Sunday, 8 July 2018

Executing your Innocent

I'm not one for human relationship statements on facebook and social media but recently I just find it intensely saddening that i've recently seen a lot of posts about (non professional and unqualified) people ready to incorrectly and unfairly "burn" often perfectly normal and reasonable folk, in the eyes of others by actually unfoundedly calling them abusive or narcissists, from some sometimes broad strokes self help psychology articles.

Instantly some who have read articles on this kind of psychology are saying "aha its the classic narcissist attacking and devaluing argument", but thats not my intention for writing this, just read till the end, please, and hear me out.

There is I feel a real danger of falsely and unfairly branding innocents based on these pschology articles.

As one who has unfortunately had the later unpleasant position of involvement with somebody, years back, who was once diagnosed by a medical professional, as having one of these conditions, and a benzodiazapine problem, my experience was very telling and perhaps helpful to somebody.

This very week I decided to look in so to speak, and contact this person intending a friendly well wishing conversation and I was met with a VERY hostile, cold and short reply.

So deciding there was nothing to be positively exchanged, I decided to just say goodbye nicely and be done.

Incidentally the end of us originally was HER doing not mine.

Back then although I could see the manipulation plays a mile off I still cared for her and I chose to stay, believing she might somehow realise manipulation was not necessary for me to stay.

But it continued and when I would not allow myself to be manipulated, she said it was over, and not even in person.

Now consumers of these psychology articles would say "yes according to the article thats textbook, and just what happens" but although what happened may appear to fill the description in the article, to my ex's defence, the article readers arent the professional who diagnosed her. It was far from simple.

Now I am aware it is a known fact that genuine narcissists have been known to use the argument of belittling or diminishing the other's person's point of view by arguing the pedigree or professional status of the accusing opinion.

So there are both sides to that point. Those being narcississtic and those trying to legitimatly label a narcissist and get out.

One angle less considered is that the the person referencing the psychology article to brand the other as a narcississt or abusive, may or may not themselves be a narcissist, but just simply be in denial of a discussion point(that could have value) raised by the other person. 

And its been said denial is the most predictable of all human responses.

If somebody points to something I dont like, because it really has some truth I most likely will be defensive. Defensive though, still entertains discussion and conceding to being wrong.

But I think you'd agree denial is only fair and valid in the face of an untruth or malicious action, validated by not just a few in your favour, but a large unbiased collective in agreement - true objectivity.

This is not to be confused with another famous narcissist tactic of getting a few people to agree with the narcissist's point of view in order to devalue and belittle his opponent. In fact just the opposite.

The one who cares will invite true objectivity out of care and an interest in fairness to both not just arguing THEIR point like the narcissist.

Like in criminal proceedings I submit the REAL question is that of malice.

Whoever demonstrates malice I think is REASONABLY to be doubted. After all malice is opposite to truth, love and fairness. Malice is selfish.

Besides pure malice. Where pride is potentially injured hurt can set in and become malice, and malice can taint reason. Then such broad stroke psychology articles can become ammunition for self justification, and also a reaction from injured pride and in so doing incorrectly brand a good intention.

I implore you, if you have a relational difficulty, take time and work through it, albeit tough or painful. Dialog exhaustively and discern before as a layman branding and unfoundedly destroying the other person in others' eyes with misguided internet pschology claims.

Quoted below from such an article are two points, and I want to comment briefly on those points in closing.

The article advocates a total severance policy from a supposed abuser or narcissist.

If the person you severed is actually innocent and you incorrectly judged them,(as i'm sure many are beginning to do), they recommend surrounding yourself with your family support system.

But then, be aware, you only have YOUR folk telling you what you want to hear. That is not often a very broad truly objective group.

Thats not true and fair objectivity and you have effectively just become what you mislabled. You may have emotionally executed the innocent and in doing so become twice the killer.

Finally the article has a clumsy disclaimer. Its really a poor excuse to absolve the authors of readers possibly carelessly labelling and so burning an innocent without fair due diligence and effort to proper loving conflict resolution. Perhaps maybe even using their article as an excuse for ending a relationship masking an abject relational laziness. Also those previously having been abused, will be as a future defense, be most likely to misconstrue a true persevering conflict resolution, and more likely, sadly, misjudge.

So here are three verses and  thereafter the section from  the article.

I take from Scripture to guide a rational pure thought process for future relational considerations.
With no preaching in mind but universal benefit....

