My dad used to say “it’s all just a bunch of words unless they say something.” Sure does seem like he was a prophet declaring current day social discourse derived through modern day communication skills (or lack thereof). Who is right and who is wrong? What is right and what is wrong? This is not a discussion of good or bad, righteous or evil, it is a conversation about conversations, opinions, personal preferences and individual points of view.

 

Human thought has currently devolved into the “feeling” that a victor must be assigned between two alternate opinions, and just as important, a victory cannot be claimed until a loser is made to “pay” for their disagreement. These conditions are established because communication is no longer the objective, but it is the “feeling” that is the target. It is the “feeling” that mandates requirements for how a winner is determined. This of course does give academics the option to masquerade in the “feeling” by establishing the criteria for “correctness” making them feel better, allowing the role “supreme feeling assumptor” to be assumed, because obviously they are the only ones with valid credentials to perform such judicious chores (sarcasm detectors should be beeping off the meter).

 

Right off the bat let’s remove the idiom “toxic.” That removal should be from all sides of all confrontations. For example, the phrase toxic masculinity is a “toxic” declaration by one faction to defame another faction. The phase itself is in fact “toxic.” In actuality, the term “toxic” does not mandate a penis or vagina for its application, either one can readily apply it. Toxicity exists when the goal is someone else’s loss (or failure) as a requirement in order to obtain victory. Those rules of engagement are somewhat required when engaged in physical combat or battles, or possibly when strategizing war game scenarios, maybe even sporting rivalries. That is not an acceptable mode of operation for civilized conversations, discussions and/or debates regardless of biological gender role or preferred wardrobe appearances.

 

The goal should be freely expressed thoughts aligned with a discussion topic from given individuals expressing their opinions. Mutual respect is a requirement and victory is not dependent upon loss or surrender. Victory is achieved by successful communication. Successful communication is when a self-contained image of understanding is adequately converted to the spoken/written language in a way that achieves the transfer of thought verbally/in writing to others. “Others” acceptance of the opinion as valid or truthful or mind-changing is not a requirement. The understanding of an alternate opinion as offered is all that can be feasibly expected, disagreements remaining after discussions are concluded are not end-of-the-world scenarios of catastrophic proportions.

 

The reduction of humanity to nothing more than the “truth of my feelings” is a grossly immature nature of being which should be modified by all adults witnessing the behavior (anyone curious how academics fit in here?). It at best is only cute when at the toddler stage of development. Responsible guardians should be working to modify those behaviors as opposed to just “spoiling the child.” Spoiled children typically result in the excessive liabilities of non-contributing adult members within a given society. Communication is not warfare, it is not a battle ground, it is not a sports arena, it is and should be a civilized activity when participated in by civilized persons. Civilized persons do not prevent opposing opinions from being expressed to ensure only one side is heard or read. That is more in keeping with barbarism and tyranny, neither of which has ever led to successful, long-term civilizations. The weaponization of human language is representative of a decline in civilization and typically leads to the fall of same (it is also how bullies are born; we agree those are bad?).

 

So why don’t we see if just among ourselves we can attempt to participate in civilized debate? Are we able to rise above the chaos, mayhem and havoc? Can we put aside debaucheries, treacheries and insulting diatribes? Maybe we could exchange a few thoughts, glean a little understanding and perhaps grow as a specie into a more fruitful creation.

 

What topics are available for us to disagree on, preferably one that has strong beliefs in truths, facts and experiences, providing a need/desire to muster a stance? How about the legitimacy of the bible. To narrow that down just a smidge, what if we focus on the topic of the literality of biblical writings, which could include the “truths” to hold as facts regarding the words contained within.

 

For the purpose of this discussion, we will reduce all possible definitions of the word “bible” to mean the currently canonized version regularly referenced as the King James Version translation (because there are more widely accepted and recognized reference and study materials available to research issues/ideals/concepts contained within, and because I too have a preference).

 

We will start out with two opposing statements:

 

1.The bible is only literally valid when in agreement with your point of view, and that varies depending upon which portion you are referring to at the time.

