travels more and meets more people than Emma does. Yes, Emma Woodhouse is handsome, rich and clever and has had very little to vex her, but I suspect that is probably Emma’s own view of her life and it is not necessarily accurate.

Okay, this post is already far too long so I’ll end my discussion of the novel here. There’s also a lot that could be said about Jane and Frank, Emma and Mr. Knightley’s relationship and more, but Emma is clearly the most important and, honestly, the most in need of defence!

Onto the adaptations, and I’ll try to be brief:

1. The Gwyneth Paltrow film. Jeremy Northan is divine though his hair could be better and he’s not my favourite Mr. Knightley, even if I do have a massive crush on JN. Harriet Smith is a not particularly attractive redhead which is… weird. Frank Churchill is Ewan McGregor but he has appalling hair so IDK what was going on there - such a missed opportunity. Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma is a casting disgrace and I honestly can’t bear to watch this film because every time she is on screen I cringe. The producers were more interested in the aesthetic than making a good adaptation. My grandma hated it. Enough said.

2. The Kate Beckinsale film. Honestly, I don’t dislike anything about this except that I wish it were a mini-series and the proposal scene is a bit… eh. But I think it manages to stay true to the book in a feature film and I love Kate Beckinsale’s Emma. She has the right mix of liveliness and arrogance for me. Mark Strong is a stern Mr. Knightley but he’s not too handsome. Frank Churchill is perfect in this adaptation. Controversially, this is my favourite period adaptation.

3. The Romola Garai miniseries. I love lots about this mainly because the length allows everything to be expanded suitably. Johnny Lee Miller is the best Knightley by far. The Eltons are fabulous. Frank and Jane’s relationship gets more time dedicated to it. The Westons and Bateses are great. Harriet Smith is dumbed down too much - she’s naive and not too bright but this adaptation makes her practically an idiot, almost as much a disservice as the 2005 P&P film’s character assassination of Bingley, though physically the actress is perfect and she’s very likeable. And I really do appreciate what they were trying to do with Emma. It was clearly an informed choice to make her bubbly and often silly and a chosen interpretation of the text and I respect that - better that than wilful misinterpretation which some adaptations go in for. I fundamentally disagree with it - whatever her faults, I don’t think Emma is silly and giggly and I struggle to believe this Emma is a 21 year old woman secure in her position as a social leader. Her mannerisms often come across very modern - her little waves, giggles and posture and this is very irritating because Romola Garai has done some fantastic period acting (Daniel Deronda, The Hour etc.) and these mannerisms aren’t consistent across the cast. I love Romola Garai and I think it’s an interesting choice of direction, but not one that rings true to how I see the character though.

4. Clueless. Clearly the best adaptation of Emma ever made. We all know it.

5. Emma Approved. Only seen a bit of it and didn’t warm to it. Should probably give it another go. Why did they change Knightley’s name to Alex? What the hell is wrong with George!?!?

Anyway, here are my thoughts on Emma. Hope they’re at least somewhat interesting. There is nothing I like better than rambling on about Jane Austen! :-) Thank you for giving me the opportunity!

[questionsonislam]

Some people suffer troubles and misfortunes in this world while others do not. Are those who are not hit by misfortunes very lucky?

Due to the nature of man, every individual feels the need of what he lacks. On the other hand, a person who has everything does not appreciate what he has and usually is unaware of those bounties like a prodigal inheritor. It will be appropriate to explain the issue through the following example:

While a child who has no shoes is crying, he suddenly sees a crippled child without feet. He becomes terrified, stops crying and says "O Lord! Thank you that I have my feet; I am so lucky; please forgive me..."; thus, he becomes content.

Then, people should be thankful. They must know well and appreciate the value of the things that they have.

To sum up, we should look at those who are inferior to us and console ourselves. We should look at those who are superior to us in terms of wealth and knowledge and try to catch up with them.

Man always sought justice in this world. First of all, it is necessary to know that there is no true justice in the world. Absolute justice will occur on the Day of Judgment. The world is a place of training and testing. Here, there are very complex issues that the mind cannot realize and that our feelings and faculties cannot understand. Let us give some examples.

Visible rays account for only about 4% of the lights. The other lights include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Radio, Television, IKS, ultrasound, infrared, ultraviolet, Mion, Laser, Radar and other cosmic rays; they are invisible. Then, we can only see 4% of the lights and cannot see the remaining 96%. Therefore, statistically what we think that we see remains uncertain. That is, we see very little.

If we consider the sense of touch, it is not possible for us to recognize so many tiny beings that our eyes cannot see and the big beings like the galaxies and planets in the distance.

The power of our other senses is as weak as the sense of touch and it is not enough for us to understand everything.

However, beyond the emotions, we have a very valuable being called the "mind". We must complete our weak aspects with it. As a matter of fact, many devices have been made and many unknown things have become known thanks to the mind. However, the number of the unknown things is not few.

Thanks to the mind, we can also examine the reasons of some imbalances in this world. For example: Let us think about a baby that has been created with a congenital limb deficiency.

As some of us think, the birth of such a baby can never be called "God's injustice". There are great lessons for those who use their mind regarding that baby; there are signs in this painting for a person who uses his mind.

Many people sacrifice their lives so that their country can be saved, and others can continue to live on the territory of the country thanks to martyrs and veterans.

In this world, which is the property of God, God Almighty wants the humankind continue to exist and live peacefully. Therefore, other people are expected to thank and be content with their situation. In general, a person who is healthy and sound thinks that everybody is healthy and sound. One can notice that his healthy and sound body is a grant of God only when he sees handicapped people. That is why, the people who are considered as poor and handicapped people by us serve humanity greatly so that they will find the way to salvation. Therefore, I think they are blessed people like martyrs and veterans in the sight of God. However, man is far from understanding the wisdom behind this issue and similar ones. The handicapped and diseased people themselves may not be aware of this preordainment of God Almighty.

Then, we will express it again: There is no injustice in the world regarding the case of births with congenital defects or those injured later. There are very significant services and profound wisdom regarding their cases. On the one hand, other people are expected to see them and thank God and feel content. On the other hand, people are reminded that they should avoid alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, exposure to harmful radiation, diseases and other harmful things and hazards, and that otherwise their offspring might be deformed as the handicapped people.

Despite those grants and bounties of God Almighty, the number of unwise, thoughtless, emotionless, ungrateful and selfish people is increasing along with the number of handicapped people day by day.

Likewise, it is known that the illegitimate adoption, divorces, severe conflicts in the families, which are contrary to the orders of God, increase juvenile delinquencies. However, if man still looks for peace of mind and happiness with his numb and so to speak blind state despite those wonderful exemplary situations, he will not be able to find them. If the young generation does not see the mistakes of their parents and if they do not walk in the true path, it is necessary to be even more pessimistic for the future generations of humanity.

