From the earliest age we teach the song "Jesus Loves Me" to our kids. Later, it is "Jesus Loves the Little Children." God knows that he has built into each one of us a need to be loved. But when that love is based on conditions, it turns into something that drives us to behave in ways that we think will cause others to love us. These “ways” can be very distructive. Maybe I feel that my Mom will only love me if I perform well in school. That would seem like a good thing. Until I fail, that is. Or until I fail to meet what I believe are her expectations. Now I’m living my life for her, not for me.
Lets say that I believe that God’s love is conditional. How better to live my life than to be constantly comparing what I do to what Ithink God wants me to do? Then I fail, and I will. I think that God’s love is withdrawn. How do I recover from that? Strive harder? Work harder? Or give up in despair? The Biblical God doesn’t intend that. He definitely wants us to work hard and do as he has so instructed us for our own good, not His good. He wants to be there to lift us up when we fail, not abandon us. The knowledge that God will be there, NO MATTER WHAT, even if everyone else has forsaken us, is a phenomenal comfort. If we truly trust in that one thing, it will carry us through much that we might otherwise become self destructive over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I hardly see how the assumed love of someone who is never around, who never calls, never sends you presents, never even answers your letters and cries, can be seen as "practical." And according to many doctrines, if his love is unconditional, he sure has a funny way of showing it. I have a hard time seeing "do what I say and believe in me without any proof whatsoever or you'll suffer for eternity" as "unconditional" and an even harder time seeing it as "love."
The problem with talking about God's "unconditional love" is that in many denominations it sure looks a lot like the "love" an abusive spouse or parent has for his or her victim. I can think of no other kind of "love" which inspires guilt, fear of punishment, assumptions of personal worthlessness and uncleanliness, and yet fanatical and irrational devotion.
I would suspect, Tom, that you already know how I'll answer both halves of your comment, but so as to be complete, I'll do so anyway.
My personal experience, and the experience of others would be just the opposite. He, God, is always there, it is we humans who sometimes distance ourselves from Him. This tends to happen when we are knowingly not doing what we should be doing.
His gifts are abundent. In fact, every breath is a gift, and it goes from there. It is certainly possible to claim that I worked to gain my house, but I can't say I did anything to gain sunlight, O2, an earth that supports life, etc. So all of that is a gift, either from God or nature.
The any proof part is what I have the hardest time understanding from unbelievers. This site is dedicated to the proposition that evidence is abundent for the existence of God. Proof? No. But the same is true of no God. Evidence of natural explanations for everything, but nowhere near proof.
With regard to the second half, you must have a different God in mind. The idea of forgiveness is that you can deal with guilt. The idea of salvation is that there is no punishment other than the natural consequences of irresponsible or sinful behavior. The assumption of worthlessness turns into an assumption of worth beyond any measure upon salvation. But, actually, God desires that every one be saved. Thus every living soul has worth to him. Where do you get the idea that this is not true?
It's not about distance from him, it's about the fact that whether or not you believe in him, he isn't physically there. He doesn't talk to you, he doesn't give you hugs, he doesn't pat you on the shoulder and say "good job." He is an absent parent. For some, it may be comforting. For some "someday my real mom and dad will come and take me away from this place" is comforting too.
And for some, the "I can't live up to his impossible standards" or "what do I have to do to get you to show yourself to me" is exactly the opposite of comforting.
"The universe is a gift" may be a useful outlook depending on your denomination and outlook. If your life sucks, it seems little consolation to think "I'm lucky to be alive," particularly if you happen to think that there's a better world coming when you die.
Even so, it's no reason to believe in any specific deity. Every religion claims responsibility for the creation of the cosmos. And science finds wonder and awe in the cosmos itself, without needing to attribute it to any higher power. Finding beauty in the natural world neither necessitates a god nor provides the comfort and care one expects from real love, conditional or otherwise.