 

2.The bible is the inspired Word of God and all things contained within are meant exactly as written, the Devine Holy Spirit guided the hearts and mind of its contributors so as to ensure there is only one actual author, God.

 

Within the confines of this discussion, we will short-hand label the two opinions as “POV” (point of view) and “WOG” (Word of God). “NAR” is for non-direct conversation comments.

 

POV: Biblical texts are written by multiple individuals, each of which expresses a personal point of view regarding the topic discussed, as well as having individual styles and manners by which they communicate. Without the application of flexibility within interpretation the inconsistencies in thoughts expressed would render a large portion of the book as confusing contradictions and conflicts which dissuade from the desired conclusion of the Bible being the Inspired Word of God. The book is considered inspired by God, not directly authored by God. The elemental participation by humans subject to fallacies requires meditative prayer, discernment, logic, reasoning and common sense to gain competent understandings of the true intentions of the inspiration.

 

WOG: God is omniscient, God is all knowing, God is all powerful in His abilities to influence, guide, direct, instruct all His creation. It would be unfathomable for the total number of participants contributing to the book to coordinate over differing times and locations as cohesive a document as what is assembled in the bible. The validity of God’s participation in its production is evident in its mere existence and survival over time. God’s will be done, despite and along with His human creation, God is infallible making His participation infallible as well. God did not generate confusion, He produced peace. God did not author confusion, He offers understanding. God did not promote confusion, He instills cooperation. Prayerful meditation on His Word, through the acknowledgment of His Spirit allows for the acceptance of the same.

 

NAR: Do we have a winner yet? Is it possible to evaluate these two statements without judgement? Are sides starting to be drawn? Have we looked for and found similarities and commonalities between the two? Is there evidence of a potential “same thing – different words” scenario by which a compromise is obvious (have we stepped up and “solved” the problem, already, yes more sarcasm)? Are we evaluating the “communication” or the opinion? Where does the conversation go from here?

 

One typical/common path taken is to offer selective examples that show a given opinion in practice within the document being discussed. This portion could be called the “show-and-tell” time of discussions. It is common for this to be where the whole-shamoo gets totally discombobulated erupting into a frenzied hail of shouts, slurs, insults and vulgarities.

 

Why is that? Simple, this is where more of the “feelings” start to come into play. A participant feels their opinion is valid, they are going to express their proof of that validation, if and when that verification is challenged, attacked, jeered, maybe mocked, that assault is a direct insult of a “feeling” (which unchecked is an emotion, which unchecked is taken personal, which unchecked results in less than favorable attitudes; hum, bunches of checking, why don’t we just call that a need for discipline; and if we say discipline, can we say who’s discipline is required?).

 

This is a point that allows the opportunity to evaluate a given civilization from both micro and macro perspectives. How many participants are engaged in the conversation? Some might say two, but is that all? There are the two sides of the conversation, but there are also witnesses listening forming a crowd (and possibly their own opinions) and there may be official/unofficial moderators keeping track of rules and time (they too are witnesses and may too form/have an opinion). Where, who and which are the responsible parties for keeping things “civilized?” What are those responsibilities? How is adherence to civility determined and are there consequences for failure to be/act civil? How deep and far does the rationalization of acceptability dive by just using the clarifier of “it was a heated debate?” Does that statement resolve a lack of civility into accepted societal norms? It sure seems to, so we just notch the side posts lower so the bar can be placed at a newly acquired standard.

 

First issue: why we (as in witnesses) target the opinion and not the communication. Have both sides so far established their viewpoints concisely, competently, understandably? Has communication taken place? Are we so accustomed to spectator sports that we have a “home team” mentality developed that engages our feelings as if we too were the participants? Are we in part to blame for the demise of civilization? Are we going to pass off self-discipline requisites via rationalization, “we are just human, it’s what we do,” so we can minimize efforts and get back to the game?