We have stated that troubles and misfortunes are the price of the mistakes that believers made in this world. However, sinless and innocent people are also affected by those troubles and misfortunes and their lives and property may also be harmed. At this point, the question that comes to mind first is, "is it not possible that only the sinners be affected by them not the innocent people?"

The following is stated in the verse,

"And fear tumult or oppression which affecteth not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong and know that Allah is strict in punishment.."(al-Anfal, 8/25)

There are certain lessons that we must take from this verse. However, the first thing that comes to mind is "why misfortunes also affect innocent people along with oppressors." In other words, when a misfortune occurs, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater; that is, the innocent people also lose their lives and property.

The answer to it lies in the fact that this world is a place of experience and testing. That is, if misfortunes hit only the oppressors and sinners and the innocent and sinless people were protected from them, a situation opposite to the mystery of testing would occur.

"An earthquake happens and only the sinners die under the buildings that collapse; the other people are saved; a flood hits a place and the oppressors are drowned but the innocent people are saved by an unseen hand. The sinners who hear about it start to repent because they think that they will be hit by misfortunes if they do not repent."

As a necessity of testing, when a misfortune occurs, it encompasses both the good ones and the bad ones together. Thus, the mystery of testing is not lost. If the good people were to be saved and only the bad people were to be harmed, the mystery of testing would be lost. People who have spirits like Abu Bakr and people who have spirits like Abu Jahl would be in the same level. Therefore, innocent people are sometimes exposed to oppression. However, misfortunes become atonement for their sins and increase their ranks. If those who are exposed to misfortunes are children who are not of age yet, it is expected from the mercy of God Almighty, who doesnot neglect to reckon even a very small good or bad deed, to give them more happiness than other children in the hereafter.

Regarding these misfortunes, great rewards of God Almighty’s mercy is in question for innocent people. The ephemeral goods of those sinless and innocent people become sadaqa and are transformed into permanent goods; their lives that end make them gain a kind of martyrdom that enables them to have an eternal life. Doubtlessly, it is not something unimportant to gain a great and eternal happiness in return for a small and temporary pain in the world.

Those who oppress others will be punished in this world or in the hereafter. Therefore, justice will be carried out. Those who were oppressed will get their due from the oppressors and they will be rewarded by God because they were oppressed despite being innocent; they will be granted endless bounties. When those people who were oppressed despite being innocent are asked about their situations in the hereafter, they will say, "We received great rewards in return for little trouble and we saw that the oppressors were punished in return for their oppression; we are glad."

Moreover, those people who are exposed to such oppression might receive various grants of God as a sign of His mercy.

God does not oppress anyone. He never ignores to punish those who oppress others though He sometimes delays it.

“No one can have more mercy than God.

No one can have more wrath than God.”

[patriotsnet]

Why Some Republicans Are Feeling Shame

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-some-republicans-are-feeling-shame/

Why Some Republicans Are Feeling Shame

Who Are These People

Why some conservatives feel targeted by social media companies

Earlier this week, as the challenge by congressional Republicans of the choice of electors by six states loomed ahead of us, I shared with my spouse how miserably dispirited I had become as an American citizen. The realization weighed heavily on me that I have nothing in common with nearly half the electorate in this country: not my social values and attitudes; not my political beliefs and allegiances; not the value that my ethical sensibilities place on rationality, cooperation and the common good; not even my fundamental moral principles.

I cannot relate to these others, nor do I want to. I already know what they represent, and what they represent, I despise. I feel alienated from them. They make me feel that I am a stranger in my own homeland. I suppose the alienation felt is mutual between us. But I cannot reach out to them. Like addicts, they need to recognize and claim their own demons and crawl away from them. Neither I nor anybody else can do that for them. This may be a harsh and uncharitable comparison. But I would be dishonest with myself to think and to say otherwise.;

Steven Pokorny, Urbandale

Senate Republicans Are Bathed In Shame

Theres no impartial justice, just protection of Trump at all costs.

By Frank Bruni

Opinion Columnist

The impeachment trial of Donald John Trump began on Thursday when John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States, directed all of the senators to stand and raise their right hands. Ever since I cant get two questions out of my head.

The first: How in Gods name and it was in Gods name can the Republicans who have already decided to acquit President Trump take a solemn oath to administer impartial justice? Theyre partial to the core, unabashedly so, as their united march toward a foregone conclusion shows. A mind-meld this ironclad isnt a reflection of facts. Its a triumph of factionalism.

The majority of the partys senators have said outright or clearly signaled that they have no intention of finding the president guilty and removing him from office. Yapping lap dogs like Lindsey Graham and obedient manservants like Mitch McConnell have gone further, mocking the whole impeachment process.

So the oath they took: How does that work? Did they cross the fingers on their left hands? Do they reason that American politics has reached a nadir of such fundamental hypocrisy and overweening partisanship that no one regards that pledge as anything but window dressing?

If there were nothing to this, why would Trump stonewall Congress to the extent that he has? Thats not how the innocent act.

A pathological liar, Cruz called Trump.

What To Watch For

It is highly unlikely Cruz or Hawley will resign or be forced out, but their political prospects both within and outside the senate appeared to have dimmed. In addition to alienating possible donors, one anonymous Republican senator told Politico the caucus would face a reckoning over Hawley and Cruz.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Are There In The Senate

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it with startling results

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today? Democrats guessed 50%. Its actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe most police are bad people. Republicans estimated half; its really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the studys findings: the wilder a persons guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

This effect, the report says, is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree. And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

Should the US participate in the Paris climate accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do? A majority of voters in both parties said yes.

Our Very Right To Vote Under Fire

The foundation of the American democracy is the absolute right of the people to choose their own leaders through the ballot box. Historians label this the sovereignty of the people. We are our own authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order.

This absolute right of the people is under severe attack. Many of our fellow citizens believe that votes legitimately cast and counted are illegitimate. I do not know how or even if we will return to a culture of trust in the sovereignty of the people, and if we cannot go back, how will American democracy survive?

;Karen Merrick, Guttenberg

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Hes Destroyed Conservatism: The Republican Case Against Trumps Gop

Stuart Stevens was a winning GOP operative. Now he feels terrible about what hes done to the country.

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Link Copied

Michael Grunwald is a senior staff writer for;Politico Magazine.

Stuart Stevens spent four decades helping Republicansa lot of Republicanswin. Hes one of the most successful political operatives of his generation, crafting ads and devising strategies for President George W. Bush, Republican presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, and dozens of GOP governors, senators and congressmen. He didnt win every race, but he thinks he had the best won-lost record in Republican campaign world.

And now he feels terrible about it.

