Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

The Pride of Life

Posted 26 months ago|13 comments|649 views
TAGS
Written by
Gregoire
There is an interesting phenomena that takes place among people with breath in their nostrils. The scripture/Bible/writings (pick according to your faith or lack thereof) of ancient Semites describe it as the pride of life.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Though universal in its practice, in operation it is difficult to describe in application.
In short, the living always believe they know better than those who have gone before.

Those made static in death we imagine, are easily apprehended. We can observe them like bugs pinned to a blotter, add up the apparent sum of influences upon them, deduce their motives, and bracket them according to some dots assigned on a time line.
It is impossible for us to consider, apart from an epiphany, that perhaps they have measured us in their own eye, better than we have measured them.
The mistake we commonly make is often in accord with a derivation of this aphorism: "Life is for the living". For taking it past a simple instruction to make the most of one's time above ground we easily imagine that those of us so engaged are, by that very (temporary) location, heirs and privy to all the understanding of life that the dead, by their very decease, did not apprehend. For the living, death is always a metaphor, it speaks of the failure of those gone by.
Again, in simpler terms that experience has probably taught many of us, consider your first taste of love. Did you not imagine that no one, be it Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, Bacall and Bogart had ever experienced the true and deep longings, joys, and bittersweet torments of love that were ignited in your soul? (Forget even mentioning mom and pop, for they couldn't remotely understand in their "stodgy" familiarity and comfort that simply smiled on what was, for you, the discovery of the new world.)
Even those of us who imagine ourselves devoutly devoted to the icons of our faith often find ourselves engaged in an inner dialogue when presented with instruction from those who have gone before. Is there any christian that has not, in the inner recesses of his heart cradled that vanity that it was a lot easier for Jesus to die for the truth of his own word than it is for us? (and please bear with me, as I do not wish to make this into a sectarian posting, but simply seek to offer some example, to either be dismissed...or not) We may think, "well, it was easier for Jesus, he just liked suffering...he had a nicer disposition"...or worse, "he didn't have as much to lose...I have a pretty hefty 401k, a decent house, wife and kids... and a boat..."? (After all, he only had a tunic and a pair of sandals...big deal)
Yes, we may say...those in the past may have had some understanding of life...but it was only their own life. Whereas we, inevitably flattering ourselves with a fallacious sort of converse, imagine we know all about LIFE really oblivious to the fact that all we truly know is about our own life.

What prompted this was the recent post about the Constitution. That's why I didn't want to get bogged down in a spiritual discussion except as it relates to the folly of our (perhaps) vainly believing we have evolved past the quaint understandings of government some "old (and dead) white men" had as outlined in that document. We consign them and their insights to a past we may so easily confine to the parameters upon which we decide. We measure them in our own eye, always the enlightened one, and dismiss them as the product of "that time". We are loathe to consider, or admit, they may have known more of life than we, who so easily and casually dismiss them, do.
One may easily accuse me of seeking to deify those framers. Nothing is further from the truth. What I do desire is a fair balance, a true accounting in a just measure of a man's character when weighed in the light of truth.
The truth is these men, for better or for worse, understood what they hazarded in putting pen to paper above their signatures in both the Declaration...and subsequent documents. I sincerely doubt whether the gallows was ever very far removed from their consciousness. And although I cannot and will not categorically endorse any and every product or utterance born of trials (Mein Kampf is not equivalent to Paul's letters to Timothy) I cannot likewise but dismiss any assumed equivalency of the experience of those men with what today passes for leadership.

The recommendation was made in a post of having the "best and brightest" craft a new constitution, which may or may not have been facetious. I would contend that the original framers, based neither on antiquity nor veneration, have and had a far better understanding of life and the character of both man and freedom than any we could, by common assent, assemble today.
Their proximity to the realities of blood and guts and bone, their endurance of temptations I have no doubt they suffered in considering the exposure of their own for their cause, I have yet to see manifest amongst those who may evaluate their work as inferior.
And I also believe they saw those who would be willing to trade liberty as a commodity seen in flux rather than a transcendent truth valued in fact by a precious few, for something more comfortable.
In truth, I believe they see and saw us far better than we imagine we have, again, in our vanity, perceived them.

Keep your lawyers.

I'll always take a man who's willing to write his words in his own blood.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
26 months ago: I am willing to bet there would not be many of the "best and brightest'' willing to take the challange on ''pain of death''. Include that as a penalty and they will submit that the process is flawed. Unlike the past the ''best and brightest'' of today will lay pen to paper when someone else must pay the final price.