What evidence? What evidence have you ever shown for the existence of any god, let alone yours? The Bible is not evidence of God any more than the Iliad is evidence of Zeus and Athena. The natural world is not evidence of God, it is evidence of the natural world. Alvin Plantinga's arguments are not evidence of God, they are evidence of how poor philosophy can still convince people that things they already belive are true. And that's ignoring the basic fact that a philosophical argument proves nothing.
I'm not sure why this point doesn't get through to you: "no god" is a default position. It is only reasonable to believe that something does not exist until positive evidence is presented to show the contrary. Until I have proof of X, I will not believe that X exists.
If we go the other way, we believe "X exists" until we are shown evidence that it does not exist, then we must accept all claims as true until the entire universe is scoured and no evidence can be found. Do you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and the god of thunder Thor? If you accept "god exists" as some default position until evidence against his existence can be shown, then it's inconsistent to disbelieve in other things which have not been proven to not-exist.
No, we all refuse to believe things until we are shown some evidence for them. However, some people are more consistent both for which claims they assess in this way, and what they see as acceptable evidence.
I get this idea from other Christians. The God I have in mind is the one who has rules that you must follow, though they directly contradict reason, biology, and psychology, and will condemn you to an eternity of torment if you fail to meet those standards. The God I'm talking about is the one who would dole out infinite punishments for finite crimes, who causes millions to believe that they will be condemned for practicing safe sex or masturbating or allowing themselves to doubt for a moment the existence of the Holy Spirit. It's the God who would have his followers believe that the devil is the king of this world, that every person is tainted with inherited sin, and that such sin is only added to by the fact that getting angry and feeling lust are the equals of murder and adultery. It's a God who is described as "forgiving" and "loving" but really comes across as vindictive and fearsome.
That's the God I'm talking about. And every facet of that is believed by some faction of Christians, mostly by large factions of Christians. So, while you might find your particular interpretation of God to be comforting and loving, there are plenty of other denominations and plenty of other people whose interpretations and experiences are a lot less positive. And when you are, for instance, a gay teen whose religion says that you are an abomination for urges over which you have no control, you aren't going to find a whole lot of solace in the God who's condemning you for Hell for the way he made you.
I get all of my ideas about God from other Christians, Randy. Since there's no real evidence, I just have to rely on hearsay.
If you want something practical, if you want unconditional love that you don't have to do anything for, from someone who will always be right there waiting for you, don't get a god. Get a dog. God won't lick your face when he's happy, and dog won't send you to hell for feeling lust.
God's love is certainly conditional.
Take the concept of Hell, for example.
Now when parents punish you, it's usually something that's over and done with eventually. Parents will admit that their love is conditional, yet it's very rare that a parent will condemn their child for the rest of their lives.
God on the other hand, will.
He threatens us with suffering for an eternity - essentially his lifetime.
I don't have kids, but I fail to see what it is that could be this bad that would force me to do this to them.
Unrelated - if God's love is unconditional, doesn't the bit about God hating Esau become a bit embarrassing for God?
Tom,
"And for some, the "I can't live up to his impossible standards" or "what do I have to do to get you to show yourself to me" is exactly the opposite of comforting."
I can understand your point of view in the above comment. But this is the case in all aspects of life. It certainly becomes a choice based on personal preference.
Having said that, The God of the Bible does not require you to live up to His impossible standards, unless you think it is impossible to love Him, desire to know Him, and take some time and energy to communicate with Him. If we are able to do those things, then the rest is covered by grace. If we fail to end sinning, and we will, we are supposed to be in a process of turning from various sins as we gain trust.
What do we have to do to get God to reveal Himself to us? Merely seek Him, and be available to Him. What do I have to do to get the attention of anybody. It is incumbent upon me to work on any relationship where I desire positive results. If I stop paying attention, even to my dog, he will eventually find someone elses lap to sit in.
Regarding picking a particular diety. I don't wish to denegrate anyone else's diety or religion, but there is no religion on earth that has been more fully vetted, investigated, critiqued, and attacked than Christianity. Yet, after all that, it is the most widely followed system. This is especially amazing when, at least in this century, there is virtually no coercion, unlike the other two major religions.