Stevens now believes the Republican Party is, not to put too fine a point on it, a malign force jeopardizing the survival of American democracy. Hes written a searing apologia of a book called It Was All a Lie that compares his lifelong party to the Mafia, to Bernie Madoffs fraud scheme, to the segregationist movement, even to the Nazis. Hes pretty disillusioned.

It Was All a Lie is really about the party that spawned Trump and now marches in near-lockstep behind himthe party to which 67-year-old Stevens has devoted his career. The GOPs abject surrender to its unorthodox and unconservative leader was a surprise to Stevens, but he has concluded that he shouldnt have been surprised.

Aboard Mitt Romney’s campaign plane in Sept. 2012, senior adviser Stuart Stevens speaks to the press. | AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Hart Is Doing The Right Thing

I know Rita Hart personally and in my experience, she is the kind of person who is always trying to do the right thing, even if its difficult and an uphill battle.

Hart would likely win if just the uncounted 22 ballots were counted, but she is going a step further to ensure everyone can be confident in the election outcome by asking for a full recount. In a situation like this, a bipartisan commission in the U.S. House will likely ask the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to conduct the recount so we can trust that politics will not interfere with the review of the election.

It is commendable that Hart is fighting to protect our sacred right to vote and the trustworthiness of our elections. Every vote must be counted to ensure Iowans continue to have confidence in their election system. Count every vote

;Maria Dickmann, Davenport

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

Executive Action Is A Slippery Slope

The rationale given by the editorial board Jan. 3 to have Joe Biden issue executive orders to undo Donald Trumps executive orders is that some issues are too important to just wait for Congress. ;

Im sure this was the belief of Barack Obama when he issued his orders and the belief of Trump when he issued his orders. In other words, this rationale could be employed by any president at any time and it poses a real danger to the separation of legislative power and executive power provided by the U.S. Constitution. ;

Do the board members really want to combine these powers in the office of the presidency ?

Lonny Wilson,;West Des Moines

Democrats Werent Violent But Chose A Different Dishonorable Path

Why Do We Feel Shame?

I agree with the Jan. 7 letter Shame, shame, with the closing statement, This is one of the saddest days in our history.

And yes, when Trump won in 2016 there was no mob violence by Democrats. There was just four years of disbelief by the Democrats that Trump won and four years of trying to impeach him.

William D. Blohm, Carroll

Read Also: Who Makes More Money Democrats Or Republicans

Why Some Republicans Are Feeling Shame

Back in the fall, when Donald Trump dubbed Jeb Bush low-energy, Carlos Gimenez grew a little concerned. By last month, when Marco Rubio and Trump engaged in childish name-calling, the Republican mayor of Miami-Dade County thought the GOP presidential race had gotten out of hand. Now, after a tawdry week that has focused on the wives of Trump and Ted Cruz, Gimenez is certain that the race has moved totally out of bounds.

Politics is a contact sport, Gimenez said, but there should be contact in other ways.

Gimenez is watching with disgust, as are many Republicans across the country, as his partys presidential race turns into a tabloid talk show. After a winter that featured anatomical insults, violent clashes at rallies, and fierce accusations of lying and dirty tricks, Republicans say the past week has been particularly dispiriting.

At a moment when the party had hoped to turn its attention to;a general-election matchup against Hillary Clinton, Republicans were instead caught in;an;uncomfortable back-and-forth over allegations of adultery and jabs at the physical appearance of the wives of Trump and Cruz.

That dispute took on renewed vigor Sunday, when the two candidates went at it again on the morning shows.

Dont forget, I call him Lying Ted. I call him that because nobody that Ive known Ive known a lot tougher people over the years in business, but Ive never known anybody that lied like Ted Cruz, Trump said.

Republicans Said President Obama Would Raise Taxes Sky High

It never happened. Income taxes for over 95% of Americans remained the same or lower than they were before Obama was elected. The only people whose income taxes increased were those who make more than $400,000 per year, and their taxes rose only 3%. For most Americans, taxes are still lower now than they were under Reagan.

Don’t Miss: Can Republicans Vote In The Democratic Primary In South Carolina

Conflict Over Health Vs The Economy

Masks are also linked to the broader debate about the disease threat from the coronavirus versus and the devastating impact that social distancing has had on our economy. This controversy again has fallen out on political lines, with the right placing a relatively greater emphasis than the left on the need to restart the economy.

Within this debate, some may see masks as playing up the disease side of this balancing act, while those who don’t wear masks might be seen as prioritizing a swift return to normalcy over concerns about health and safety.

Why Republican Voters Say Theres No Way In Hell Trump Lost

By Brad Brooks, Nathan Layne, Tim Reid

12 Min Read

SUNDOWN, Texas – Brett Fryar is a middle-class Republican. A 50-year-old chiropractor in this west Texas town, he owns a small business. He has two undergraduate degrees and a masters degree, in organic chemistry. He attends Southcrest Baptist Church in nearby Lubbock.

Fryar didnt much like Donald Trump at first, during the U.S. presidents 2016 campaign. He voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.

Now, Fryar says he would go to war for Trump. He has joined the newly formed South Plains Patriots, a group of a few hundred members that includes a reactionary force of about three dozen – including Fryar and his son, Caleb – who conduct firearms training.

Nothing will convince Fryar and many others here in Sundown – including the towns mayor, another Patriots member – that Democrat Joe Biden won the Nov. 3 presidential election fairly. They believe Trumps stream of election-fraud allegations and say theyre preparing for the possibility of a civil war with the American political left.

If President Trump comes out and says: Guys, I have irrefutable proof of fraud, the courts wont listen, and Im now calling on Americans to take up arms, we would go, said Fryar, wearing a button-down shirt, pressed slacks and a paisley tie during a recent interview at his office.

This is dystopian, Light said. America could fracture.

THERES JUST NO WAY

NO WAY IN HELL

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are Running For President

Republicans Said Waterboarding And Other Forms Of Enhanced Interrogation Are Not Torture And Are Necessary In Fighting Islamic Extremism

In reality, waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation that inflict pain, suffering, or fear of death are outlawed by US law, the US Constitution, and international treaties. Japanese soldiers after World War II were prosecuted by the United States for war crimes because of their use of waterboarding on American POWs.

Professional interrogators have known for decades that torture is the most ineffective and unreliable method of getting accurate information. People being tortured say anything to get the torture to end but will not likely tell the truth.

An FBI interrogator named Ali Soufan was able to get al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah to reveal crucial information without the use of torture. When CIA interrogators started using waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods, Zubaydah stopped cooperating and gave his interrogators false information.

Far from being necessary in the fight against terrorism, torture is completely unreliable and counter-productive in obtaining useful information.

Shame Can Last A Lifetime If We Let It

Find a therapist near me

Shame is one of the hardest emotions to talk about. It can also be the hardest emotion to recognize in ourselves, and it can feel the most painful. So, what is shame and how do we know if were feeling it?