 

Herein lies the rub. Where is it in societal norms that civility is taught? Or, under current academic pursuit metrics intentionally “un-taught?” Social norms might have roots in familiar foundations but nurturing tends to result from all bombardments of cultural interactions (i.e., siblings, parents, advertisements, various media platforms, teachers, pastors, peers, etc.). Of course, hand-in-hand with all nurturing conditions it must be considered the relative contribution values between direct and indirect socialization/nurturing. So, if we wrap all that up into the label “influences,” what are those and where do they come from and how can they be used to guide a more civilized society, culture, way of life, or, can they ever actually be used in a directed, positive manner without dictatorial style censorship, control and manipulation?

 

Adding to the impossible task of creating a civilized civilization is the reality that humans are basically evil. Yes, they are. All evidence and truths prove that individual humans have the greater propensity to be and do evil when left to their own development. The failure to recognize that singular fact is the crux of the problem. Without adequate guidance, correction and discipline humans do nasty and horrible things to one another as well as themselves. Social decline can be directly tied to the mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, just-wanta-hug-everybody attitudes of “I think people in general are basically good,” no they are not, just the opposite. Non-admitted problems fester, denied realities become malignant, undisciplined behavior not corrected engages in chaos, mayhem and havoc.

 

Granted, that may be the goal (or at least an acceptable goal). If a ruling class can manifest broad scale insecurity, liberty is always sacrificed and the “ruler’s” control is secured. Throughout history it has been shown there are only three ways to secure an autocratic, dictatorial regime. There is either an immense and overwhelming military style takeover of a given populace or there is a culture that is made to exist in a “havoc” mentality of insecurity sufficient for the populace to want governmental controls instilled for the purpose of “restoring” civility, or a combination of both.

 

Now then, is this a conspiracy theory or is it just typical human political evolution (The Prince, Machiavelli)? It does seem to occur on a regular basis, but quite frankly I would not assign the intellectual levels needed to achieve the goal intentionally to any of the tyrants who have been left in charge. As such, I would put my money on the inevitability of humanities evil nature coming full circle providing “what it deserves” as its just desserts.

 

Now back to the scheduled program, show-and-tell time.

 

POV: Out of the 21 Epistles of the New Testament, 13 are directly attributed to the Apostle Paul (possible 14). Paul had an Old Testament view of woman and claimed that women should be subservient to men because of Eve being the first to sin and then convinced Adam to sin (1st Timothy 2:13). Now according to Genesis 3:16 Eve’s punishment for being beguiled by the serpent was her sorrow would be multiplied, “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” However, nothing and no one else was cursed by God as a result of Eve’s sin. The curse was assigned to Adam. Same chapter next verse (Gen 3:17) He (God) said “because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee saying, ‘thou shalt not eat of it:’ cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”

 

Within the scriptures it is identified there are two categories of sin for which offerings are to be made. One is Chattath, “the Sin offering” for missing the mark via sin of commission (i.e., act of sin). The other is Asam, “the Trespass offering” for the sin of omission (i.e., failure to act out of ignorance or negligence).

 

In keeping with Old Testament duties, responsibilities, traditions, etc., who was in charge at the time of beguilement? Go ahead and say it out loud, it would have been Adam. He was the elder, he was the one going about naming everything, he was in charge. If Eve can be considered a contributor (and thus guilty) to Adam’s sin, why is Adam not considered a contributor (guilty of) Eve’s sin. Eve was the one who first committed a sin of commission, but prior to that Adam committed a sin of omission (Adam failed to keep Eve from sin, that was kind of his responsibility, being in charge and all). According to the laws in place at the time (and currently) both types of sin are equally wrong. So, if the criteria of who did what first determines servitude until the end of time, perhaps man is more deserving of being subservient since Adam failed in his leadership role. Unless we just ignore that part of the bible in order to “prove a point.”