I can understand your point of view in the above comment. But this is the case in all aspects of life. It certainly becomes a choice based on personal preference.
Only inasmuch as anyone's religious affiliation is based on personal preference. There are quite a lot of denominations who specialize in making their members feel guilty and fearful, and there are quite a lot of people whose personal preference has nothing to do with whether or not they are born and indoctrinated into such sects.
Having said that, The God of the Bible does not require you to live up to His impossible standards, unless you think it is impossible to love Him, desire to know Him, and take some time and energy to communicate with Him. If we are able to do those things, then the rest is covered by grace. If we fail to end sinning, and we will, we are supposed to be in a process of turning from various sins as we gain trust.
Again, while this may be true for your particular church or your particular reading of the Bible, not only is it not universal, but I'd say that it is not even the majority viewpoint.
What is impossible is becoming somehow unable to feel lust or anger, both of which are sins of the mind and are equated with breaking commandments.
What do we have to do to get God to reveal Himself to us? Merely seek Him, and be available to Him.
Bull. If this were true, then there wouldn't be so much apostasy. I sought God, I was open and available to him for nigh-on twenty years, and I never got the personal revelation. And I'm not alone in that, not by a long shot. It's not about ceasing attention, I paid attention for years, and God never came to sit in my lap.
How long do I stand at my front porch calling for the dog I've never seen or heard, running around the neighborhood in a panic, putting up signs and making phone calls and visiting pounds, before it dawns on me that I never actually owned a dog?
Regarding picking a particular diety. I don't wish to denegrate anyone else's diety or religion, but there is no religion on earth that has been more fully vetted, investigated, critiqued, and attacked than Christianity.
Um...Judaism? They've got a good couple of millennia on you, I'm afraid.
Yet, after all that, it is the most widely followed system. This is especially amazing when, at least in this century, there is virtually no coercion, unlike the other two major religions.
Not all that amazing, really. Christianity, from its very beginning, was one of the first religions where you could freely convert and be held in the same esteem as someone who was born into it. It was also a religion, in those early days, of iconoclasm and empowerment to the oppressed, the poor, the meek, that sort. Up until that point, most religions supported a given society's social hierarchy (the rich were rich and the poor were poor as per God's divine plan), and the only way to join a religion was to be born into it, or to have your people conquered and forcibly converted. And in those latter cases, the forcibly converted were rarely considered the equals of the native believers. By being a religion of the commoners and by opening its doors to all willing converts, Christianity was able to spread much more easily than most mainstream religions of the time (and if there's a unique and innovative element to Christianity, that's it). This spread was made even easier under Pope Gregory the Great, who authorized a campaign of systematic assimilation and syncretism, where the missionaries (such as Augustine of Canterbury) would visit foreign cultures and bless everything of their pagan religions that could reasonably be absorbed into Christianity, thereby making the tribes' conversion much easier. Many of the saints were created through this process, and are actually the gods and goddesses of other religions (St. Bridget, for example, is directly transposed from the Celts).
So, you've got a religion that has fairly unique elements of propagation, combined with rabid evangelism and (eventually) an alliance with the most powerful empire in the world. You've got a doctrine of adaptation, readily absorbing other cultures into the tapestry, and you've got an active missionary system. Once Christianity conquered enough of the Western world (and in many cases, subjugated the members of other religions), it suddenly becomes far less surprising that they would maintain such a hold. After all, as with most religions, you only need to convert one generation. The subsequent generations are born into the religion, and most will stick with it.
Being oft-tested has little to do with the popularity of Christianity. Global imperialism and ravenous evangelism in the last millennium and a half have far more to do with it than some perception that it's based on valid, tested principles.
Folks sell many things based on guilt or fear (Global Warming anyone.) And I think that there is room for appropriate use of these in sales. The problem isn't the use, but rather the misuse (misleading statistics, hyperbole, etc.)
I do agree with you that some end up following a certain POV because their parents did, friends, etc. However, as a father of 4, I can tell you my experience is that at some point the kids will challenge your belief system prior to taking it on for themselves, or abandoning it.