Shame is often confused with embarrassment or guilt. Embarrassment arises when the way we want people to see us isnt the way they do. We want people to think were cool, but then we walk out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to our shoe. The feeling usually doesnt last long. Guilt arises when we think weve broken societys or our own moral code. We feel guilty when we lie, for example. Guilt can last a long time, but we usually know that well feel better when we come clean.

Shame can last a lifetime if we let it. It isnt caused by a single event, but an amassing of wounds to our self-worth. We feel guilty when we think weve done something wrong and embarrassed or humiliated when weve erred in public. But we feel shame when we think we are wrong. We may feel powerless to change whatever it is that makes us feel it, which then leads us to feel even more of it. Shame can feel unfixable, because it binds to all emotions. So even when we feel good, we can feel shamelike we dont deserve it.

Its never too late. Love yourself and forgive yourself. Begin today.

Read Also: How Many Registered Republicans Are In The United States

Senator Grassley Was It Worth It

Dear Senator Grassley:

It was impossible to not see the events of Jan. 6 as inevitable.;Some in your Republican Party are assigning blame to the president, acknowledging the role he played. ;

The blame for the;insurrection, loss of life, and the tenuous state of our democracy lies elsewhere.;Truth be known, anyone paying attention knew who Mr. Donald Trump was, and remains: a lawless, narcissistic, racist, immoral, and corrupt human being.;More could be said. ;

Perhaps it is time for you to accept responsibility for the indisputable role you played in empowering this despot.;The examples of his malfeasance in office are legion. ;

You had a chance to put an end to;Trump’s tyranny when you cast your senatorial vote after House impeachment.;The evidence of his offense could not have been clearer,;ignored by you and everyone in your party,;save for Sen. Mitt Romney, your own former presidential nominee. ;

Repercussions of your cowardice, including the treatment of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a whistle-blower, which you made a career off pretending to protect, are too numerous to count.;Your tepid statements supporting other whistle-blowers who were also subjected to vicious attacks, and the rarity of public admonitions of these and other wrongdoings, are a disgrace to your office. ;;

Nevertheless, you certainly have achieved what must have been foremost in your agenda.;You personally helped to pack the Supreme Court, and countless other lifetime appointments have been confirmed. ;

Republicans Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Would Kill Jobs And Hurt The Economy

Why are Shame & Trauma so Connected?

There is far more evidence to the contrary. Cities and states that have higher minimum wages tend to have better rates of job creation and economic growth.

Detailed analyses show that job losses due to increases in the minimum wage are almost negligible compared to the economic benefits of higher wages. Previous increases in the minimum wage have never resulted in the dire consequences that Republicans have predicted.

Republicans have accused President Obama of “cutting defense spending to the bone”. This chart of 2014 discretionary spending firmly disproves that argument.

Also Check: How Many Senate Seats Do The Republicans Have Right Now

[devhak22]

Discourse on Inequality (1755)

By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

As translated by Franklin Philip

The book itself is a mildy dry read, but not terribly so as it brings forward much fodder for thought, and plenty of insight into the realm of the political and social situation of western Europe in the 1700s. It is notable the that 'Notes' section at the end is very intreguing and well worth the read.

Rousseau presents a convincing and logical order for the devolpment of human cultural evolution, though, understandably, due in part to technological limitations, lacks a concrete timeline, much of which has been substantiated by modern scientific and historical studies. There are definitely ideas that are likely to be precursors to the theory of evolution presented throughout this piece of literature, especially as concerning the connections between humans and great apes.

In the language and worldview of his time, Rousseau describes those living in a more natural state as 'savages', but also shows a longing to experience what he seems to perceive to be a more innocent time of cultural history, before the growth of modern civilization created vast inequalities among its members. The cyclical nature of society does not return it to that of the natural society, but rather in turn brings economic decline to the majority, including primary producers (farmers), so that luxuries are increasingly reserved for the most wealthy, which escalates social and economic declines for the majority, expanding the wealth gap.

In essence, supposedly civilized persons live lives of servitude and control, while those under a more natural inclination live a life of independence and peace. And to put one in the situation of the other would bring about despair. Much of the luxuries provided in the 'wealthy' societies may cause more anxiety than they're worth. Keep in mind there is a difference between the provision of clean drinking water, and the acquisition of fancier and expensive, but ultimately unnecessary, novelties.

Much of the views expressed in this book are quite relevant to the turbulant political and economic situation at present, but there is hope, as appropriate social systems integrate to improve equality, including access to health and education, across the board.

Notable quotations:

'...as he was well aware, nostalgia for the simple life is itself a byproduct of advancing civilization.' ~ Patrick Coleman, Introduction, p. xi.

'The concept of perfectability provides a key to human history, but it is not connected to a goal, either of biological adaptation or of moral perfection.' ~ Patrick Coleman, Introduction, p. xx.

'Indeed, it seems that I am obligated to do no evil to my fellow man, it is less because he is a rational being than because he is a sentient being—a property that, because it is common to both animals and men, should at least give the beast the right to not be needlessly mistreated by man.' ~ Preface, p. 18.

'When we think of the good constitution of the savages—at least of those we have not devestated with our hard spirits—and realize that they have almost no afflictions except wounds and old age, we are much inclined to believe that the history of human ailments could be written by tracing that of civilized societies.' ~ Part I, p. 30.

'...the first man who made himself clothes and a lodging was supplying himself with things that were hardly necessary, for he had hitherto done without them and it is hard to see why as a grown man he could not tolerate the kind of life he had tolerated since his infancy.' ~ p. 32.

'I would observe that the peoples of the North show generally more industriousness than those of the South because they are less able to forego this attrubute, as though nature had chosen to equal things out by giving men's minds the fertility it denied the soil.' ~ p. 35.

'Let us bear in mind how many ideas we owe to the use of speech, how much grammar facilitates and trains the operations of the mind. Let us think of the incredible exertion and infinite time that the original invention of language must have cost. Put these thoughts together, and you may imagine how many thousands of centuries were required for the successive development of all the operations of which the mind is capable. ~ p. 37.

'Which was more necessary, a previously established society for the invention of language, or a previously invented language for the invention of society?' ~ p. 42.

'Now I would like to have it explained to me what kind of misery could exist in a free being whose heart is at peace and whose body is healthy: I ask what kind of life—civilized or natural—is more apt to become unbearable to those who experience it? Around us we see people almost all of whom complain of their existence and even several of whom renounce it as much as possible; and divine and human law together do little to arrest this disorder. I wonder whether anyone has heard of the free savage who ever dreamt of complaining about his life or killing himself?' ~ p. 43.

'...not only does education determine a difference between minds that are cultivated and those that are not, but it increases the difference between cultivated minds in proportion to their cultures...'~ p. 51.

