What is it about the divisions we establish in our lives; the haves and have nots, where I was born or wasn’t born? What about my parents and what they do are don’t do, how much money is taken in and what car I drive? There are also deeper divides that cut down to the heart. Looks can play a huge factor in that division. Are you dark, light, tall, short, big, little, BEAUTIFUL or do you have great personality? It almost seems like I am looking for a reason to separate myself from everyone around me, and put up either walls that keep unacceptable people out or maybe only keep me in.
I am up at a definitive place of acceptance but even here there are divisions. And what about this word anyway. Has anyone ever noticed that accept and except are pronounced the same but mean the opposite. I accept you except you. Ah, it makes more sense saying, I accept you all except you. When they made the baffling English language, I am sure that they thought this one was pretty funny.
Earlier this evening, a stranger was in our mist. He appeared harmless enough, but in this world, enough is not enough. This random, slightly irregular guys was just walking around. Since the camp is private, Christian but private, unannounced visitors are kindly asked to leave or state their intentions. I had a few short conversations with Lan and he talked of being here when he was 14, probably 25 years ago, and here is were he met Jesus. Good for him, but now there are crazies, Class II sex offenders and sinners out and about so you are just going to have to find Jesus else where! Huh??
Maybe these divisions are for our protection? Be wise like a serpent it says. Makes sense in my little mind, but nothing else does so maybe this doesn’t make as much sense as I think it does. If not, then what? Let everyone run free, no boundaries, and no limitations. I don’t think so. I was reading about politics years ago and the author, whose name I don’t know, pointed out a deep difference between the two main stream parties of my country. He said that there is a philosophy about human nature that is the underlying driving force for every policy. One party believes in the inherent evil of mankind and feels that government must limit our nature and protect humans from themselves. If given the opportunity, man will destroy its self so it needs government. The other believes in the inherent good of mankind and feels that government and society have forced man to the decrepit state that it finds itself. If given freedom from those cultural bonds, man will pick its self up and improve to the point of better. (A European and an American are talking. The American says, “We are better! We work harder, we let people fend for themselves, and we have a huge military to fight our wars. The European responds, “You have a funny definition of better!”)
Which is right? Neither? Both? Former!
My problem remains. Run free? I haven’t seen it work. So we divide and conquer.
A short time later, I was invited to join a friend in a gathering of his friends. I declined. See, he has been spending everyday for the last 10 weeks with this group, they have created over this time a unique bond. All of them together, and without knowing it, they have formed their division, unintentionally and completely unmaliciously. None the less, it is there and for me to break in would be work, work beyond what I desire in this late hour. The term, fifth wheel comes to mind. So maybe we don’t from divisions, or we do, but not we the group, but we the individual when we feel that we wouldn’t be accepted without even trying. There is a word for that.
Or maybe we form divisions out of cultural driven habits? Maybe that one party is right? Somewhere, sometime, there wasn’t enough to go around. To survive you had to divide, you had to keep out some because putting everyone in the life boat sank the boat. It happens once, it happens twice, the third and successive times form a pattern, then a habit, then a culture. When there is enough to go around, people don’t know any different; but I was watching a one year old who had never known want and if he could have held onto that fifteenth toy, God knows he would have. Screams of the dieing were heard if you mentioned the word share.
Enough already!
It is tomorrow.
Jason
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You said: "One party believes in the inherent evil of mankind and feels that government must limit our nature and protect humans from themselves. If given the opportunity, man will destroy its self so it needs government. The other believes in the inherent good of mankind and feels that government and society have forced man to the decrepit state that it finds itself. If given freedom from those cultural bonds, man will pick its self up and improve to the point of better."
ReplyDeleteI actually think that both political parties believe both of these things, just applied to different circumstances.
Democrats: No gov't controls over free speech, personal rights, but they want the gov't to take care of people who can't take care of themselves and have a more active role in corporate governance.
Republicans: No gov't control of corporations/monopolies, no welfare, but they want the gov't to regulate what I can watch on my television, listen on my radio, buy at my local pornographer's, and download.
They're both wrong.
intriguing. complicated.
ReplyDeleteentirely interesting.
you should write a book.