Nice.
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
26 months ago: We owe everything that we have today, to these great men, that dared to write the world's best "protection" document.

By protection I mean, that it gave us the start of a new life free from tyranny and enslavement.

But as they knew, treasonous men made a duplicate "Corporate" Constitution,to take away our rights and liberties.

To them we are US citizens, which means a Federal Subject.

But as I have not too long told you, the World Court gave orders to the US Supreme Court and made it give back our Country, so that we could go back to the common law.

This is going to change the whole world.

I tell it like it is, I pull no punches, tell no lies, and I am as I am

THE ONE AND ONLY RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_tre...

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-...

markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Once I got past your introduction, I tend to agree in principal with the notion that we don't need to throw out the Constitution and make a new one - as I stated in that topic, we already have a process for amending the Constitution and it's been done 27 times.

"We are loathe to consider, or admit, they may have known more of life than we, who so easily and casually dismiss them"

Does that mean the 27 Amendments (last one in 1992) were done with malicious intent to casually dismiss our founding fathers?

As for your introduction though, you invoke your deity to sanctimoniously castigate the opposition as being full of pride; that of course is the ultimate in pride and conceit on your part (not to mention a logical fallacy). Pot, Kettle?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: "As for your introduction though, you invoke your deity to sanctimoniously castigate the opposition as being full of pride; that of course is the ultimate in pride and conceit on your part (not to mention a logical fallacy). Pot, Kettle?"

If we take the basics of life anyone can prideful Mark. That is the fact of life. So what he included his God into the equation. it is no different than you telling Greg pot,kettle. Are you not saying he is prideful? So whats the difference between the two prides seeings how you don't believe in the invisible deity to begin with?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: ...So what he included his God into the equation. it is no different..

I didn't say was a problem - you can invoke your deity all day long but in a forum where people have different deities or no deity, it carries all the weight of a helium balloon. What I identified was using his deity to sanctimoniously castigate the opposition as being full of pride.

26 months ago: ...opposition as being full of pride...
and you can also be truthful and say the opposition relishes winning with pride.

That would be all sides.
Gregoire
Gregoire
26 months ago: Actually Mark, since I subscribe to the devolution of man I understand why you would easily disdain any introduction of deity into the argument. Or easily infer that it is a vanity that allows me, as you say, to castigate the opposition.
I guess I could have left out any reference to the scripture and simply addressed the issue as nothing more than the silliness of mere pride. But for me it has helped illuminate matters of faith and practice when I have, for instance, found myself presented with the absurdity of fat preachers standing in the place of, let's say, judging Paul the apostle's motives and behavior.

That I have found it applicable in other areas is, though irritating for you, totally consistent with the self proclaimed benefit of keeping the scriptures in one's consciousness. They are useful in every area, and for every judgment. That does not imply I have always used them rightly or even consistently, so if you see pride in me, you may well be judging better than myself in the matter.
Again, I do not deify the framers, nor even make claim the product of their deliberations is, in any way, perfect.
I suppose in the broader sense I am responding to a world in which a fawning pol and lackey can easily dismiss as flawed the labors of men in every way his betters, when their labors alone are what have allowed him position to speak at all of the matter.

Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams were presidents
Obama is a president
Obama is equivalent in some way to J/W/M/A

That's just one example. You, of course, are free to insert whatever other name you desire, reverse the order if you will, and have J/W/M/A in the inferior role. The permutations are almost endless.
Regardless, there is such a thing as character, and it is only the nation that has degraded into the lawyer's mentality where truth becomes a byword subservient to a predetermined agenda, that ignores it.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: ...Actually Mark, since I subscribe to the devolution of man...I guess I could have left out any reference to the scripture...But for me it has helped illuminate matters of faith and practice...

Let's examine this concept of devolution and your scripture.

You mean we devolved from believing in an imaginary deity that ordered women to make an animal sacrifice for having the gall to menstruate and if they had a child, they were unclean and had to stay away from the temple for either 33 days (male child) or 66 days (female child) - guess female babies are extra dirty, eh? Lev. 12 and 15.

You mean we devolved from believing in an imaginary deity that told jealous men they could make their wives eat dirt as an adultery test and if she got sick, she was guilty - of course this sick trial by fire could not be imposed by women on their husbands (Numbers 5)

You mean we devolved from believing in an imaginary deity who ignorantly thought the Earth was just hanging out in space, didn't move, and didn't have a clue that the earth orbited the sun; instead thinking the sun rises and sets and "hurries back to where it rises"? (Job 26, Ecclesiastes 1, Psalm 104)

You mean we devolved from believing in an imaginary deity that set up slavery and that it was a-okay to beat a slave severely as long as they didn't die, and that you were to "emancipate" the slave if you beat them to the point of blinding them? (Deut 20, Exod 21) - of course, what good is a blind slave?