'When we compare the great diversity in upbringing and ways of life that prevail among various classes in the civil state with the simplicity and uniformity in animal and savage life, where every creature eats of the same foods, lives in the same manner, and does exactly the same things, we understand how much less the difference between man and man must be in the state of nature than in society, and how much natural inequality must have increased in the human species through the effects of institutionalized inequality.' ~ p. 52.

'The founder of civil society was the first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine', and came across people simple enough to believe him. How many crimes, wars, murders and how much misery and horror the human race might have been spared if someone had pulled up the stakes or filled the ditch, and cried out: 'Beware of listening to this charlatan. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth itself belongs to no one!'' ~ Part II, p. 55.

'Each person began to gaze on the others and to want to be gazed upon himself, and what came to be prized was public esteem. Anyone who best sang or danced; he who was the most handsome, the strongest, the most skilful, or the most eloquent came to be the most highly regarded, and this was the first step to inequality and also vice.' ~ p. 60.

"Where there is no property, there is no injury." ~ Locke, p. 61.

'Finally, in all men a consuming ambition, the burning passion to increase one's relative fortune, less out of real need than to make oneself superior to others, inspires a dark propensity to harm each other, a secret jealousy that is all the more dangerous because, to strike out from a more secure position, it often assumes the mask of benevolence; in short, we have competition and rivalry on the one hand, and antagonistic interests on the other, and always the hidden desire to gain some advantage at other people's expense. All these evils are the first effects of property and the inseparable escort of nascent inequality. ~ p. 66.

'All ran headlong for their chains in the belief that they were securing their liberty; for although they had enough reason to see the advantages of political institutions, they did not have enough experience to foresee the dangers. Those most capable of predicting the abuses were precisely the ones who counted on profiting from them; and the wise ones saw that men must sacrifice one part of their freedom in order to preserve the other, just as a wounded man has his arm cut off to save the rest of his body.' ~ p. 68-9.

'...according to the law of nature, the father is the child's master only as long as his help is needed and that beyond this point the two are equals, the son becoming perfectly independant of his father and owing his elder only respect and not obedience, for gratitude is clearly a duty to be owed and not a right to be demanded.' ~ p. 73.

'It thus seems to me certain that governments did not originate in arbitrary power, which is only the endpoint in the corruption of governments, one that eventually brings them back to the very law of the strongest that they were first introduced to remedy; but even if they did begin this way, such power is inherently illegitimate and hence could not serve as the basis for rights in society, nor, hence, for the established inequality in society.' ~ p. 75-6.

'The magistrate cannot usurp illegitimate power without finding operatives to whom he is forced to yield some part of it. Furthermore, citizens allow themselves to be oppressed only so far as they are impelled by blind ambition; and fixing their eyes below rather than above themselves, they relish domination more than independence, and agree to wear chains for the sake of in turn imposing chains on others. It is difficult to reduce to obedience a man who has no wish to command, and the most crafty politician could not succeed in subjugating men whose only wish was to be free; inequality, however, readily spreads the craven and ambitious souls, ever ready to run the risks of fortune and almost indifferent about whether they command or obey, depending on which is more advantageous to them.' P. 79.

'It is not without difficulty that we have managed to make ourselves so unhappy.' ~ Notes, p. 94.

'...man in society does not have a moment of respite.' ~ p. 96

'Luxury is a remedy much worse than the evil it claims to cure, or rather it is itself the worst of evils in any state, whether small or large; and feeds the crowds of lackeys and poor people it creates, luxury crushes and ruins the farmer and the townsman.' ~ p. 99.

'...we know that most animals, and man is no exception, are naturally lazy, and take no more pains than absolutely necessary.' ~ p. 105.

'However much individuals come and go, it seems that philosophy does not travel, so true is it that the philosophy of one nation is ill-suited for another.' ~ p. 107.

[thetheoryofwriting-blog]

The Writing Classroom Should Worry Less About the Structure of Writing and Language, and More About the Purpose of Writing and Language:

To introduce the intention of this claim I will share my experience as an English major to communicate to my audience my personal experience as a tool to promote or develop this claim even more. As a young-professional in the realm of English academia I found myself in this rather liminal place in which I questioned why I was learning how to be a writer when all I was being taught was how to not write incorrectly. 

The texts I was studying as examples to the lessons I was learning did not represent me or any of my intersectional identifiers through this previously stated language of experience. For a while I believed the purpose of my writing to be the need to write correctly. However, this made no sense to me. How can I know the purpose of my writing if I am being told that how I was writing was not correct to begin with? What I mean to say is that I was learning how to emulate authors that wrote about an experience completely different to my own. Men and women that did not talk or look like me. 

Gloria Anzaldua: 

Gloria Anzaldua, the writer of “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” is an example of a woman that was taught about the ways in which to write correctly but was not taught with the purpose of writing in mind. I make this assumption about Anzaldua because of what she writes in her text. 

“I cannot take pride in myself. Until I can accept as legitimate Chicano Texas Spanish, Tex-Mex, and all the other languages I speak, I cannot accept the legitimacy of myself. Until I am free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having always to translate, while I still have to speak English or Spanish when I would rather speak Spanglish, and as long as I have to accommodate the English speakers rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate,” (Anzaldua 39-40).

This quote might make more sense used as a tool to battle the hegemony of language; however, I think it does a great job at expressing Gloria’s purpose for writing. I find it also explains the idea I have expressed through my claim, that being the idea that writing classrooms focus too much on the structure of writing and language. Anzaldua yearns to write in a way that is true to her experience using writing and therefore the language in which she writes in as only a vehicle for her to share her experience. 

My Chicano family and I - Paris, France. Nov. 2018

I made a special connection to Anzaldua’s writing because of her experience as a Chicana. In QCC seven I wrote the following about my connection to this author, “The reality is that I was only made aware of this particular kind of writer and the cultural themes in Chicano writing because I made the choice to register for courses that studied Chicano literature. Had I not elected to learn about these authors, I would have never gotten to know their work,” (Ricardo).

Anzaldua, Gloria. “How to Tame a Wild Tongue.” P. 33-45. Web.

Mejia, Ricardo. QCC 7. Canvas. Fiu. Feb. 19, 2020. Web. 