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked"
Jeremiah 17:9

Feelings can mislead us.

I try to look at a constancy of action, particularly love.

First, 1 Corinthians 13 speaks clearly of the attributes of love:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Substitute the others name for the word Love and then evaluate fairly in context...

Second,  "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."
Romans 12:2

By the renewing of your mind.—“The mind” (i.e., the mental faculties, reason, or understanding) is in itself neutral. When informed by an evil principle, it becomes an instrument of evil; when informed by the Spirit, it is an instrument of good. It performs the process of discrimination between good and evil, and so supplies the data to conscience.

Finally then acting in love and good conscience consider logically:

"Wounds from a sincere friend are better than many kisses from an enemy" - Proverbs 27:6

It can be frustrating when someone changes the subject in the middle of a conversation, but when a partner does this to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, diversion can be downright dangerous.[ARTICLE]

Narcissists use this tactic to derail conversations that may lead to an unpleasant result.[ARTICLE]
(So do denialists)

If you decide to end a relationship with an extreme narcissist, Glass recommends making a clean break if possible.

“It’s the exact opposite of how they sell the lottery,” he says. “The only way to win is not to play.”[ARTICLE]

Use your support system and don’t allow the conversation to continue. Block the narcissist’s number and email address and cut off any communication outlets. While this might seem harsh, it’s the only way to truly keep them out of your life.

We should note that the suggestions in this article don’t apply to every situation, and severely abusive relationships often need to be handled differently to ensure your safety.

I challenge you, do you truly dialog and listen? Or do you hear what you want to and execute innocents? Its a lot easier to hear what you want to....

Sunday, 13 March 2016

The slipping anchor

Constancy is a wonderful thing often treated in a double standard-ish manner or with great disdain when it doesn't suit man. But the simple plain truth is, constancy is inextricably part of the binary world we live in. But human beings by their very nature are fickle and we want to win, in every way, every time. We NEED to win always. Unfortunately the world does not work that way, because certain constants remain well, constant. 

I say thank goodness for constants. Thank God the sun rises every day and sets every evening. Thank God gravity stays constant and the moon's gravitational pull still changes our tides. Without constants we would literally die. Literally die you say? Isn't that a little melodramatic you say? Well, let's take a single constant and analyse its impact (that we take for granted) and discuss this statement. 

First, I'm not a scientist, however I have a pretty solid grasp of some solid principles of science, like Newton's laws etc, but my examination using what I know of science is not for a scientific viewpoint, but rather for the sake of logic and reasoning. Now to return to my last dramatic statement about dying, let's discuss the sun and its rising and setting and bees and how they affect our potentially dying. Bees only operate in daylight. Bee keepers will tell you that the bees that facilitate pollination, live for 3 months in winter and around 3 weeks in summer. Their workforce and social structure is extremely fine tuned and efficient. 

If the sun never rose, that is to say the earth stood still, our diligent bee friends would not work, and so no pollination would happen. Ah but we have livestock and fish from fish farms that we have grown that we could consume you say. Sure. What do you think they all get fed with? Fish farming yields 1kg of fish meat for every kg of feed. That's quite efficient, and way more efficient than the meat to feed ratio involved with livestock but, still whether fish or other meat, we need feed and that means we need the bees. So if good old Sol the sun doesn't rise constantly as we know he has done, we could be in for a nasty surprise. So argue if you wish, but we NEED constancy.

Now why all the going on about constancy you may ask, and why the title the slipping anchor? Because like so many earlier civilizations when there is an absence of a moral compass that civilization dies. 

It has been my observation that in today's day and age nobody wants to consistently take responsibility for any single action, because with a fixed constant stance comes friction or conviction. 

The world has lost its moral compass. 

I have noted that people want to change their disposition whenever it suits them, so they can always be assured of the path of least resistance and either avoid any friction or the backbone it takes to stand by one's conviction. And I notice this is where a lot of so called "post modern" thinking comes in. 

Post modern thinking or attitudes say what's good for you isn't necessarily good for me. It's I feel a flawed point of view in my opinion, but I'll elaborate on that more later. This post modern excuse routine could be construed as abject laziness to engage on an issue or just attempt to rationalize a bad attitude or misdirect a dysfunctional disposition.