 

Additionally, are these two the best examples of how leadership and staff should operate? Are they the fundamental form of familiar organization that makes sense to imitate or should we avoid them as mentors? Let’s review, God tells Adam and Eve not to do a certain something and that something is bad. Then, evil comes a knocking, Eve lets it in, the evil convinces Eve that certain something is not all that bad so she tries it; evidently she liked it because she then offers it to Adam and he seems to like it, too. Ta-Da, the original sin. What happens next? God comes a calling, “Hey, where you guys at?” Adam and Eve come out of hiding and explain their hesitation to present themselves was because they were naked. God asked what happened and Adam demonstrates the most low-level, worst type of leadership trait any person in charge could by pointing his finger at Eve and blaming both God and Eve for the problem. As explained in Gen 3:12, the man said, “the woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Wow, obviously if God had just given Adam a better women none of this would have ever happened (sarcasm). How many of us have been forced to work under leadership of that sort? Is that a proper example of proper leadership that instills proper values and virtues capable of establishing a proper civilization? Go ahead, say it out loud, no.

 

Also, according to all of the Gospels, each one identifies Mary as a virgin. The woman that birthed the Only Begotten Son of God, the woman that was found qualified to mother the Redeemer, Savior, Lamb of God was according to the bible a woman. If one woman is attributed with cursing all women who follow to servitude, why is it the one woman who, without the aid from any man, brought the Redeemer into the world, why does she not redeem all women from same said curse. The whole Word of God being a two-edged sword means it is supposed to cut both ways, not just in the way that serves a personal preference.

 

As well, according to the proverb quoted by both Jerimiah (31:29) and Ezekiel (18:1) it is no longer to be said “the father eating sour grapes puts the children’s teeth on edge.” The associated meaning is that generational curses are not applicable to “sin,” and that should be apparent as a universal application and not a gender deferred issue (moms eating sour grapes do not impact their children’s teeth either). Based on this literal application of the Word of God, the Apostle Paul is wrong to assign fault/guilt/servitude to all of woman-kind because of their mother Eve.To further verify the Apostle Paul’s tradition of man possibly corrupting the Word of God, is his criteria/stipulations for qualifying a “pastor/elder” of a church. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are two of the more quoted scriptures regarding pastoral qualifiers, and in each the overriding summary would be the “man” should be above reproach. The listed lists include being knowledgeable in the scriptures, sober, not quick-tempered, devoted to one wife, peaceful, hospitable, self-controlled, not have unruly children, responsible with money and resources, upright, holy, a good teacher, spiritually mature, respectable, a good example to the flock, and a couple others depending upon which Epistle is being reviewed.

 

Let’s review common sense, common practice, common occurrence, common familiar organizations: which member of the adult family staff “typically” is in charge of the children? Go on, say it out loud, of course there are exceptions, but typically it is the woman who takes the direct charge of the children. As such and using normal thoughts to draw conclusions, which of the two, man or woman has the greater degree of influence and control over whether or not children are unruly? Go ahead, say it out loud, it is the woman. All of that being said, now evaluate the legitimacy of “above reproach” of someone who takes credit for someone else’s work. If someone takes credit for someone else’s work, are they above reproach? Essentially, we just disqualified the vast majority of male gendered pastors.

 

We must either interpret Paul’s writing as a tradition of man requiring prayerful consideration and discernment, or we need to search harder, longer, deeper for qualified pastors. Which course of action makes the most sense to pursue, which course do we currently apply practically without any concerns for legitimate literality?

 

Gender roles within church organization leadership is one of several issues that is directly determined by an application of point-of-view literality and is not based on the Word of God as literally written within the bible.

 

NAR: Small break in the conversational flow for a quick-check. Has POV communicated their opinion? Has POV established a “transfer of image” sufficient to generate an understanding of their opinion? Are we able to utilize self-discipline in our participation sufficient to remain civilized or are we delving into the realm of taking sides awaiting the opportunity to join the “gang” (either in agreement of disagreement)? If we expect civility from the participants, do we expect civility from the spectators/ourselves? Could we, should we, do we? Discipline is not a fickle bitch; it just needs to be applied.