[dfroza]

Love is an act of rebellion toward the outside world of control

that tends to go against its truth, in the fear of man and its bullying lie, when there is no fear in Love that is always True. there is only pure reverence and respect in Love. only Light.

in Love we find pure equality amongst men and women of all skin colors, despite the tragic History of hate that some people entertain. the world is insane and it certainly isn’t (yet) our “Home”

and we are called to be courageous in our stand on Love and its truth of rebirth as revealed by the Spirit of our beautiful mysterious Creator

(this is the True bravery of the heart that is founded upon grace)

and yes, natural life on earth isn’t easy. the world can be a depressed and anxious place to be in, hard to manage sometimes. hard to deal with all the emotions and its tragedies that occur. and some people have chosen to escape its madness, sadly by ending their own life. a dear friend of mind did so back in ‘95

but that isn’t the answer to life’s sadness.

and we certainly need to cling to hope while living in a temporary world in a temporal and imperfect body that ages with the passing of time. and so the hope of “Home” is vital then. a vital sign of life in the heart and its rebirth (inside, Anew)

track #6 from Down on the Upside (‘96) in a music video that depicts breaking free from the thought control of others

A point about having faith as opposed to fear in a set of posts written and shared on Facebook by John Parsons:

The emotion of fear profoundly affects the way the brain processes images and messages. Fear colors the way we see and hear things. And since the mind and body are intricately interconnected, fear is the root cause of many physiological problems such as heart disease, high blood pressure, clinical depression, and other ailments. Indeed, left unchecked, fear can be deadly...

Most of our negative emotions come from fearful thoughts, including anger, frustration, and rage. On a spiritual level, fear and worry can cause people to question God’s love, to doubt His promises, and so on. The devil knows that frightening people causes them to be unsettled, off-balance, and therefore vulnerable to all sorts of sickness, manipulation, and deception. Living in fear is a form of slavery (Heb. 2:15).

Logicians call illegitimate appeals to fear "argumentum ad baculum," or the “appeal to the stick.” When someone plays on your fears, it is wise to discern whether there is any basis in reality for the supposed threat, or if the appeal is simply a rhetorical scare tactic intended to persuade (coerce) you to accept some sort of conclusion. Unscrupulous people (such as advertisers, political groups and dictators) regularly use fear to manipulate public opinion, of course, and they are only too glad to tell you exactly what you should fear. They are delighted to prey upon your anxieties and then offer you their supposed “remedy.”

The war for truth began in the Garden of Eden, when Satan lied to Eve by saying that she wouldn’t die if she disobeyed God (Gen. 3:4). Satan cunningly played on Eve’s fear of being deceived to persuade her to disobey. Fear, then, is the emotional center of sin and the opposite of faith. The fearful are referred to as the “unbelieving” and those who “love and make a lie” (Rev. 21:8, 22:15).

God repeatedly tells us not to be afraid – not of man, nor of war, nor of tribulation, nor of various plagues, yea, nor even of death itself (Rom. 8:35-39). Indeed, one of the most frequently occuring commandments in Scripture is simply al-tirah, “Be not afraid.”

But how do we overcome our fear? Simply by wholeheartedly trusting that God is with us... The LORD will never leave nor forsake us, even if we are faced with difficult circumstances. The antidote to fear is heartfelt faith in God’s love (1 John 4:18). God saves us from our fears (Psalm 34:4, 2 Tim. 1:7). When we trust that God personally cares for us, we find comfort and courage to face life without fear. [Hebrew for Christians]

King Solomon wrote, “The fear of the LORD (יִרְאַת יְהוָה) adds days [to life], but the years of the wicked will be cut short” (Prov. 10:27). These “added days” of life include the appointed times and seasons (i.e., the moedim) when the veil of “everydayness” is lifted and we can glimpse the sacred. Living in dissonance with God’s will yields days that are shortened - by vanity, by dissipation, and by despair. And what good are length of days when they are filled with emptiness and illusion? Fearing God and keeping his commandments is the “end of the matter” (סוֹף דָּבָר) and the “whole duty” of our lives (Eccl. 12:13).

“The fear (anxiety) of man (חֶרְדַּת אָדָם) is a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD will be made safe” (Prov. 29:25). The fear that mankind engineers is a trap intended to shorten life, but the fear of the LORD (yirat Adonai) is life-giving and healing. Every day God makes miracles for people of which they are unaware. God didn’t create the universe and then remove Himself from its care: Yeshua sustains all things by the Word of His power and in Him all things “subsist” - τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν (Col. 1:17). Living in the light of God’s Presence reveals the daily bread that comes from Heaven, but those who refuse the truth find no lasting sustenance for the world to come... We all must believe that God is making miracles for us to live and grow in this age; otherwise we are not living in faith. [Hebrew for Christians]

2.26.20 • Facebook

Shalom friend... Do you sometimes have trouble trusting God? Do you wrestle with fear, anxiety, or worry? Does an inexplicable dread or sense of hopelessness sometimes oppress you? Do you secretly wonder what's wrong with you - and whether you are truly saved, after all? Please hang on. Doubting and questioning are often a part of the journey of faith, and we don't have to be afraid of our questions, concerns, and difficulties... Being full of "certainty" is not the same as being full of faith, after all, since many sincere people are sincerely self-deceived, and many people experience fear and trembling despite their faith. There is so much we simply do not know, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. God knows your heart, and he knows your secret fears. Thankfully, there is a special prayer included in the Scriptures for those times when we feel especially insecure: "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief..." (Mark 9:24) Here we bring our (lack of) faith to God for healing.

We should not be scandalized that we sometimes struggle with our faith. After all, Yeshua constantly tested his disciples: “Do you now believe?” (John 16:31). And that’s why we are commanded to "put off" the old nature and to "put on" the new nature -- because God knows we are fickle admixtures, contradictions, carnal-yet-spiritual, inwardly divided souls that need to learn to trust in the miracle of God with all our hearts....

Of course it's easy to believe when things are going well, when faith “makes sense” or provides you with a sense of community, etc., but when things are difficult, when there are disappointments, pain, grief, losses, etc., then you need to trust in the unseen good, the "hidden hand" of God's love, despite the trouble of your present circumstances. This is part of faith’s journey: leaning on God's care, despite the “valley of the shadow of death,” despite the tests... The way may sometimes be difficult, but "the tested genuineness of your faith -- more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire -- will be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Yeshua the Messiah" (1 Pet. 1:7). [Hebrew for Christians]

Faith is a matter of earnestness and heart. As Kierkegaard once said, "Truth is not something you can appropriate easily and quickly. You certainly cannot sleep or dream yourself into the truth. No, you must be tried, do battle, and suffer if you are to acquire truth for yourself" (Works of Love). Indeed "faith" that simply conforms or assents with a creedal formula may actually indicate doubt if it refuses to ask searching questions and to struggle through our limitations. Simply going to a church or religious assembly and mindlessly reciting (or assenting to) a prayer may therefore be a temptation against the true life of faith... Theology can become an evil if it no longer regards itself as a quest for truth as much as the protection of a belief system. A living faith realizes that God cannot be known by means of the rational intellect but by the agency of the heart quickened by the Holy Spirit. Faith pours out its heart to God like a child pleading with his father. Doesn't God call you his child? "You are children of the LORD your God" it says in our Scriptures (Deut. 14:1). When you trust God as your Father you are free to "come boldly" before him, sharing your thoughts, desires, feelings, joys, sorrows, and troubles without dread. [Hebrew for Christians]

2.27.20 • Facebook

[trusswork]

on transgenderism & metaphysics. ?