I think your analysis of the history of the marketing of Christianity is very interesting, and I would love to know more. However, in my meager 40 or so years in sales and marketing, I find that very few products stay on the market by the methods you propose. Most folks only get fooled for so long.
dikkii,
There are plenty of times when you have to turn your back on a child in hopes of their hitting a bottom, and thus turning around.
You often have to put in place grave consequences in order to help them fight off the urge to do evil.
Tom, you keep saying that my version isn't what you are used to, but you are either too kind to dis it, or you find it more compelling than what you have heard from others. I'd love a thoughtful honest opinion.
The goal with regard to lustful or angry thoughts is to immediately turn from them, and to develop habits of not even going where those things are likely to happen. 20 years ago I had to give up porn. I look away from movie scenes that I know will head me back in that direction.
Tom, sometimes we are expecting some huge deal from God. He speaks to us primarily through His Holy Spirit while we are in prayer or during Bible reading or under the teaching of pastors or teachers. Are you saying that in 20 years you never felt the Holy Spirit direct you toward or away some activity? No pastor ever touched your heart and gave you new direction for your life.
No time of singing praises ever gave you a sense of emotional attachment to something much bigger and more significant than your miserable little life (no personal affront intended.)
Many of my Christian friends say the same thing you do, expecting a major experience of some kind. These things are rare. The relationship with God is no different than breathing or listening or watching. It is the most natural thing in the world. So natural that many can't see the forest for the trees.
You often have to put in place grave consequences in order to help them fight off the urge to do evil.
Oh, I get it then. It's just an idle threat. Well that's much better, then. And it makes a lot more sense, too.
Thanks for setting me straight, Randy.
You've misunderstood me. The consequences are very real.
Let's say I have a child who is smoking crack. I tell him he is likely to damage brain cells, end up in jail, ruin his teeth, or die. All very possible as a direct result of his actions. (By the way, I am intimately knowledgable in this area, as we have been ministering to a man who is in exactly this situtation.)
These then are the natural consequences. Now, my son doesn't stop. Tough love says I need to end my relationship with him, stop giving him any financial support, etc. Hopefully he hits bottom and goes into rehab.
But it doesn't always work out that way. So there is the potential to actually turn him in. Or you can tell him that he is likely to end up in Hell. If none of these works, you've done all you could.
Folks sell many things based on guilt or fear (Global Warming anyone.) And I think that there is room for appropriate use of these in sales. The problem isn't the use, but rather the misuse (misleading statistics, hyperbole, etc.)
In those cases, the fear is substantiated by hard fact and evidence. I agree that there has been some hyperbole going on, but it's nowhere near what you seem to think it is. There's a difference between rational fears based on evidence, and irrational fears based on bronze age belief systems.
I do agree with you that some end up following a certain POV because their parents did, friends, etc. However, as a father of 4, I can tell you my experience is that at some point the kids will challenge your belief system prior to taking it on for themselves, or abandoning it.
And I can tell you from statistical studies over the course of the last century or two that people tend to stay with the religion they're born into. How fervent they are may change, but most people are born and die in the same denomination, if not the same church.
However, in my meager 40 or so years in sales and marketing, I find that very few products stay on the market by the methods you propose. Most folks only get fooled for so long.
There's quite a bit of difference between the marketing of products and the marketing of belief systems. If a product fails to produce the advertised results, people will eventually stop buying it. Supernatural beliefs, on the other hand, have no such limitation. Many people will believe any charismatic leader or cult, regardless of teachings or effectiveness, so long as the organization provides them with quick, simple answers to major problems, easy guidelines for living, and a support system and feeling of belonging. Even when the beliefs are insane (see: Heaven's Gate, which still has at least one follower) or when they are demonstrated to be hoaxes and scams (see: Peter Popoff, James Randi's "Carlos"). People have believed in Astrology since before Biblical times, despite it being repeatedly shown to be false. The same goes for psychics, faith healers, spoonbenders, and every other popular charlatan.
