Paradise and paved parking lots that replace them.

When the surreal becomes real, when the warm traditions of the past are declared old news, when the memories of our childhood are wiped out or built over in favor of maximizing legal tender, it feels like we've 'paved paradise & put up a parking lot'.  In other words, we've pushed away the good in pursuit of the 'better', when often the better is not necessarily so.   But, as we know change is often inevitable and doesn't necessarily have to be or be thought of as bad.  As Carly Simon sings in Coming Around Again, "I know nothin' stays the same, But if you're willin' to play the game, It's comin' around again".  That is to say sometimes the old has to pass for the new 'good' to have space to take its place.  Which in a way is an appropriate thought considering the day I'm writing this (Good Friday 2017).  Good Friday represents the Father--by way of Jesus--giving us an opportunity to shed our old sinful nature and take on a new more Godly (Christlike) nature.

But I digress.  We as a society (and world) are constantly changing, we are constantly adjusting.  Some it is good, some of it is bad.  But I believe we have this annoying habit of over correcting.  That is to say, making up for mistakes (or problems) by going to far in the opposite direction.   

• We go from an unkept, undeveloped area to an overdeveloped, overpopulated area.
• We go from isolationist to foreign entanglement, back to isolation, then foreign entanglement.  
• We go from being emotionally detached as parents ("Father Knows Best") to trying to be friends with our kids ("Gilmore Girls").  
• We go from treating those with behavior/mental issues being portrayed as "oddballs" or "crazy" to diagnosing every every other person (or kid) with a 'issue' of some sort.  
• We go from treating obvious bullying as "boys/kids" being "boys/kids" to treating any level of conflict as a 'horrendous'.  

In short, we have this habit of overlooking or zooming past a happy medium on the way to 'correcting'.  It's like we start to skid one way and jerk the wheel the other way thinking that we will get straightened out, when instead we are more likely to crash in the opposite direction of the original skid.

So, this leads me to a what I see as a derivative of the Serenity Prayer.  I'll call it the "Prayer of Wisdom for Society".

God grant us the wisdom
to push for change that is needed, but not too far;
to recognize when change isn't needed or desirable
and the ability to accept that we don't always have control over it.

Realizing the old should not be rejected simply because it is old,
nor should the new be embraced simply because it is new.
But evaluating everything on its merits 
and looking to our You, our Higher Power, for guidance.


Breaking it down

• To push for change that is needed, but not too far
• Speech is an example.
• We recognize speech that openly and purposefully encourages others to violence and/or explicitly threatens others, especially 'innocents'. We push for condemnation of it, denial of a forum for it and in the most extreme cases take legal action against it.
• However, speech that speaks out against another's beliefs, another's lifestyle or similar or could simply just offend someone is protected speech.   Certainly we have a right to free speech and can condemn what we see as unfair or rude.  However, when we start denying others a right to speak (especially under threat of legal action) because we don't like what they are saying, we are edging towards fascism. 
• Development of a beautiful vacation areas is an example.
• Say we have a nice coastal area that is underdeveloped.  That is to say it is say it could use some revenue/development to make it a viable vacation spot.
• If we go too far in development of it we risk destroying its ecosystem and/or the essence of it in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

• To recognize when change isn't needed or desirable.
• A widely recognized instance of this truth being ignored occurred when The Coca-Cola Company in April 1985 decided to change discontinue the recipe of their signature product (Coca-Cola) in favor of a new recipe for it.  A public backlash pushed them to go back to return to the old formula by July of the same year.
• The original recipe was still widely popular and the public had great nostalgia for the name (and recipe).
• As Pepsi Max has shown, you can successfully make a formula variant of the original brand and still retain the old brand, rather than just replacing the original brand formula altogether.

• And the ability to accept that we don't always have control over it.
• Sometimes circumstances force change on us.  For example, as the population of a city (or an area) grows, so grows the need for new housing and roads, making it harder to hold onto green space around town.  We may be sentimental about the quaint smaller town we grew up in, but as the population grows we often have to face the reality that in time we will have to deal with less open space, more traffic and more pollution.  All the sentimentality in the world will not change the reality of the needs on the ground.

