Repentance: on “what should not be” & the withdrawing of condemnation

 
“What should not be”
I admit that I have said things like “the past should  not have been how it was.” I had a list of developments that I condemned, such as the Nazi Holocaust or the crimes of Ted Bundy or the 9/11 Attacks or even Major League Baseball’s 1919 World Series. In the last case, 8 members of Chicago White Sox were banned for life from the sport in 1921 for being involved in a gambling conspiracy to intentionally lose the championship in 1919. The famous line of “say it ain’t so, Joe” comes from that incident.A team picture of the infamous 1919 Chicago White Sox, with the eight players involved in fixing the World Series circled.
I might have called some of those famous incidents “villainous” or “evil.” But what less famous incidents that were more personal to me?
What about the neighborhood dog that I saw attack a little kid? What about the teenage drunk driver from my school who killed 2 people and paralyzed another? What about the person who told me that if I told anyone about her actions,then she would lie to the police to protect herself, then make accusations to discredit me and injure me, and then even torture or kill anyone who was unfaithful to her wishes?Imagine that someone knows who the drunk driver was, but is afraid of reporting any knowledge of the incident.  Wouldn’t it be natural for that person to say things like “I really just wish that the car wreck had never happened” or “I should never have been there that time or else I would not even have known about it in the first place!”
 
 
Condemnation of what should not be
If you had not noticed yet, we are talking about condemnation. In particular, we are talking about condemnation as a natural extension of terror.
If someone is terrified about talking about a subject, then it is natural for them to condemn it and call it disgusting and to passionately say “that kind of thing should never happen!” Their condemnation is a huge surge of fear that interrupts or censors the conversation.It is more extreme than “this is not the time or the place to talk about it.” It is more like saying “do not ever talk about that or else I will go crazy and, if possible, physically attack you.”

 
The hysteria of “That should never happen!”
When someone experiences an extreme stress (as in distress or trauma), then it is normal for them to create a chronic tension relating to that incident. A physical tension of muscles will actually manifest in connection with the intense fear or paranoia over the possible display of fear (because of a concern that if others witness someone’s fear, then that will be unfavorable for the social welfare of the one who displays “politcally incorrect” fear).In order to totelly prevent the display of intense fear (such as in facial expressions or gestures), then chronic muscle tensions are required. So, one who is so traumatized as to be disgusted about a subject will eventually be quite paranoid about it. They will reflexively label the subject as something that “should not be” or is simply “unmentionable,” then display an outburst of emotional upset or tantrum in order to interrupt conversations with drama (in order to dominate the topic of conversation if not to terminate the conversation completely).
 
“But what if it should have happened?”
However, if I did see something traumatic (like a dogvciously attacking a child), then avoiding the subject does not alter the effect it had on me. In fact, avoiding the subject allows for the chronic physical tension to persist.It is predictable for a small child to learn not to mention something. If every time they mention it, it upsets their peers or causes them a private emotional breakdown, then they will learn to censor the topic.
So, at most, a child may say “that should not have happened.” Is it too disruptive to bring up the general topic of the 9/11 attacks? Then one learns not to bring them up.Is it too disruptive to bring up the specific details of those attacks? Again, one may learn not to bring up those details- or only in very specific circumstances.
“Soldiers and spies must keep secrets, right?”
Secrecy is important in many undertakings. Obviously, an undercover police officer will attempt to keep their true intentions and purposes as a secret.In fact, elaborate disinformation schemes may be created to distract people from the truth. Not only might an undercover officer or spy use an unmarked car, but fake documents showing a fake identity.How can the government justify such acts of fraud? A government simnply does not categorize it’s own acts of deception as fraud. Since governments regulate fraud, that means that they make rules for how they conduct fraudulent activities and also how they penalize the fraudulent activities of those outside of their exclusive network.
They do not eliminate fraud. They regulate it. They systematize it. They define it.

Rulers rule on the legal definitions of words
Governments define fraud. Since the legal definition of fraud is a legal matter, different governments can use different definitions of the same word. That is not “fraud.” That is how legal systems work; they define what they mean by the words that they use.For instance, if alcoholic beverages are legal at one time, then they can be criminalized. Later, the same government that criminalized something can decriminalize it. Or, perhaps the beverage is still criminalized, but only for people under a certain age or only while driving.Governments regulate crime. They define it. They prosecute it. They punish it.

They prevent some crimes, but until governments define something as a crime, there is no such thing as crime. In other words, they create crime (as a category of language- a legal category).

