Doing It, Anyway

In political and belief-related discussion, people will often refuse to give charity to another person when, truly, the other person is not giving it to them. One can definitely feel hard done by if one is willing to play fair and the other person isn't.

Truth is, people on every side of every discussion I've ever seen have done the 'bad' thing and some the fair and charitable thing. There is capacity for chivalrous, honourable types on any side. This is, I think, to completely confound us as to whether our side is the Nobler side or not. It is very fair and right that God should put this stumblingblock before our pride and hubris.

But my real point is, we should not give up on doing the right thing (like washing the dishes) just because we can say, truthfully, that the other person didn't do it the last ten times and we did (o, what a martyr). And yes, if we do the honourable thing, people may, probably someone out there will, take advantage of that. And why on earth should that matter? In old Christian times, it would be considered a blessing to be taught what being a servant like Christ was, yet again. And it would be very worthwhile for us nowadays to discuss if that is a good thing, or if that is 'abuse.' (Didn't Christ turn everything on its head?)

When I was a child, there were times when someone would refuse to do a thing that would turn everything for the better because someone else, perhaps everyone else, was not doing it. Say, they wouldn't pick up their room because nobody else was. And thus, because nobody initiated the thing, it never happened because everyone was using that same justification for not doing the thing. When people who claimed this was 'logical' argued this way, I was mentally confounded because it doesn't make sense to use others' not doing the thing as reason not to do it oneself... what if they used the exact same argument! It seemed like a strange kind of loop-de-loop of insanity, like the world was imploding.

And the truth is, in ye olde timey ways of looking at things, if one is not willing to do the fair, right, and/or charitable thing themselves, it proves that one does not really care that it be done (and one cannot expect it to be done to oneself, in all fairness). The one true thing it shows is where one's own heart is. I wish we did take this seriously nowadays- if we wished enough for a thing, we would do it. But modern pop psychology teaches us constantly to defend our own 'honour' by claiming our intentions are always good and we never neglect doing the right thing except if we are forced.

This 'rule' of doing the thing even if others aren't applies in such deep, subtle ways. Deep in my secret heart, I am often softly neglecting it so that I can do what I want. It is extremely convenient because there is almost always someone who isn't doing the 'right thing.' And the trouble is, there is no way I can persuade anyone to do this based on 'it will go well with you' because there is absolutely no guarantee that evident good will come of it, especially in the short term. I personally believe that good does come, but it is not always something that appears to favour us, because 'good' is not always what we want it to be (a whole other lost concept, I think). And just because a part of me believes this does not mean I act on it.

Thoughts on Conscience and Will

Conscience necessitates that we have wills and that they be respected.

There is also a respect of others implicit. If each of us has the right to do according to our own consciences, we cannot impose things on others against their consciences (or wills).

Obviously, as the old saying goes, you cannot make a horse drink by taking it to water. You can't make a child eat food, if they truly will not chew and swallow. We have to persuade and convince and open a being to what we wish them to do in those cases. (The only way you'd control these kinds of acts in other people is by manipulation and mental control; overriding their free will as opposed to persuading their consciences.)

It is hard for our society to accept this in many cases. It has almost seemed to be a 'natural law' of governments and countries that as time goes on, they will take more and more control over the citizens of the country. The very, very general reason for this is that the world is fallen and things will go wrong, and they will, at the time, seem like something we must Do Something About, and so laws are created, and those who would have abided by Common Decency are now constrained to abide by it regardless of what they believe.

It is rarely easy to say 'that should never have happened' in a particular case. But as it all adds up, I become increasingly convinced that it somehow should not have happened, and then I think about how it would be possible for it not to have happened. It all comes down to what we believe about reality and about human nature; the Governing Laws of Ultimate Reality.

There has been a massive shift. It seems to have started in the Enlightenment, when it became popular to believe that people are not bad, but that systems make them bad (if I am not wrong). So therefore, THINGS make people good or bad, and we can control the THINGS to make people act in the right way and to prevent all bad outcomes. It gets as down-to-earth as putting up barriers so people simply cannot go in some direction, not merely trusting them to direct themselves well and to be interested in following the 'beaten path' we want them to follow. (And, boy, are those barriers often extremely ugly!)

The truth is, with the amount of time generations are trained on being externally directed instead of self-directed, people lose the ability to learn how to self-direct. I really do believe that nowadays, we have a lot of people who could not for the life of them really discern and direct their paths (in both spiritual and concrete ways) because they have so long been directed.

Going back to a previous paragraph, it is hard to say that this should not be the case. I personally do not like the loss of free will very much. But it is harsh to say 'such and such accidents had to be allowed to happen because we cannot encroach upon people's free will.' The only way it can be viewed as un-harsh to say is if we rewind culture to a time when people accepted a lot of basic Christian tenets. And many people now would view that as incredibly backward, harsh, even evil. I believe many Christians instinctively know this so deep down that they are not conscious of the effect this has on what they think and do.

Post-Christian

 I realised today that I've been stuck defining 'post-Christian' as I think others might. Also, I feel compelled to see it as a point in time at which things turned, when in my own mind I can almost never pinpoint down a cultural change to one specific time.

So I let go of that, and I realise I see it as a process or progression; I look back on what I currently know of history and can see it beginning centuries back.

I think I may define it as whenever a subculture of people departed from the belief that wisdom, virtue, and conscience exist (obviously in a Christian sense; I'm not sure if there is another sense for some of these or not- an interesting question). Eventually the post-Christianness grew and grew and it eventually became the name of the day. For many years it was not obvious, and now people call our time post-Christian because it is now much more obvious.

We are really very far away from them, as I see it. Other sentiments rule the day. Actually, I'd use a stronger word than sentiments, though I can't quite find the right word (beliefs is too general). It is fascinating how controlling these sentiments are, even within Christendom. The sentiments deceive us into thinking what they ask of us is the actions incumbent upon those who practise Christian virtues.

I dearly wish that Christians would truly discuss to what extent we are to go along with the mores of the day and to what extent we are being asked to update God's truth to fit a new generation. The lies are so, so very deceptive and subtle that they can hardly be seen, except by those who did not grow up in westernised places.