"But when trans folks are systematically reviled, mocked and disempowered; when they are disproportionately harassed by police, arrested and brutalized -- both on the street and in custody -- and when there are active campaigns or existing laws in many countries to deny them basic human rights, one cannot merely have a polite discussion about the nature of gender and sex. ... It is complicity with systemic violence and active encouragement of oppression. ...

It is not permissible to debate the lives of people who are oppressed and murdered. Those who treat this like an intellectual game should not be engaged with. They should be told to [unprintable here] [...] Every time.”

- Mark Lance, "Taking Trans Lives Seriously,” InsideHigherEd

When individuals are discriminated against in protected contexts -- for example law enforcement, education or medicine -- because of metaphysical claims that they make, this is unjust; we owe it to them to remedy the discriminatory behavior. But it is not illegitimate for us also to debate the sense and validity of the metaphysical claims, or to argue what nondiscriminatory consequences those claims may have.

Law enforcement and medicine, for example, can be held to proper standards of practice and care, with or without endorsing a metaphysics. (This can even extend to the courtesy and the grant of dignity involved in using preferred names and pronouns as reasonably possible (on pronouns, see more below) - the uproar over the inviolable sacredness of transgender names and pronouns, however, loses ground.  

My claim here, of course, is that while transgender persons’ claims to equitable treatment by law enforcement, doctors, schools, etc., are entirely legitimate, and should be enforced, transgender claims (and this, I think, is distinct from claims made by the gay community, for example, or by ethnic groups) generally go an additional step to become metaphysical in nature: after all, these claims are not, or not only, about feeling or thought, but also about reality; not about gender identity, but about (nonsubjective) gender itself. It is always secondary that the transwoman, for example, feels like woman, dresses as one, lives as one, or perhaps undergoes surgery to do so; the most important claim is that she IS one (that "transwomen are women, period” ...). Despite the deeply subjective experience of trans identity, the claim always ends by being objective.*

It is not enough, as with gay persons, to guarantee to trans persons the negative freedoms to love, to express themselves publicly, to cohabit, enjoy spousal benefits, marry, raise children; trans people want to do all of these things as well, but they want one thing more - to be regarded, in language as a marker of objective fact, as their transgender. “Homosexuality," by contrast, names a biological and/or psychological orientation, something certified potentially both by subjective expression and by evidence of behavior.````   “Transgenderism” somehow demands more: that, after an initial certification by the transgendered individual, those around the individual re-certify the individual's status from without, not via connections in evidence, but via a running show of respect for and belief in their declaration. Famously, this involves the use of the requested gendered names, words and pronouns -- including newly minted pronouns (zhe/zher are not the only ones expected in some quarters) -- to suit the case. Most famously, it involves public recognition of gender by admission to single-gender spaces (bathrooms, etc.). In short, this certification cannot take place unless, always and everywhere, the right language is used and the right positive permissions are given. Any withholding of this certification, in opinions such as Dr. Lance’s, is tantamount to violent assault; is any doubt and discussion to be regarded as mockery or abuse?^^^

Homosexual persons seek no such positive intervention:** letting them "be who they are” is a matter of classic liberal freedom and privacy, of leaving them in peace and all appropriate autonomy to live their lives. The gay individual does not expect to be positively (determinately) treated according to a special self-conception, as if some fact about him/herself (which might well be confusing or ambiguous to others) needs to be reflected back to him/her in language and programmed space. He/she expects to be let alone, more or less, to get on with things, as heterosexual persons are permitted to do.

Many African-Americans, to take another example, are even less eager for any metaphysics to be attached to their being (and this is true even where they are concerned with an identity politics of cultural cohesion and distinctiveness); such a metaphysics was, after all, the nightmare of the American nineteenth century, with its notions of the three-fifths person, its ethnologies of a race deemed less departed from animal ancestors, and so on. Respect and self-realization, for many African-Americans, involves being let alone in the freedoms and rights enjoyed by those around them - treated, if anything, less as though their skin color and ancestry comes with some special status of essential being.

But transgendered persons seem to require just such reflection to successfully be or become themselves,^ and the most interesting case is that of the pronoun. He/him, she/her, zhe/zher, and so on: the most important fact about all of them is that they are pronouns in the third person. They are used when an individual is spoken of, not spoken to (in which case the genderless, numberless “you” is still held to be appropriate). It is possible, of course, to contemplate many situations in which one would use the third person with the referent transgender person present: A says to B, in trans C’s presence, “C will help you with this job.” But fundamentally -- grammatically, logically and metaphysically -- the third person presumes the immediate absence of its referent. And so, when transgender person C is not so present, we are asked (never mind if the asking is too often a demand), by C or in C’s name, to use the requested pronouns. To police ourselves always to respect the metaphysics of that which we have learned that someone is -- an objective metaphysics which can only ever proceed from subjective certification (for no one can know for anyone else that they are transgender), from psychological certainty not just about feeling but about reality -- from what psychoanalysis called “fantasy”. (A transgender person may dress as their transgender, but need not; may undertake surgical alteration to approach as far as possible their transgender’s physiology, but need not; and so on. There are no sufficient outward facts that can deliver the truth of an individual’s transgenderism -- only the subjective say-so [not a fiat but an est] of the individual can do this; in the hazardous terms we have been forced to coin for children in this context, a say-so which is “ consistent, persistent, and insistent.” And yet, once the inward, subjective fact of transgenderism has been delivered, all of human reality must objectively reflect this fact in the objective worlds of language and space. This is a demand not simply for respect, but for belief - which can be defined, in a medieval-Aristotelian mode which seems to fit here, as metaphysical certainty, in this case not so different than that surrounding transubstantiation: a conviction that one is literally another.)

If we can adapt and truncate Nicolas Chamfort’s notion that “love is the exchange of two fantasies,” we can begin to see what is asked for at this extent by the transgendered individual: that we negatively free them from unjust restraint, yes; that we render them all “basic human rights”, yes; but also that we join in their fantasy, their psychological certainty (physically and behaviorally reflected more, or less, or even not at all) about the metaphysics of their being. It is not enough to treat a transwoman as a woman (indeed, this alone would be condescending) -- we must believe that she (she) is a woman. The transgendered individual is, by Chamfort’s lights, asking of society at large what the gay individual does not ask: to be not merely let alone, not merely protected, but lovedin their reality. Believed. I will say that you are a capitalist, a mother, a teacher, a ruler, a criminal, a victim, a soldier, a seeker, a child of God, a miraculous mass of cells and water and energy, if you will say that I am woman or that I am a man. This is the exchange of fantasies. And who is to say that the mutual owing of such belief is not the future. It is very painful, after all, to have one’s vision of reality denied - to be disbelieved, for example, that this event happened, or happened in this way. How much more painful to be disbelieved, not when one says I feel like this person (for this statement, assuming good faith, can never be disbelieved, because it can never be inaccurate), but when one says I AM this person, or that I am this person in this way (a definition of gender).^^

Here, for now, we can pause in the “complicit[y]” and the “intellectual game” about which Dr. Lance frets. (And if this kind of discussion is an intellectual game, certainly Dr. Lance condemns all of philosophy, whether the social stakes are high or low; perhaps only discussions of abstruse topics like Kantian metaphysics, for example, are safe from this terrible complicity in oppression; and yet it is metaphysics we have been debating ...)

NOTES

*  One interesting specimen of buy-in to this metaphysics can be found in the mainstream western press, who are scrupulous in avoiding misgendering or “deadnaming” trans people in their reporting. Caitlyn Jenner, to use the easiest example, is always "Caitlyn" and she/her; commonsense historical references to 'when she was known as Bruce Jenner’ and the like are used, but for the most part, a vaguely Orwellian overwriting of this person’s physiological and psychological history is preferred.

````  I am indebted to Brian Leiter’s post’s remarks on potential nonsubjective aspects of homosexual identity.

^^^  Holly Lawford-Smith: “Perhaps there is simply a fundamental moral disagreement over the extent to which a person’s internally experienced identity matters, and should be respected and affirmed by others.”

Also worth considering is another remark of HLS, positing (or at least most usefully suggesting) that feminists might argue “that we should act as if trans women are truly women, even if we know they are not,” even if HLS notes that such a rationale would not pass public outrage muster, and that accepting it would demolish (could say reframe) the transgender project. Treating transwomen as if they were women, i.e., as a heuristic device, might help us to realize that ideal stated near the start of this post, that all reasonable care and responsibility can be given and taken without subscribing to a literal metaphysics -- that while it will not be possible for a doctor to examine a person with a penis as though they had female genitals, or to meaningfully and professionally discuss menstruation (and so “transwomen are women” cannot mean, “transwomen have female genitals,” the area of the discourse that tends to cross over into thick fantasy, see below), the doctor can accord all standards that comport with the anatomy and the psychology presented.

**  This is not really accurate to say: as soon as gay persons seek access to the law of marriage (thence spousal rights, etc.), which has historically been predicated on gender, they petition for a positive intervention. (Indeed, have transgender persons had a smoother road to marriage because their insistence on literal re-gendering comports with that predication; a man and a transwoman may have been easier for statute to accommodate than two men. What has the law been here?) The seeking of marriage rights for gay people does also come closest to transgendered persons seeking access to single-sex spaces (which they wish, essentially, to make single-gender spaces); the difficulty emerges because, in the gay marriage case, acquiescence of all parties is a given.

^  Hegelianism and a range of psychoanalytic theory will object that reflection is essential to selfhood of all types; while this is convincing, I suggest that such an assertion speaks of autonomous or at least emergent processes; transgender identity seems to seek positively to engineer such reflection on a comprehensive scale, and from the standpoint of a consciousness which seems, to this extent, quite already sufficiently formed ..

^^  From a philosophy of mind standpoint, feelings may of course be objective facts as well; and yet not of the same kind as gender-facts, physiological or other. Nevertheless, I do not assert that there is no room for confusion, as ever, at the subjective/objective interfaces.

[worshipmoment]

Seven Indicators of True Salvation

Seven Indicators of True Salvation If you were put on trial for being a Christian, would the evidence of your life be overwhelmingly clear that you know Christ and that He knows you? Genuine salvation is a life-changing experience. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come”(2 Cor. 5: 17). Good works do not remove sins, nor can they save anyone. But after a person is genuinely saved and is truly transformed by Christ, specific good works will start showing up as evidence or proof of their salvation. These seven things are not the cause or roots of salvation, but they are the fruits of true salvation. The book of 1 John gives us seven key indicators of genuine salvation revealing that someone is truly saved and knows God.

 A lifestyle of obedience to God. Though Christians stumble and make mistakes, the big picture direction and habit of a true believer becomes one of submission and obedience to Christ. They will want to read and follow God’s Word. The Holy Spirit in their lives bends them toward greater and greater obedience. What about you? Have you been living a lifestyle of obedience toward God? “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked”(1 John 2:3–6).

 A confession of Jesus as the Christ, God’s Son. First John 2:22–23 says, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.” While cults communicate that Jesus was merely a good teacher or prophet, God’s Word says He is the Christ, the sinless Son of God, and the Lord of all. Do you openly confess that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, or do you believe Him to be merely a good teacher or prophet? 

A lifestyle of repentance of sin. Jesus said, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”(Luke 13:3). Though we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2), true believers will be confessing and turning away from sin, while false believers will not. First John 3:9–10 says, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”

Genuine love for other believers. “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him”(1 John 3:14–15). God’s Spirit pours out God’s love into the hearts of God’s children (Rom. 5: 5; Gal. 5: 22). Do you have a genuine love for other believers?

The discipline of God your Father. “See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are”(1 John 3:1). Even as a loving earthly father disciplines his children, God promises to discipline His children when they get out of line. He says this is one of the evidences of true salvation. “God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons… All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness”(Heb.12:7–8, 11). Have you experienced the clear discipline of your heavenly Father in your life?

The presence of God’s Holy Spirit. “This is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us”(1 John 3:24). If you are a true believer, then God’s Spirit is in you and will testify with your spirit that you are a child of God (Rom. 8:16). He will also convict you when you sin (John 16:8), reveal what God’s Word says when you read it (John 14:26), and pour genuine love, joy, and peace in and through you toward others (Gal. 5:22). Have you been experiencing these evidences of the Holy Spirit in your life? 

 Faith in Jesus alone for salvation (and not yourself). “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life”(1 John 5:12–13). Or as Paul said in Philippians 3:9, “Not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Have you been trusting in Jesus alone for your salvation, or trusting yourself or your church? 

These seven things are signs of a changed life—litmus tests revealing whether God has really made you a new creation or not. They don’t come naturally and are impossible to fake long-term. The world, the flesh, and the devil are all against you doing these things and will push you in the opposite direction from them. But if you look at your life over the past few months from a fifty-thousand-foot view, do you see these things? Do you see a genuine love for other believers? Or not? Repentance of sin? Or not? Obedience to God? Or not? The discipline of your Father? Or not? The evidence of God’s Spirit? Or not? A confession of Jesus as God’s Son? Or not? A genuine faith in Jesus alone for salvation? Or not? If these indicators reveal a true relationship with Christ, then rejoice and rest in it. If they do not, then don’t put off the command of Scripture to repent and believe in Jesus Christ, placing your faith in Him alone for genuine salvation.