Oooooh, rationalize a dysfunctional disposition!??!? That last one probably really rocked your boat. There are plenty of people in this world that you dear reader, will rub shoulders with every day and if you have dealings with lots of people every day and you just watch them, you'll soon find a lot of dysfunctional, broken people.

Dr M Scott Peck in his book "people of the lie" presents a solid basis for diagnosing evil. In essence the book offers an insight for recognizing and hopefully healing human evil. At the core of Dr Peck's suggestion is this, that narcissism is the root of many evils. The narcissist loves themself so much, it is almost inconceivable for them to recognize fault with themself or to accept such a fault pointed out to them by somebody else. This observation I have come to see as critical in correctly understanding many abnormal circumstances. The liberalists, like narcissists, don't like hard fixed stances because they often are not able to maintain the standards and so they want exemption from the rules, or can't bear to think that they are wrong.

As for "the slipping anchor" or absence of moral compass today that I referred to earlier, when you consider the great diversity of ideas and opinions people have, there is a tremendous potential for more and more social erosion. Not erosion of "traditional" values but let's say collectively agreed social norms. 

Because the thing is as soon as I say MORAL values, the friction becomes even more severe and nasty, because the initial moral values pretty much come from Judeo-Christian biblical values and a lot of people particularly don't like Christian biblical values because they like to think that they, man, are inherently good, and we arent (see my previous blog discussions on humanism). With having Christian biblical values you need conviction to stand by them. And with conviction comes friction! Friction in the form of Christians getting called bigoted fundamentalists. Be aware it's no picnic it to submit to biblical moral values and therefore the strong repulsion to those values ("wide is the easy road...."). It's much easier to live like those values don't exist or just to pretend to ignore them. 

What most don't get is, Christians aren't perfect, but we're forgiven and we're trying to live in a relationship with a God who loves us and is deeply interested in daily relationship with us. And so we try live in a way that pleases him whilst trying to introduce others to a righteous but forgiving God. It's tough to everyday ditch our bad human nature because human nature is inherently narcissistic. We think we're good but we really aren't, so just know Christians have life just as tough if not tougher than non-Christians.

So what about the moral decay? Moral decay and the slipping anchor is a BIG problem in my humble opinion because, simply put, in all the letting slide of values, at some point people will become more and more deeply unhappy depending on how they have lost as result of these values and the world will descend into total anarchy and chaos. So why am I writing this? 

To provoke you the reader into considering that perhaps the world needs to curb the ever expanding moral slide and regain some constancy. Why? You ask. Well, consider this. Cannibalism, pedophiles  and infant rape. In all our modern societies these things are currently unacceptable. 

What If tomorrow pedophiles became accepted following a scientific publication saying that they are biologically and genetically different, yet a set of humanity and therefore not unnatural and so paedophilia should not be considered illegal. And what if following this publication, pedophiles cannot then be considered criminals any more, they say. 

What if then the lives and innocence of countless thousands and hundreds of thousands of children are stolen from them and the beauty and purity of their youth lost forever, only to be told 20 years later with new scientific research that the former research on pedophiles was totally wrong? Then what? Those liberalists and others who scorned the Christian or moral stance, are effectively the continuous movers of the moral goalposts, and the slipping anchor cause, singularly, squarely and solely to blame.

The funny part is here that they, the movers of the goalposts so to speak, will attempt to justify this horrible failure of fabricated flawed human morals(and they will always fail) by saying "you can't blame us because we believe differently to you" and "I was just trying to keep everybody happy" and "what works for you doesn't necessarily work for me, that's why.... ". 

Two things here. First, right there they have just shot themselves in the foot because all their clever invented human reasonings and defenses lack one critical thing. The same thing they have rallied against and cited as their reason for wanting to be exempt from the rules is what nails them in the end. They have no constancy. Secondly their reasoning and excuses want to claim that they are special and therefore excused but in actual fact, we all die, and that's how God made us all equal and subject to the same rules. Death is the big equalizer.

I would suggest to you the old addage " if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is probably the best approach with regards to taking a Christian based moral approach to our world. After all, in a binary world, one inextricably fused with constancy in its very nature, is it not absolute foolishness to think that you can conceive better rules for a world you are still constantly discovering, than the rules handed to us by the world's creator? I know whose judgement I trust.....not mine.

So I want to suggest we adopt a strong, fixed moral standpoint but one that we temper not with bending the rules but rather with wisdom and compassion.