• Realizing the old should not be rejected simply because it is old,nor should the new be embraced simply because it is new.  But evaluating everything on its merits  and looking to our You, our Higher Power, for guidance.
• Sometimes we get caught up in new--diet, style, car, music, idea--because it appeals to our sense of different, creative, fun, entitlement.
• What we fail to realize that is sometimes the old is either better or it functions quite well relative to our needs.
• For example, we may want more updated computers in our department, but the cost benefit of getting them vs. using the old ones for another year or two might not add up, especially when the old ones suit our needs quite admirably.
• For example, society may push a new diet fad that is unproven (and possibly unhealthy) because the old diet seems stale.  Given time and results, we might find the old diet is actually much healthier or safer.
• History is littered with 'revolutionaries' who pushed an idealistic message or system.  Yet when their message or system is put into practice, the people suffer--think Communism or Nazism.
• If we are guided by our better self and our Higher Power, we usually realize whether we should stay with the old or go to the new.

--

I'm going to close this post with a personal aside.  When I was growing up 7-Eleven was the 'it' spot.  They had slurpees, they had video games, gum, candy, and little knick-knacks that a kid might want.  In short, it was a happy place we usually walked up to.  I don't think kids walk up to the store so much anymore, QT has largely eclipsed 7-Eleven and arcade games are not founds so much in stores anymore.  However, my daughter loves the heck out of QT.  They have a kitchen with the foods a kid could enjoy, they have a candy and knick-knack area and they have a beverage area that is second to none.  She'll never have the joy of running up to 7-Eleven to play games and getting treats.  But, she will always remember the 'new' hangout in our area.   Population needs changed the dynamics of the area, but the change wasn't totally for the bad.  A happy place from your childhood is still a happy place.

Don't it always seem to go / That you don't know what you've got til its gone / They paved paradise / And put up a parking lot…

The Walking Wounded: 99 sheep meet the prodigal family

Something I've witnessed has bothered me for a long time and I'm finally putting it in writing what I've seen/felt for a long time.

I've witnessed time and again among family, among friends, among friend's family and within different group a consistent problem or issue.   We see this issue in society at large and often there is only relief from it when a tragedy larger than everyone strikes and sometimes even that isn't enough to prevent this issue from evidencing itself.

So, what is this issue?  People who face and/or are hurt by the same or similar circumstances often turn on each other, rather than uniting and work through the hurt together.  We often are so focused on our own hurt that we fail to see, accept, validate, take seriously or even take into account the hurt of others.  Sometimes it is even worse than that.  Sometimes people actively comparatively negate the hurt or injury of others in an attempt to put their own hurt to the forefront.  Why do people do that?

• Do they feel that their own pain or hurt is being ignored and they have to 'raise their voice' and say "But mine is worse" or "That's nothing compared to my situation"?  Does that mean:
• I don't trust others to help me through the pain.
• I've been let down so often.  
• Are they so injured that they cannot see the injury in others?
• Are they just crying out for help?

You tell me.  But those are things that I've seen.  (YMMV) "Your mileage may vary" or put less subtlety not everyone's experiences are the same as to how much and why their family/group turns on each other when facing hurt or crisis.  As I indicated above, some of it is just plain selfish/self-centeredness, but much of it is effectively a trust issue.  Instead of allowing themselves to step back and see the larger picture, there is a tendency to draw each other into a circular firing squad.

==

Let's get concrete.  

• Say a close family member dies--sibling, in-law, parent, child, etc.  All tied to him or her suffer pain and loss.  But we suffer it in different ways and to different extents. 
• If it is an in-law, perhaps I don't suffer the loss to the extent that my spouse does, but that doesn't mean that it didn't significantly impact me.  It is wrong to act if I don't have the right to hurt significantly in that situation.
• A kid may experience the loss of a parent, but remaining spouse experiences the loss too.
• In many/most cases, a kid hasn't had the chance to develop the tools and gain the maturity to grieve as an adult would or see beyond their own hurt.
• The remaining spouse is hurt too and due to the different nature of the relationship his or her grief/loss might not be viewed as quite severe.  You can replace a friend/spouse, but a mom or dad is THE mom or dad or so the thinking might be.  While it usually true the kid will hurt worse and longer, it doesn't mean the spouse's loss is nothing or they've gotten over it.  It's important that all parties reflect on their loss rather than 'competing'.
• Say multiple kids of a family suffered abuse at the hands of a 'family friend'.  One kid may get the 'brunt' of the abuse. 
• The person(s) who as a kid got lesser abuse aren't 'lucky'.  Lucky would have mean that they wouldn't have been abused.  What they are is just not victimized as much. But they are still victims of abuse and as such need to have their trauma recognized and taken seriously.
• The person who as a kid got the brunt of the abuse isn't the 'winner' at the who was hurt worse 'contest'.  While he/she may need more attention/counseling to deal with their abuse than the other that doesn't give him or her the right to dismiss the trauma of the others.
• I believe a goal in this situation is for each victim to step outside of their hurt for a moment and realize others were hurt also.  If each victim can show empathy for each other rather than 'compete' for who got the most abuse, then I think their own healing would benefit as well as healing of the family at large. 
• In our country, many have suffered in many different ways.  Some have suffered the indignities of blatant discrimination based on race.  Some have suffered extreme poverty.  Some have suffered loses in war.  Some have suffered in other ways and some have suffered in more than one way.
• Instead of having a little empathy for others who've suffered, sometimes we get caught up in our own brand of suffering and dismiss that of others.
• Once again this minimizes the chance we to relate to and help each other.  In fact, doing so can cause a cycle of resentment where nobody heals effectively, nobody wins and in some ways everyone--except those who exploit the suffering--loses.