 

WOG: If we pick-and-choose various portions of the bible to believe in or ignore are we actually following the Word of God or are we just following a personal preference? Are we allowing the holy Spirit to determine our understanding or possibly alternate spiritual origins to dissuade us from the actual Word. What is our means of measure to determine our discipleship? Is it self-inspired or is it Holy Spirit inspired, what confirmation besides ourself are we using to evaluate our influences? How self-righteous are all of our righteous motives, and are we sure when we declare them, our intentions are completely honorable? The Word of God exists as do our personal preferences, which of the two is less likely to be fooled?

 

Since we can and do establish God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then should we not follow His Word in the same light of consistency? Is His Word, Will and Way just a migratory evolution of human development or is it supposed to be a standard, a foundation, a bulwark from which communities, organizations, societal structures are to be grounded upon? Should the actual Word of God be reduced to nothing more than concepts awaiting change to match current affairs or should they be the measure to evaluate societal changes as they occur for whether or not they should be allowed? We know the right answer, are we disciplined enough in the spirit to act accordingly and in accordance with the Word, or are we just following the flesh?

 

The Apostle Paul was called and ordained directly by Jesus, the Christ as he was, as he thought, as he existed for the purpose of conveying the Grace of God, through the Righteousness of Christ toward all of God’s Creation and not just the Jewish/Hebrew population. This purpose, this intent, this priority was his focus and achievement. Paul’s tools were primarily the written word which he shared widely throughout Eurasia and Rome. Additionally, his Epistles have been the fundamental foundations for most churches with Christian affiliations throughout the world at this time. The end/current results of his efforts toward the Glory of God is one of the proofs of his validity which in turn validates his writings (successful discipleship is an indicator of correctness).

 

It is understandable that current mind-sets find fault with some of the Apostle Paul’s teachings, current mind-sets also provide us with the current decay in social morals, the current lawlessness and social discourse, and the broad-scale corruption of societal leadership on full display for all to see. Has the current mind-set established itself as a reputable source for comparative values, virtues, morals and/or ethics? Any response other than no is a fairly good indicator of the spirit from which the mind-set originates.

 

Is God our Father? Does that not make sense anymore, is that such an alien attitude we cannot manifest the analogy into current day realities? If not, we should. The Father figure in family structures as well as community/organizations is needed for establishing successful structures capable of aligning toward proper and useful priorities and purpose. If you drop the current mind-set long enough to engage in the concept of a “father figure” you can see the value of this specific classification.

 

The father figure is the protector, don’t most of us want to be protected? The father figure is the provider, don’t most of us apricate being provided for? The father figure is the teacher/mentor, don’t most of us want to learn, grow and achieve? The father figure is the emotional anchor and disciplinarian, don’t most of us need the security of assuredness day in and day out? The father figure is the measure of accomplishment, don’t most of us enjoy the pride displayed when we have done well? Which part of that, which effort exampled, which qualifier detailed is not considered a positive influence on and for children, spouses, family, friends and communities? Are not those positive influences a more desirable option than chaos, mayhem and havoc? Any response other than yes is a fairly good indicator from where the influence is initiated.

 

So if we say Paul is no longer applicable based on current/modern mind-sets, based on results and preferred outcomes, which of the two mind-sets, Paul’s or current, holds more credence in correctness? And again it should be checked to confirm from which source of inspiration a given influence is derived.

 

Moving on from Paul, can we determine which (if any) one of the Ten Commandments no longer apply? Are those not still a literal criterion for guiding successful communities? Should they not still be viewed as written? They were actually written in stone, that sure seems significant. Do we no longer need to love the Lord our God, should we go ahead and start worshipping idols, do we no longer need to honor our parents, should we commit murder, should we commit adultery, should we lie, cheat and steal, grave to obtain our neighbor’s stuff that they worked for and have been blessed with? Which one and how many of those things does the current mind-set now say is okay?