With products, most folks only get fooled for so long. With supernatural beliefs and quackery, the foolishness lasts forever.
You often have to put in place grave consequences in order to help them fight off the urge to do evil.
One: You're ascribing human limitations to God. Yes, we have to threaten punishments in order to keep our kids safe, but we're not omnipotent. A God who is limited to threats of eternal spanking isn't much of a God.
Two: Whatever a kid might think at the time, parental punishments are usually in proportion to the crime committed, and once you've experienced the punishment, your time has been served. God punishes finite crimes with infinite torture and no chance for parole. This violates the "eye for an eye" doctrine of proportional retribution with which he is credited.
Three: Many, if not most, Christian denominations suggest that all sins are punished with the same Hell. While some pick and choose about little white sins and the really bad ones, the idea that one could potentially be equally condemned for looking at a woman with lust and for killing six million people is yet another violation of the idea of proportional punishment, and constitutes grave injustice.
Four: There's a difference between "doing evil" and "committing a sin." There are actions which most humans can agree are evil, generally things which do harm to others, generally things which can be shown to be morally wrong through reasoned argument. Sins, however, are completely arbitrary and vary from dogma to dogma. While some actions are on both lists, I have yet to see an argument against homosexuality or mixing fabrics or eating shellfish which doesn't fall back on "God said so." Until you can solve the Euthyphro Dilemma, that's not worth much in terms of moral guidance.
Tom, you keep saying that my version isn't what you are used to, but you are either too kind to dis it, or you find it more compelling than what you have heard from others. I'd love a thoughtful honest opinion.
I think I'd have to hear what your specific doctrines are, first. So far, it seems like you've got one of the more liberal forms of Christianity, and while there are still loads of problems there, it's not quite so odious as the literalist fundamentalist conservatives out there. But I'd have to see some kind of "Randy's Creed" before I could really make such a judgment.
The goal with regard to lustful or angry thoughts is to immediately turn from them, and to develop habits of not even going where those things are likely to happen. 20 years ago I had to give up porn. I look away from movie scenes that I know will head me back in that direction.
Could you support that with some scripture or argument? I think I know where you're coming from, and what you're going to use, but I'd like to see.
Incidentally, if being angry with someone is the equivalent of murder, does that mean if we murder someone it's okay as long as we don't go places where it's likely to happen again?
And of course, all this is ignoring that not only are lust and anger normal, natural things, not only does bottling them up and avoiding them only lead to greater psychological and physiological problems down the line, but they are necessary for maintaining society. Without lust, why procreate? Without anger, why stand up for rights, why defend homelands? If these natural urges are deadly sins, then why did God create us to feel them?
It's like the whole thing is set up so you fail. God creates two people without the knowledge of right and wrong, then punishes them for not knowing that disobedience is wrong. He proceeds to lay down laws that threaten eternal torment for actions and thoughts that he has preordained the vast majority of them to have. This is just? This is loving?
Tom, sometimes we are expecting some huge deal from God. He speaks to us primarily through His Holy Spirit while we are in prayer or during Bible reading or under the teaching of pastors or teachers. Are you saying that in 20 years you never felt the Holy Spirit direct you toward or away some activity? No pastor ever touched your heart and gave you new direction for your life.
Nope. The only pastors I've ever met and liked are my grandpa, who I've only experienced in a religious context once or twice, and my theology professor, whose views were just left of "incredibly unorthodox," and who contributed quite a bit to my turn toward atheism. Most of the others, including all of the ones I knew in my church, seemed fake even when I was a kid.
If all the Holy Spirit is is an emotional attachment to something bigger, then sure, I've experienced it. Mostly since becoming an atheist. Just the other day I was walking home, staring up at the empty blue sky and just taking in the wonder of it, wondering why it was just that particular shade of blue and noticing that it wasn't the "sky blue" of Crayola crayon sets, but something a little richer, a little less turquoise. I wondered if perhaps it's because I'm farther south than I'm used to, maybe there's a subtle shift in the frequency of the scattered light depending on your latitude. When I stare up at the stars on a clear night and try to find the constellations I recognize, I often find myself overwhelmed with how amazing the universe truly is. Sure, I've got emotional experiences and awe and wonder. But I don't attribute it to God, and it certainly isn't proof of God. The only reason you'd attribute it to the "Holy Spirit" is if you already believed in the Holy Spirit. I recognize that personal experience doesn't require divine mediation.