An example would be corporal punishment, nowadays a subject quite controversial. The bible speaks of "spare the rod and spoil the child. "The occasional hiding may well work to correct a basically good child when he/she transgresses on the day when they have overstepped the bounds and the bounds need restating. However a child from a dysfunctional family where the only attention he gets is negative attention, could be a purposeful repeat offender for hidings, simply because it's the only attention he gets, and to him even negative attention (a hiding) is still attention. In such a case I believe, "you catch more flies with honey"........

Friday, 4 December 2015

The binary nature of life -Decisions

Over and over again I see or hear or read of far to many instances where mankind is unhappy with choice. Don't take man's choice away, ooh no, but no we don't like choice. Man ALWAYS wants to have things his way, even if he chooses badly. We want to have our cake and eat it so to speak. Unfortunately for us, life does not work that way. But many persist in arguing it should....

A popular song by the band Dire Straits has lyrics "one day you're a diamond and then you're a stone....", "sometimes we are a Louisville slugger, sometimes we are the ball...sometimes it all comes together, sometimes we gonna lose it all". Some interesting things about the human condition can be gleaned from those lyrics.

First, I'd say it's safe to say that we as mankind hate to lose. It sort of feeds some level of anxiety or OCD in each one of us and we just can't have any peace about that. I covered this innate type of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in my last blog post so I won't rehash that line of reasoning. Secondly I will suggest to you that with every choice we make we only want one outcome, a favorable one. We don't want consequences to our actions. Again, here we have more of that OCD.

What really is laughable about human nature when you think about it, is that we sometimes want an ordered predictable response. Other times we specifically expect an illogical chaotic response. But one such response is inextricably and diametrically opposed to the other response. It's as ludicrous as jumping off a 25 story building naked and expecting to walk away from the jump, at the base of the building, in perfect health and perfectly dressed as well. We all know such an action has very little chance of survival, and yet we would like to think we are somehow entitled to being temporarily excluded from the rules of physics in such a situation. In reality the hard truth is, you're going to end up mangled and most likely dead.

And here is, I believe, a core aspect to life. I am convinced mankind does not like absolute unwavering truth. We don't like truth because we can't bend it to suit us. And here is the bit that really gets us. We live in an ordered creation with many absolutes, many of which are fixed, unchangeable inherently binary truths. Some would argue there are no absolutes, but in saying so they create an absolute and that argument, in itself is self defeating. I would also add, that an attempt to reason away absolutes with such a statement just screams that we, like a spoilt naughty child want everything our way irrespective of whether we've misbehaved or not.

 So what examples of absolutes would I suggest you ask? Well, gravity for one. It's either on or off. You don't get "half gravity". You either get attraction to a gravitational field, however strong it is or you float about totally unaffected. Another example is pregnancy. A woman either is pregnant or she isn't. Done. It's that simple. And in the midst of all this exceedingly clear simplicity we still argue.

"Okay wonderful, why should I care?" you say. You should care I say, because if one way is right and everything else is wrong, you are in very grave danger. Now you're probably rolling your eyes at me thinking "oh please nothing is ever so dire, I'll muddle through, it'll be fine". No. I'm sad to say that's not consistent with the nature of a binary world. Think about it.

Consider this, lets say we have an ordered world created with absolute rules, like gravity for example. It's the perogative of the Creator to decide on the consequence of breaking those rules. So if you are foolish enough to jump off that 25 story building naked, its only consistent with the rules of that world, created with it, that you become a colourful splat at the base of the building. It's just the rules, its nothing personal.

But no we, mankind, feel we are above the rules and making us a colourful splat as a consequence of jumping off the top of that building is unfair we say. So the Creator creates the creation with gravity and gives us free will(choice) but he says "dont jump off the 25 storey building, you're not meant to fly naked. If you do this you'll surely die". But we reckon we know better and we disobey and subsequently bring death apon ourselves". Surprised we died? We shouldn't be.
The world was created with an inalienable rule, gravity. We broke the rule. We were warned. Its simply just binary, an action and a consequence/reaction.

So what am I on about? You probably think I'm about to get all preachy. Not really. I am urging you to consider the binary nature of life with choice. Lets face it here, if you're reading this you're probably an adult. If you're not, lets not be naieve, when able to understand basic concepts, we all know the difference between right and wrong. I'm saying exercise your ability to choose freely, but if you find out that your choice has negative undesireable consequences, especially in the afterlife, take it like an adult.

"But I don't believe in an afterlife or a God" you might say. Well my answer remains the same, exercise your ability to choose freely, but you may find out when you die, that your choices have angered a just and fair God, who created an ordered creation with binary rules, that you defiantly chose to break. And in an ordered binary creation breaking the rules MUST have a consequence to be consistent. So take the consequence like an adult.

Me personally, I'll err on the side of caution, and the binary life type rules, because I believe there are reasonable, logical arguments in favor of doing so. I take full responsibility for my choices and in doing so I'll be happy to find out I am wrong and there is no afterlife and no God, because I believe there is. So that covers the eternal I believe, as for the now, i'd urge you to choose wisely and not become a colourful splat.

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

When they cannot see the forest for the trees - Disagreements

I have noted, in life, many folks just want to cruise through. But then again I watch people a lot, and I have noticed many things.

Judging by the "hierachy of needs" developed by Maslow, I'd say its fair, in general, for the purposes of this writing, at this point, to say that people most people often follow the path of least resistance, whatever the situation.

The push for excellence and drive, that some individuals have it would seem, is not consistently found through all population groups and demographics, and, there are a variety of differing socio-economic factors to every persons situation. Therefore most often we would have to evaluate each individual on their individual situation, circumstance and merit, but for now let us generalise.

So I have often observed, that when two people have differing points of view, one or both of them, cannot handle that the other has a difference of opinion to them. Most notably we find this occurence in the opinions or convictions of conservatives versus liberals, or humanists, or vice versa.

The interesting thing I have noted from all my observations of human interactions and also human nature so far, is that man is an obsessive, flawed creation. Man is by his very nature, selfish, and NOT inherently good, as some believe.

Now you say, but hang on a minute, as a Christian you are biased.

Lets leave my position of faith out of that last point for a moment and re-evaluate my statement about man NOT being inherently good, in a completely neutral light just based on legal systems.

Go ahead and tell me that a man who rapes a three month old baby is inherently good? Oh no, but he's deviant and and this and that, or he is the victim of little or no education and has believed an ethnic superstition that raping a baby will cure some ailment. Stop. No excuses now. I strongly doubt baby rape is an acceptable thing in any civilised society on the planet. I suppose you may next want to argue that a paedophile has a "different" sexuality and he needs defending and catering for as well? Not likely that any society on earth will cater to that. Currently both inclinations are punishable offences in any civilised society on earth as are other socially rejected behaviours.

You can NOT tell me that a serial killer, with lets say 30 plus killings, whom they perhaps sodomised, prior to prolonging the victim's violent and painful death, whilst they derived orgasmic pleasure from the victim's suffering, that such a killer is inherently good. Don't forget also, that many of these types of individuals are severely dysfunctional (by societal standards), habitual, obsessive types that keep trophies, or return repeatedly to enjoy necrophyliac pleasures with their victim's corpses or body parts.

Okay, so thats a pretty severe picture I have painted to get my point across and yes, not all humans are THAT disturbed or dysfunctional, call it what you will, but to a greater or lesser degree, all men (and women) are NOT inherently good I'm sorry to say. But I'm a good person you say, I'm nothing like that and never will be. Well, nobody alive is perfect, so lets agree then, we all to various degrees are NOT inherently good, and we are all fallible, and yes I include myself there too. We are all human.

We are also obsessive to a greater or lesser degree. Whether you like the detective in the television series "Monk", are a neat freak misophobe (fear of dirt or germs), or a perfectionist, or you as an individual exist in one or another autistic spectrum, or perhaps have a syndrome with obsessive hallmarks that provides you the security you need to function and live, the fact remains we all have an obsessive side in some measure.

So I have noted, man is NOT inherently good, is obsessive to some greater or lesser degree, and most often in regular life is the subject of society's competitive brainwashing, which is essentially driven by our obsessive natures.
Competitive brainwashing you say?? I would suggest its subtle enough that many people don't even notice it. All the media programs or tells every person, that they have not succeeded, and are constantly in danger of being a "loser", or inferior, because they do not have a particular product or image that makes them part of the depicted "accepted" norm. We get fed discontentment every day from so many sources ,and this breeds often unhealthy aggression, and conflict over the most ridiculous things.