 

Why would loving God be so important in a secular world? Mainly because in loving God we learn to love one another. Without God as our reference, we can only love the flesh and that is lust not love. Lust is an imitation of God’s love, only it can never be satisfied; it can never be fulfilled. It will always remain an immediate gratification mental masturbation failing to express the entirety of potential held within the human form. God as the reference allows us to realize and experience the magnitude of possibilities within the emotion gifted to us called love. And with that gift comes to opportunity to learn the larger value experience by loving others, as He loves us. That law is fulfilled when we realize God loves others as much as He loves us and as such, our love for Him must extend out toward all His other creations. That mind-set helps to create a community in which greater harmony and peace is obtainable. Who would not want that as a basis for their community? Love God, put no other gods before Him, and you will be an active contributor to the potential of realizing that sort of society/culture/community/family.

 

If one could simply move mind-sets back in time, retaining modern medicines, keeping modern machine capabilities, current transport, production and food supplies, but just adopt a version of thought more in keeping with the times of disciplined compliance, do we really need to ask if society would be better? Do we need to review if cultural harmony would be more prevalent? So, why would we want to view our biblical basis from the perspective that causes the problems, creates the misunderstandings, supports and promotes the unrest. Would it not seem more beneficial to hold the book responsible for our morals, values, virtues, ethics, our basic standards for existence in the same light as written, in the same spirit as offered, in the same words as provided as the Word of God?

 

NAR: Same questions as previously asked, has WOG communicated their opinion? Has WOG established a “transfer of image” sufficient to generate an understanding of their opinion? Of course, also needing to be asked, did our “home team” win, or are we able to remain civilized within the confines of our participation as witnesses/crowd/moderator? How will we judge the conversation?

 

Was it easier to develop an understanding of the alternate opinions without all the hub-bub interruptions? Maybe the absence of accusation and insults during presentations relieved some of the typical spectator stress (do we mind we did not score any points during the game?). Perhaps allowing full-thought statements to be expressed void of shouted contentions provided the ability to participate as witnesses more so than being a forced opposition. Could that be a model of exchange that may actually work for other, perhaps as much, or more critical issues/topics needing to be discussed for our communities in general?

 

If agreed upon civility allows more competent comparisons to be obtained, how do we accomplish that? What is the secret to gleaning thorough and complete understandings of multiple/various factions all with the desire to be heard/explain themselves? Maybe we need to make a list (lists always help, everybody loves lists, can’t do anything without a list, right?)

 

1.Remove all academics from all discussions. If they are called a teacher, professor, educator, instructor, etc., take them out of the equation. They are the ones that insist on controversy, they are the ones that grade on a curve of contention, they are the ones that motivate discourse, they are the ones that pretend their intentions are honorable while fabricating the mentality that disagreement is a sign of growth. Just get rid of them (as far as discussions are concerned) and free speech, free expression, freely discussed options will become prevalent through their absence. If and when, as a whole that group returns to the status of simply helping individuals to learn new information as opposed to expecting and teaching their classes to represent their pre-established dislikes of their own preference, maybe then they could be included. Until that time, they need to be banished from all civilized conversations. (All of that was said because 1: it is true, 2: it is typical, 3: show me one that is not, I will show you 493 that are, 4: titles only count in monarchies, everyone really should have to earn their own status.)

 

2.Allow complete thoughts to be presented. Any “time” constraints should be developed with a minimum of 10 minutes per faction expressed. Anything less than 10 minutes is only valuable from a broadcast media point of view. Substantial thoughts and expressions take time, it should not be guided by how often or how many advertisements need to run during the hour. Individuals who have attention deficits or are not capable of maintaining their respective postures of respect during a given presentation, should be prepared to get up and leave or be escorted out. If their condition becomes a potential interference for a given presentation, they should be expected to demonstrate their personal civility by leaving prior to causing problems.

 

3.All factions need to have the opportunity to present their opinions free from interruptions. At the “first” instance of interruption from spectator or participants, the offender needs to be removed completely from the environment to ensure further interruptions are not possible. Set the example a couple times and conformity will become the norm. If an entire “crowd” needs to be removed, remove the entire crowd, or else the opportunity of communication and civility is lost. Yes, applied deterrents do work, operative word here is “applied.” The more times you count to three and do nothing, the more a child learns their first three numbers and that their behavior has no reason to change. (FYI, adults within a crowd at best have and demonstrate child mentalities, mob mentality is not an “intellectual” thing, never has been, never will be.)