Many of my Christian friends say the same thing you do, expecting a major experience of some kind. These things are rare. The relationship with God is no different than breathing or listening or watching. It is the most natural thing in the world. So natural that many can't see the forest for the trees.
Or so natural that only the trees and the forest are actually there. Again, it's a game that's designed to lose. The only way these things act as "proof" of God is if you already believe in God and attribute them to him. It's as natural as a circle. God wants you to believe in him, and belief in him is the only way to get to Heaven, but the only reason he gives to believe in him is a contradictory book of inaccuracies, atrocities, and philosophies, and a bunch of experiences that only suggest God's existence if you already believe in him.
One of the things I realized in my apostasy was that our capacity for reason and doubt is one of those few things which sets us apart from the other animals. If God didn't want us to use those capacities, if instead he wanted blind obedience, then he shouldn't have given them to us.
If God loves me so much, if he really knows me and cares whether or not I go to Hell, then he knows what I'd need to believe in him. So far, he hasn't provided it, or anything close to it. He used to speak to people all the time, through burning bushes and angelic visions and just shouting at them from the clouds. Jesus recognized that the way to get people to believe him was to quell the storm, walk on water, and show off his groovy wounds. Why is it that God understood the need for proof two millennia ago, but doesn't get it now?
If God's love is as powerful, parental, and practical as you claim, then what I ask should be reasonable. All I want is some independently verifiable evidence that leads inexorably to the conclusion that God exists. Preferrably, it'd be in the form of a public Q&A session, but I'd settle for coming home to find a formula for cold fusion or free energy or unified field theory on my desk, or anything which would otherwise be new information that I couldn't have derived on my own. I'm being a bit glib, but what it comes down to is evidence. If God loves me so much, he'll give me some. So far, I haven't seen any.
Dikkii: Oh, I get it then. It's just an idle threat. Well that's much better, then. And it makes a lot more sense, too.
Oh, now I see. He didn't really mean it. Well, that makes it all better.
Let's say I have a child who is smoking crack. I tell him he is likely to damage brain cells, end up in jail, ruin his teeth, or die. All very possible as a direct result of his actions. (By the way, I am intimately knowledgable in this area, as we have been ministering to a man who is in exactly this situtation.)
And all of those effects are, say it with me now, supported by evidence.
These then are the natural consequences. Now, my son doesn't stop. Tough love says I need to end my relationship with him, stop giving him any financial support, etc. Hopefully he hits bottom and goes into rehab.
No, stupidity tells you you need to end your relationship with him. Honestly, what kind of parent would end a relationship before calling the cops? You're going to kick him out on the street so he's desperate and alone, and expect him to stop using? You must not have much experience at all with the factors that drive and support addiction. "Tough love" says you stage an intervention. You take away the funds, sure, and you get some real medical care, you put your son in rehab, and you make sure that when he comes home, it's to a loving, supporting family who will help him through withdrawal, who will stand by him and make sure he doesn't backslide, and who will work to fill the emptiness that previously created a need for drugs.
But it doesn't always work out that way. So there is the potential to actually turn him in. Or you can tell him that he is likely to end up in Hell. If none of these works, you've done all you could.
I think you'll find that "scared straight" rarely works with drug addicts. It's often because of a threatening environment that they turned to drugs in the first place, so more threats of punishment only drive them to seek greater escape from reality. Furthermore, I don't seem to recall "thou shalt not smoke rocks made from the coca plant," but I may have just skimmed over that part.
And what you don't do, if you're the parent of the drug user, is chain them up in the basement over hot coals and constantly whip them for the rest of their lives. That seems a little extreme.