Now I believe from these three core things, we have the root cause of most of man's conflicts. Lets start with the competitive/discontent angle. When you examine the anatomy of a disagreement the most basic level, I believe that most often, one or both parties in the disagreement, have been subconsciously programmed through society to constantly "need to win". They NEED to win, or else the programming tells them they are a "loser" and inferior. What people don't realise is, the programming we have so subtly been given, feeds on our runaway obsessive natures and therefore, so many have great difficulty just leaving a situation be, and agreeing to disagree. And from this vicious "need to win" the disagreement can quickly spiral out of control if left unchecked.

In the realms of what psychology calls "emotional intelligence", this would almost, be an element in what is known as an "emotional hijacking", however an emotional hijacking, actually predominantly has a chemical culprit to blame in one's brain, and that, is responsible for the loss of logical reasoning. There is a strong suggestion that some are more predisposed, to being emotionally intelligent, and others can learn it, and also, that some will never be emotionally intelligent. This "emotional hijacking" is also however, not above being conquered on a focussed, learned and practised, cognitive level I believe.

Dr Daniel Goleman explains the anatomy of an "emotional hijacking" in his book "Emotional Intelligence", briefly through a story beginning in chapter 4. I shall relate the story to you loosely.

A samurai warrior once challenged a zen master to explain the concept of heaven and hell. The zen master burst out laughing and enquired of the samurai, "you expect me, to explain to you, an idiot sword wielding lout, who only knows dealing death, the higher concepts of heaven and hell?!?!" Now at this point the samurai felt his honour had been grievously insulted, and he drew his sword to decapitate the zen master, at which point, the zen master then quickly raised his hand. The samurai paused, as he paused the zen master then said "that is hell". Upon a moments quiet introspection the samurai realised that he had been completely swept away by his anger and he almost shed innocent blood in an uncontrolled rage. The samurai then sheathed his sword and bowed in thanks to the zen master, to which the zen master replied "and that, is heaven".

So in a disagreement, emotional intelligence, learned or inherent, essentially gives one the capacity to for a split second, introspectively ignore the need to win, driven by obsession, and potentially aggravated by a bad nature. It so to speak, cuts off the trouble "at the pass", and that person can "let it go" and agree to disagree or let the other have a differing viewpoint.

So, to return to the first section of my post, we have the now, NOT generalised approach, but individual merit of a party or parties involved in a disagreement. One or both parties in the disagreement could be solely or collectively to blame for the blowup and lack of resolution. As I noted earlier, different people have different needs and drives and some are sadly either just too lazy, or unwilling to work on themselves enough to learn to avoid an emotional hijacking, or just don't have the capacity to realise when they are spiralling out of control during an emotional hijacking.

Which ever way you look at it, by choice or incapacity, "they can't see the forest for the trees". I think specifically choosing to not be emotionally intelligent and peaceful is actually very selfish, tragic and is truly sad. But let me end on a positive note and say for all these negatives there is a positive side I believe, and here I turn to the written words my faith.

In the New American Standard Version of The Bible (which is in more contemporary english) in Romans chapter 12 verse 2 we read:

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

Elsewhere in scripture we read in Galations 5 verse 22 and 23:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.…"

And finally in Proverbs 15 verse 1 and 2 we read:

"A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger. 2 The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly.…"

My interpretation of these combined verses leads me to believe we are called to be self controlled (Galations 5: 22 and 23) and so be peacemakers and tolerant, and this by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2).

I would say to you, that to renew one's mind, we must aspire to be ever increasingly emotionally intelligent. This doesn't mean you have to be a pushover, or capitulate every time. On the contrary, maintain and firmly stick to what you believe, but like an old country music song says, "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em and know when to walk away".

Monday, 16 November 2015

Basic Policy

These are the opinions and observations of myself, Campbell Rae. I am a white South African male and a resident of Cape Town. I am a Christian and will perhaps therefore be considered conservative by some, and therefore also narrow minded and bigoted, perhaps even racist by other.

I will however, state that I believe all men(and women) are created equal by God and whilst I may differ on lifestyle choices and put forward the Christian point of view and perspective often, I bear no malice toward any person, and so state at the outset that I stand on my right to claim free, unsuppressed, expression of my opinion and even the right to differ on topics.

Whilst I respect the right of others to differ in opinion to me, this blog is a collection of MY thoughts and opinions, and not a mudslinging ground for anybody to litter the comment section. Please be (1) cerebral about your comments and (2) respectful, as I afford you the same decency.

Thanks very much.