 

4.Do not present a spectator sport style of promotion or application. Civilized debates cannot be handled the same as a NASCAR event. NASCAR events can be fun, can be exciting, can be entertaining. Rooting for your favorite over the noise of the cars and crowds is part of the ambiance and adds to the thrill. But a NASCAR event is not where typical, deep-rooted thoughts and expressions are conveyed, as well that level of discussion is not generally participated in during that type or any other sporting event. Sporting events are not the appropriate venue for civilized debates. You may have to accept a reduction in ticket sales and participation, but if the actual goal is communication as opposed to satisfied greed, notoriety or celebrity status, this criterion really should be followed.

 

5.Expectations enforced are expectations met. Until complete and competent thoughts and opinions can be shared, they cannot be expected to be understood. If any participating faction feels their opinions are not being given the opportunity to be understood, why should said faction accept any results from determining parties? Spoiler alert, they won’t. The freedom to debate, uninterrupted, with time to express complete thoughts, while given the respect of being “listened to,” are the actions of a civilized society. Without the expectation there will never be the result.

 

6.Until complete, competent, thorough expression of thoughts are allowed to be presented for the purpose of comparative analysis by other interested parties there are not any viable solutions available for any problems said to exist. There have always been calls for the need to “talk” between alternate view points and concerns, but of late, our society refuses to place a significant enough priority on making time and opportunity for such occasions to take place. It has become more popular politically, on media news outlets, and perhaps just cultural preferences, etc., for sound bites and sensationalism to be reported as opposed to actual debates. As such, and in keeping with applied societal expectations, no solutions have been found so far. Which ones of us are responsible for that? Which ones of us can modify that behavior? Which ones of us still buy Bud Light? Obviously, things that actually do matter to us, actually result in actual actions.

 

Are we as a society, culture, community, family, group of independent entities able to construct a civilized mode of existence? So far it seems as if we suck at that. Perhaps prior to trying to solve all of life’s other, bigger problems and dilemmas we should each one of us simply try harder to be the civilized creature we expect and want others to be. Maybe at least make the attempt inwardly before we make the demand outwardly.

 

Once upon a time I was left with the impression that an ant was able to talk with me. I listened for what the ant might say and heard him state that I did not know how to walk properly. I was curious as to why he might have that opinion so I requested his explanation for his conclusion. He told me that because I only had two legs I could not possibly know how to walk properly. I explained to him that I was able to go from point A to point B at will, at a sufficient pace arriving without causing harm to myself or to others, as needed, when needed, and I considered that a success. He was not impressed with my description or details and remained certain that I simply could not know how to walk.

 

Because I could, should I just stomp the ant with my boot, smash him with my thumb, pop him with a magnifier glass? Maybe the ant should take a run at me, climb up my leg and bite me on the knee cap leaving an itchy little puss blister. Would any of those endings to the tale be a manner by which to change his or my point of view?

 

Because I can, if I consider suddenly four more legs appear from my torso, how awkward at minimum it would be to coordinate their actions, adapt to their existence, and how cumbersome efforts would be to include their functions, not to mention the number of probable troubles I would have with my cadence. I am also fairly certain the ant might think it horrible if some little tyrant toddler molested his form by plucking off four of his legs and leaving him to struggle to drag himself along.

 

Now maybe, perhaps it is just best to leave the differences alone, each to their own without any insistence that the other conform to a norm only normalized by one’s own self. Therein lies the rub, who is needed to consider an understanding for a civilization to exist?

 

Just sayin’, all of us are either wearing shoes, bare foot, skating along, driving fast or slow, aboard planes, I personally enjoy trains; but until enough of us are headed in the same direction, no one really ever gets anywhere.

 

Or . . ., maybe we just say “I’m tired of all this crap,” sit back and watch as the apathy continues to grow? I wonder how that is going to work out for us all.