“So should it have happened or not?”
So, a dog viciously attacks a small child. Is it a police dog mauling a runaway slave? Is it a wild dog attacking the child of a famous and popular athlete? Is it a pet?
Who owns the pet? Is it owned by the President? Is it owned by rich and well-connected person who is more powerful than officers like the President? Is it owned by your own political enemy?All of these factors could be important issues in regard to whether a court system will focus on some incident as a criminal case or a civil case or what. Court systems are systems of privilege. Privilege is by definition exclusive.
So, maybe a case gets prosecuted or maybe it does not. That depends on things like the County Prosecutor’s personal interests in the case.
Next, maybe the case goes to jury, but then the judge overturns the jury’s decision. Or, maybe a higher level court overturns another judge’s decision.
What everyone knows about court systems is that wealth influences court proceedings. A company with a lot of expensive lawyers may not win every case, but they are attempting to use their wealth in order to hire lawyers who can effectively influence the outcome of the case (independently of the actual facts of the case).Again, everyone generally recognizes the truth of this principle, but it is rarely stated outright. Why? Many people may find it disturbing or even disgusting. They do not like to admit that every court system is simply a coercive operation for the inequitable redistribution of economic resources.
Courts use organized violence to govern human society. The human resources are managed through governments- sometimes very invasively and sometimes very loosely.
“But should the dog have attacked the child?”
Well, did the child “deserve” it? This is not a question of the historical details, by the way, but just a question of how you choose to relate to the incident.Will you interpret the incident as justice, injustice, or something else? Will you label it a crime, a tragedy, a victory, a cause for a new military offensive, or what?
Any of those are valid. However, there is another alternative unlike any of those.
One could simply refrain from commenting on whether something should have happened. If it did happen, then that is all there is to say about it (for some people).
“Why would God have allowed that?”
We can use the term God to refer to a poetic ideal of an Almighty creative power that produces all effects that we observe. Within the context of this interpretative framework, everything that happens is God’s creation.
Language is God’s creation. Labels like “good and evil” are just categories in language. Those are just ways to relate to things. Good and evil aresociallabelings in language.For instance, 23 degrees or 19 inches is not inherently good or evil. Only in a specific social context of labeling with language would the terms good or evil be used.23 degrees might be a good temperature for skiing but a bad temperature for a picnic. Or, if we are talking about Celsius degrees instead of Fahrenheit degrees, that different context (in regard to what kind of degrees are we using) can make big difference.

 
“Why does God create anything?”
So, you are God’s creation. Others may judge you as heroic or evil or too tall or too short or just the right height. That interpretation is about them and their perspective.However tall you are, that is how tall God has made you. Also, however other people label you is how God has made them label you.
Why does God create the things that God creates? God creates whatever God creates because… God creates whatever God creates.”Why” is in the realm of theoretical justification. It is like saying “why is there an effect that humans label as gravity?” The effect just happens.
“Why does God create things THIS way?”
 
But why does God create things? Then again, why not?
Why is a question for human intellect, not for the Almighty. To say “God sent the flood at the time of Noah because humanity sinned” is speculative (as in “prophetic”). There may be social utility to saying that (as well as to saying “God caused the flood but should not have done that”).
In a similar train of thought, why do humans tell lies? Generally, they tell lies out of sincere misperception (which we might not even call a lie, but just an error) or out of an intent to deceive.Wow- not very shocking, right?Of course, when people are so terrified or disturbed or disgusted by a subject that they do not want to explore the truth, then they may worship sincere misperceptions as a way to avoid the possibility of accuracy. They may argue with animosity and ridicule “heretics” and even kill innocent people to preserve their sacred idolatries.
They may say “this is an insult to God’s Will! This is a cause for hysteria and panic and outrage!”
Others may speak with much less obsession and paranoia: “If God wills it, it happens. If it happens, God wills it.”
Repentance: the withdrawing of condemnation
For those who understand the interpretative framework of an Almighty God and then apply it, there is a notable result. When the entire function of linguistic condemnation is withdrawn (or at least relaxed), then there is a releasing of the network of chronic muscular tension that corresponds to hiding “negative” emotions (the ones that emotionally terrify you).Instead of investing huge amounts of energy in to avoiding the display of certain emotions (or displaying intense emotional reactions to what allegedly should not be), one can interpret all developments as the Will of the Almighty God. One can resign from the being the constant authority always agonizing with sincere perfectionism over what should be and what should not be.Again, if it happens, God has willed it. If it does not happen, God has not willed it.
“So should I put up a fence for safety from dogs?”
Yes, you should have a fence. If you do not already have one, you should put up a fence. If you do have one, you should occasionally make sure that it is strong and secure.
However, what should we do about the humans who use language to deceive other humans, such as government undercover agents and the people that they criminalize? We should do whatever we do.If we do not do something, then we should not- or not yet. Until we do it, God has obviously not willed for us to do it. If we do it, then God has obviously willed for us to do it.
“How can we make up for what should not have been?”
When one practices humble repentance (by withdrawing any condemnation of God’s creation and of God), then there is no issue of compensating for the past. We do not need to do anything to earn our way out of hell or in to heaven if we are already in heaven.
Sin is the belief (the linguistic interpretation) that “this is not what should be.” It is the rejecting of the Authority of God Almighty. Hell is similar: “I am not what I should be.”It may be socially useful to display self-hatred and shame and so on. Many effective apologies may begin with words like “I am not what I should be.”
Sp what is a fitting label for those who in a sincere terror worship the idea of a devil who threatens the Almighty God? We could call them devil-worshiping idolaters. Either God is Almighty and, according to God’s own will and poetic creativity, has created a poetic character called a devil (among many others)… or else God is not Almighty.
Now, do you reject the possible value of the poetic interpretation that God is Almighty?In particular, do you worship an Almighty God or do you reject monotheism and instead worship two competing powers: a devil as the real focus of your attention, and, as a sidenote, an insecure “god” who is threatened by that devil but also offers you eventual salvation from the villain of the devil (who really just threatens you, like because you lack faith)?Do you know the eternal savior now or are you still desperately agonizing over hopefully being saved in the future? Do you experience (under any social pretenses) fear or courage?
I am not asking if you ever did reject the idea of an Almighty God. I am also not asking if you ever used an alternative interpretation in language.I am asserting that whatever you did, God did through you. What you said, God willed for you to say.
I am asserting that whatever happens, that happens according to God’s Will.
Be clear that this is not a theoretical speculation or a justification- it is not a matter for debate or evidence or proof. This is a poetic interpretation- a matter of pure faith.
God is the creator both of mindful poetic interpretations as well as hysterical emotional speculations (and also of the terrified antagonisms that tend to correspond to hysteria and paranoia and so on). If you can witness it (or even imagine it), then the Almighty God is behind that witnessing or imagining.

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: