What's all the whining about?

I guess everyone has noticed all the whining by students and teachers around the country at the outcome of the Presidential election. Its been hard not to. We've witnessed what many call "real fear and hopelessness." I, for one , would never doubt that anyone's feelings are real.

Can you imagine the Founding Fathers sitting down in their comfy chair, looking at this whining with chin in hand, patting their foot in disgust and thinking, "we fought and died for this?" Our nation has been a beacon of freedom and generosity for hundreds of years.

We have fought to eliminate oppression all over the world.

I suspect many of us are likewise looking out the corner of our eyes or even down our nose at such ungrateful disdain expressed for the privileges and provisions of living in the best nation ever created. It can be difficult for many of us to grasp "why the pity party?"

Before we get too prideful that we are not like those students and teachers, think about some of your own pity parties. Think about what you whine about. Why so? What is it that makes you feel afraid or hopeless like these young people who think their world has come to an end because HRC didn't get elected? Isn't that the source of our whining? Things are not like we want them to be and we feel badly about the situation.

Is it possible God is reacting to our whining kinda like our Founding Fathers might react to the "crying babies" following an election? Can you picture God with His chin in His hand and patting His foot thinking, "Duh, why are you living beneath the privileges and provisions of My Kingdom?" I picture Him like this all the time. What is your answer? Why are you whining at life's situations?

PAUSE - THINK - DEEPLY

My guess is your answer is "well, I am only human." Interesting statement. Probably been claimed by whiners many gazillion times. What do you think God's response is?

I sent my Son Jesus to suffer and die and HE rose from the dead to remove the word ONLY .....

God has given us many reminders, here are a couple ....

"In Christ we are a new creation, all things have passed, BEHOLD all things have become new"

"I came that you may have joy and have it abundantly"

"Fear not, little flock, your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom."

delusion of inclusion

"Inclusion" is definitely the current PC trend that creates a lot of debate. It is the mantra of the political left and the target of attacks of the political right. Each accusing the other of vile virtue. Generations look at each other in dismay. People are feeling threatened and afraid, angry, and hopeless.

The problem seems to be that "inclusion" engenders confusion and this ambiguity fosters delusion.

If "inclusion" means that we should be welcoming of others different from us, then the right and the left both agree on and advocate inclusion. Most fair minded people see hospitality and extending open arms to people who do not look or even think like they do as a good thing. While an openness to observable diversity may not be a natural response of humans according to sociological research, civilized societies see virtue and benefit in embracing diversity.

The rub seems to come in when we apply "inclusion" to society's exercise of rights, who has what right to do what? The left applies the notion of "inclusion" to individual rights and this creates situations that offend people on the political right. For example, if we include the rights of customers to be served even if the shop keeper does not wish to serve them, the left sees this as "inclusion" and the right sees this as a violation of the rights of the shop keeper. Consideration of the rights of the shop keeper are NOT considered "inclusion".Thus, the rights of both can not be "included" at the same time. The same occurs with "including" the rights of women to abort their child for any reason, which excludes the rights of the unborn child. Granting illegal immigrants the right to work in the US, violates the rights of citizens to those jobs. Allowing males who think they are females to visit locker rooms of girls who have a right to privacy from having to shower with males viloates one group by including the wishes of another. And on and on and on ....

When we are dealing with some aspects of "inclusion", such as rights, we find that including one party excludes another and vice versa. Thus, "inclusion" is only an illusion because it is impossible to be "inclusive." We can shout at each other all we want. We can cycle through one political party after the next, but we will not resolve "inclusion." Yes, we must have mechanisms to resolve the conflict of rights, but making "inclusion" a virtue of society where it is impossible is just plain insanity. Our founding fathers found a way to protect rights of citizens from government's over reach, but how we deal with each other's self-serving desires that infringe on others requires way more than laws.

Where are the grown ups when we need them?    

same message, different mind

A popular author and blogger used this quote from MLK to make a point he feels is vital to living well. In his blog he chose to draw attention to the Golden Rule as a frame of reference for this quote and his point

His blog went as follows"


"why do we think that if we do to others

what we dislike them doing to us,

things will get better?.

hatred begets hatred which creates disconnection.

disconnection is what makes us suffer.

love begets love which creates connection

connection is what brings us happiness."

This feels really good. There is nothing most people would disagree with. BUT, here is the problem. He starts with a carnal core assumption so the Golden Rule does not become an agent of Grace, but an agent of reciprocity.

When our mind is anchored in social exchange, everything is viewed as "we do this, we get that." Notice the blogger has place the Golden Rule in the context of what we should do if we desire "what brings us happiness." When our mind is anchored in Grace, which is the Kingdom mind and the context for the Golden Rule, there is no expectation of exchange. We start with the idea that our needs are already satisfied. God has acted on our behalf. He has bestowed on us unmerited favor. We have no reciprocal action required. Justice has been satisfied. Our actions to be light in a dark world, to bring love, not hate, to the world is not motivated by achieving our satisfaction. Satisfaction is a priori to action, not resulting from it.

In the carnal core assumption, satisfaction follows our action. In the Kingdom core assumption satisfaction precedes our action. You may think that this difference is just academic. I would contend the difference in core assumptions and the quality of life associated with each is OUT OF THIS WORLD .....

making sense of "uncommon sense"

How often have you heard people say, "just use good common sense"? Maybe that's what you use when faced with decisions. "Common sense" is so common that you may not have thought much about what you mean when you say, "I prefer to rely on common sense."

Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet in 1776 outlining the reasons the Colonies should seek independence from England. It laid out persuasive arguments for why Protestant values were best served by presenting a distinctly different American identity. It is the best selling American title even today.

Wikipedia explains that "common sense" is now used to mean anything with shared value and acceptance among most people without the need for debate. The origin of the phrase in both the Greek and Latin generally relate to natural instincts, such as how animals instinctively respond to stimuli in ways that work best for them.

It is easy to make the linkage between "common sense" and culture and "common sense" and nature, since both are strong influences on sense-making that produce legitimate, instinctive responses.

So, what would "uncommon sense" be? We really don't have a wiki pedia explanation of this term. Most people would wonder why anyone might desire "uncommon sense." How could there ever be an advantage to go against conventional wisdom? Well, here's an idea.

Culture and human nature produce legitimate thoughts, feelings and actions, but not necessarily the best. In fact culture and nature are filled with flawed instincts of blind conformity and self-serving bias. "Common sense" may lead to failure and destruction when individuals act naturally and normally to manipulate their surroundings for their own benefit.

So, what if "uncommon sense" has a better way to determine truth, a better view of reality, a better way to get our needs met, and a better way to know we are OK? Would that make "uncommon sense" 'mo' better", a better way to make decisions? What must we know b4 we can have that kind of sense?  Consider that's a journey worth taking .....