You mean we devolved from believing in an imaginary deity that barbarically ordered his minions to commit genocide and got honked off because they didn't slaughter the animals along with the women and children? (1 Sam 15)

You mean we devolved from believing in an imaginary three headed gargoyle deity that sent one of his selves to get tortured & murdered by his creation to satisfy his blood lust, and make it so people could feel all better about their life failings and get their eternal ticket punched to a heaven with streets of gold?

Let's hope more people devolve from believing in barbaric, bizarre, and ignorant superstitions. Not just these superstitions but any of them, whether it's Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc., and BTW, what makes your superstition any less superstitious than these I've just listed? Aren't they evolved too?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: For all the short comings of our forefathers they were intelligent men and women that helped form this country. Just look at the wordings "all men are created equal", if they believed and supported slavery do you not think for one minute they would have stated "all white men are created equal"? No they did not. Some say they had divine intervention of God in forming this nation. I do not propose to know each and everyone of them personally but we owe them a great deal for what we practice so freely and openly now.
Gregoire
Gregoire
26 months ago: I suppose at heart I wanted to make the point that although the particulars of life have changed a bit, life itself, hasn't. Life knew its "hangers on" then as now, it's few who understood liberty is not a concept in flux, but an absolute.
What could have been more prophetic, more a testament that these men saw down the road probably better than we see into the past with this saying... "Democracy in America is doomed when the people learn to vote themselves money from the public trough..." -Alternately attributed to either Franklin or Alexis de Toucqueville.
That is what I meant by "we are loathe to admit"...that we are merely those folks that are a product of our history, and the canny manipulation of both our basest and trivial desires, and wily politicians...but like to imagine ourselves as those striking off in a brave new adventure of self determination for all.
Likewise with every surrender of liberty for security, we prove the aphorism of being folks that deserve neither.
Here is an interesting site with some notable observations...generally a bit more trenchant than what passes today as wisdom:

http://www.panarchy.org/zube/democracy.h...

agree, or disagree, there's still plenty to consider.

I guess I should have added a sort of disclaimer to my whole rant if one might perceive I was making a case for the founders as being "divinely inspired", for I am still not convinced that the USA which was established in rebellion to a king, was the direct result of following the scriptural instruction to submit to its government.
"Honor the King" may not be easily demonstrable by shooting his troops.
But that bell obviously cannot be unrung, and for better or worse here we are today.
That being said, I still prefer men who put more at risk than "their political future", yet think themselves bold carriers of the torch of liberty.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
25 months ago: Nice post. It's great having you around here.

Your writing inspires and encourages me very much. Reminds me know I'm not alone out here either (shout outs to TCG, RSG, Scotie, Edward, SS, OOTB, Kiki and the others).

I would have put in some comments along the way, but I've been away from the site for a while. Life and family and work y'know.

God bless.
scotmanster
scotmanster
25 months ago: Welcome back Huey, you missed some interesting religious articles since you been gone.
Gregoire
Gregoire
6 months ago: Were I to dismiss Jesus, his work and his words, no call for light or justice would be heard in the heavens.
The universe would resound to my ears with the deafening echo of hollow pleas.
By his grace alone I stand...and through his faith alone I a man covered in the blood of an innocent man. He has determined his blood to speak for me...and not against as would apparently be so much more justifiable.
But, mercy has indeed triumphed over judgment there, and if I by my words display my own pride, then may that be a witness as to the need for my own salvation. And I receive reproof.
I did not receive instruction, nor have I ever, to keep any of the matters you described as barbaric. And if by implication you believe you can impugn the life of Jesus for his devotion and unashamed confession of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...you are free, but I would not encourage it. We can do nothing against the truth...only for it. Each man will live a life of either example...or warning.
And besides, who knows where you may have appeared in that milieu? You may well have had the blood dripping out of your own mouth and down your chin.
Hearing, seeing, and speaking in part is the best any of may do. But I would also suggest to you this, that what may now appear to you as transparently foolish and primitive, barbaric and genocidal is only now apparent to you by the introduction of an unquantifiable, invisible, odorless, tasteless salve for your eyes.
We may not be surprised to discover none are so blind as those who do not acknowledge the maker of the eye.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.