In each of these cases with the right spiritual focus we can get past ourselves and see the pain in others and reach out.  This doesn't mean ignoring our own hurt, but offering to help others who are hurting.

--------------

Why I titled this The Walking Wounded: 99 sheep meet the prodigal family was the shepherd just like the prodigal dad was mourning the loss of one of his flock--albeit in each case it turned out to be temporary loss.  When we lose someone close to us, we can seemingly abandon those closest to us while dealing with the loss (or in the case of the prodigal family, the return).  Others in the picture are affected by the dynamic of the loss.  The 99 sheep temporarily were without their shepherd and were less protected therefore.  In the case of the prodigal family, the dad was likely mourning the loss of the prodigal son that turned his back on him.  When the prodigal son returned he threw all his attention on him.  The son who was loyal and stayed behind was hurt.  In each case, someone or something was affected by a loss (sheep vs. dad & other son).   Each experienced a loss differently and reacted very differently.   The other son instead of looking at the big picture looked strictly at how it affected him.  He probably felt abandoned as his dad mourned the 'loss' of the prodigal son and then felt abandoned again as his dad gave all his warmth to the returned prodigal son.  I can imagine if the 99 sheep could talk they'd tell the other son that your dad has loved you all along and he knows that you are hurting too.  They would say, "When our shepherd left us to find the one missing sheep, he wasn't abandoning us, he was always aware of us and thinking about us, but he was doing what was necessary to make our herd (or family) whole again.  He was always going to be there for us and meet our needs, he had a job and a role to play and we had to be supportive in that role for the better of our herd."   The father represented the Holy Father, the prodigal son represented the lost child of God and the other son represented the one who is at peace with God.  The father in the "Prodigal Son" explained to the other son approximately what I imagined the 99 sheep that weren't missing would have explained from a different perspective.

We all have faced hurt in our lives, some of it directly shared hurt and some of it hurt that we can relate to.  What I've come to understand is that we would all do best to find a way to see beyond ourselves and into the bigger picture.  I may have gotten a smaller helping of hurt than you, but that doesn't mean my hurt is nothing.  Likewise, I know I'm hurting, but there is someone probably close who is hurting too and hurting more.  Therefore, I need to find a way to step away from my hurt to recognize and try to comfort them.  When we compete in this arena, nobody wins.  The original hurt is still there for everyone and on top of it, we have pushed each other apart by trying to "win".  We may not see it as 'trying to win', but instead may see it as making sure to get what we need.  However, like in a food riot, we are so busy competing for what we need rather than trying to find a way to best meet the needs of everyone that we likely will end up destroying some of the life-giving food in the process.

I wrote most of this on Thursday, November 24th, 2016 that is Thanksgiving day.  So, I guess a takeaway could be that we need to be find a way to look beyond ourselves.  Be thankful for the things we have and while recognizing concerns/issues in our own lives, not to focus on them, but instead to give some focus on those less fortunate--spiritually, emotionally and physically.

Parable of the Prodigal Son

Parable of the Lost Sheep

EVERYBODY HURTS (x2)

Tell me all your thoughts on God: One person's understanding of his Higher Power

With the Christmas holiday approaching, I got an idea for a blog which I think is appropriate: God and his relationship to his creation.

I was talking to my fiancee about my understand of God and how I felt there was no way that I could, in this lifetime, really hope to appreciate the awesome, dynamic and profoundness of God.  Obviously, I can get a biblical understanding of Him, can feel His presence in my life and see Him in nature, but I know I am limited that way, just based on my finite nature.

I don't claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim that I even have a fraction of the answers.  However, I feel that God has given me some insight or at least a way of understanding of Him as I see the world around me.

• How can one God be a Trinity?
• I've heard it explained this way: ice, water and steam are made of up the same essence-- H2O.   Yet, they are each have distinctly different forms and purposes.  But, all together, each come from the same pool of elements
• Why was Jesus take the form of a baby.
• We needed someone who would understand or experience the human condition from childhood to adulthood.  Someone who would be subject to that which we are subject from an early age, through adulthood.  In short, we needed someone who would experience the trials and tribulations we would from childhood to and through adulthood, yet be able to successfully navigate them.  In other words, He needed to be shown that he could be blameless, experiencing the human experience.  In short, we needed a perfect man to atone for us.
• Why did Jesus have to shed his blood on the cross and die for us?
• This one always eluded me.  For me it was always a big mystery.  From the best of my understanding.  Let's start with sin: 
• Sin is a crime against the perfect nature of God, just like infidelity is a crime against a marriage or theft is crime against another party and/or the state.   Our soul can survive our sinful nature and be in harmony with God, but there is a heavy price that has to be paid. A marriage can survive infidelity, but there is a heavy price to pay for it usually it.  Society can survive theft, but there has to be punishment to atone for it and deter additional theft.
• Just like a marriage cannot effectively survive unrepentant infidelity and a society cannot effectively survive unpunished theft, our relationship with God cannot survive sin that has not be atoned for.
• Okay, I've talked about why the need for some form of atonement but someone else paying?
• A devastated spouse can forgive, but he or she has be able to absorb a lot of hurt. If he or she isn't willing to absorb the hurt, the marriage cannot survive.  
• A theft requires paying back what has been stolen and a recognition of how wrong it is.  Someone has to bear the cost of the theft in terms of $$ and punishment or risk society being damaged further.  The someone might be the father of the thief who doesn't want his son to be have a tarred record following him around.
• Similarly, sin is such a profound assault on our relationship with God, that we cannot pay it back ourselves.  Jesus has to intervene.
• Why Jesus and why dying on the cross?
• Why dying on the cross?
• Sin is so destructive that it takes a huge sacrifice to atone for it.
• It is a sacrifice we don't have the capacity to make.
• The atonement could not be a simple I'm sorry and I won't do it again.  It had to be profound like dying for us.  Sin is a poison, the poison had to be absorbed by someone.  We all know what happens when you absorb too much poison.  The only way to get rid of poison is to clear it out.  In Jesus' case that was bleeding it out.
• Why Jesus?
• He is an infinite being.  He could atone for all sins past, present and future for everyone.  A simple man could not atone or take the fall for all of mankind's sins.  Imagine a simple man trying to do the same for everyone.  Jesus by being both God and infinite Deity could cover both the huge number of sin we individually commit.  Imagine the number of sins being multiplied by the billions of people that have lived or will live.  His infinite nature would always cover all sins that could/would ever be committed.
•  He was a man.  Sins are committed against the Father by mankind and therefore a representative of mankind would have to be the one to atone.
• He is all powerful.  His soul could take the poison and punishment required to atone for all mankind's sins. 
• Why doesn't forgiveness come automatically.  In other words, why do we have to accept his gift of salvation?
• Imagine you are before a judge in a court of law after you commit a crime. As part of a plea bargain someone agreed to take the punishment for you.  Your part in the plea bargain would be to acknowledge your guilt and to actually accept the plea bargain.
• How can we conceptualize God?
• His Word is the best starting point, obviously, it gives the different aspects of His nature, including that of the Trinity.
• I believe we have his Word and we have glimpses of Him all of nature.  However, I believe none of this will prepare us for Him.  I believe we will be blown away with His awesome nature.  The closest thing I could think of is this.
• A dot sees itself as a complete being.  It sees a circle as related to him, but it sees a circle as a more profound.  A dot would be blown away by a sphere and above.  It has some clues about a sphere, but clearly cannot understand the sphere's magnitude.
• A circle sees a dot as a simple being and sees a sphere as a more awesome being.  It sees itself in being in the presence of sphere (and above), but not near as profound as it. 
• A sphere (and above) sees a dot as a very simple being, but is protective of it.  It sees a circle is something that has its nature, but is still not as awesome as it.
• Out of a sphere come a dot and circle.  So, clearly the sphere recognizes the dot and circle for what they are.  I
• The dot is man, the circle is angelic/spirits, the sphere and above is clearly God in this picture.
• Why is God portrayed as the Father?
• We tend to understand the family the family unit.  The Father is usually considered both firm in nature, but has a gentle loving side as well.
• I've heard it is important for a father to be a good leader because he represents the father who is seen.  If we do not trust or have father in our seen father, it makes it all the harder to have faith and trust in our unseen father.