Interesting that your definition of "all you can do" includes everything but, you know, love and support. Seems like it's mostly threats and increased distance.
So quick to judge me, Tom. I'll admit that I left out that this son was an adult. I will also agree with you that calling the cops first might be appropriate, but I'm not 100% certain. However, it is clearly true that at a certain point, relationship needs to end. Not forever, just until they are clean for an extended period. Even then, I would be open to driving the individual to rehab or similar.
Point 2. This assumed that we were well past the point of love and support. With the individual, not my son or even a relative, that we dealt with, we gave him almost 5 years of love and support. Probably too much.
With regard to the rest, I have no argument with you regarding alternative theories of dealing with individuals in this type of situation. It isn't about just a drug addict. It could be a serial rapist, a con artist, etc.
So quick to judge me, Tom. I'll admit that I left out that this son was an adult. I will also agree with you that calling the cops first might be appropriate, but I'm not 100% certain. However, it is clearly true that at a certain point, relationship needs to end. Not forever, just until they are clean for an extended period. Even then, I would be open to driving the individual to rehab or similar.
Who is helped by ending the relationship? Certainly not the addict. Whether the son is a child or an adult, the parents can petition the court for some control, on various grounds of mental instability or danger of personal harm. Even so, there's not much one person can do to escape from a houseful of watchful and caring family members.
Ending the relationship only helps the non-addict. They can be secure in their possessions and their finances, and they can reassure themselves that they did all they can and that the addict chose this fate, but in the end they've just kicked their loved one to the curb, and basically ensured that he will start using again. An addict who has no support structure, no money, and a good deal of stress (as anyone who has been dumped by their own family would) is going to turn to drugs, and is going to turn to crime in order to pay for those drugs. They are almost certainly not going to turn to rehab.
In both these situations, the people are taking the easiest way out. The father washes his hands of his son, and the son turns to the comfort of a familiar addiction. Helping people takes effort, effort beyond preaching at them and expecting them to change on their own.
Point 2. This assumed that we were well past the point of love and support. With the individual, not my son or even a relative, that we dealt with, we gave him almost 5 years of love and support. Probably too much.
No such thing. Perhaps not the right kind of love and support, but there is rarely a situation in which abandoning an addict and cutting off support and care will force them to turn to rehab. Just listen to the stories of recovering addicts: "I couldn't have done it without the love and support of..." "They believed in me even when I didn't believe in myself..." and so on. How often do you hear "My family yelled at me and shut me out, so I checked into Betty Ford"?
With regard to the rest, I have no argument with you regarding alternative theories of dealing with individuals in this type of situation. It isn't about just a drug addict. It could be a serial rapist, a con artist, etc.
With the difference being that you ought to turn the serial rapist into the police immediately, and the con artist not soon after. The drug addict's most-harmed victim is himself, and the proper care for a drug-abuser is quite a bit different from the proper care for a violent criminal or a sociopathic manipulator.
Gosh, all this talk of throwing children out, of too much love and care...you'd think you've never read the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. I guess unconditional love is best left to abusive deities.
The father of the prodigal did not follow his son into the hell he had chosen for himself. He didn't try to love him out of it, give him a helping hand, or have a family confrontation. He allowed him to come to the end of himself, so that he could see clearly all of the wonderful advantages of returning to the father, even as a slave if necessary.
I won't say that the approaches you suggest are not helpful in some cases. I will just say that I have a lot of experience with folks in the "life," and so far the best approach is to let them get so far down all they can see is up.
Tom: I know where you are coming from as I have been there. It has to be the most frustrating, nervewrecking, most disgusting experience to seek God and feel nothing. I was ready to go crazy for the longest of times, and then I read something that worked for me. It is so simple it is crazy and then God opened up to me or I opened up to God depending how you look at things. I practiced loving someone that I really disliked, in thought, in deed, anyway I could. Then, using a balance of wisdom of course, I started to love in thought everyone. I tried my absolute best to see God as everyone. The good, the bad, the ugly. Then feelings of peace grew and grew within me until I felt God's precence. No other way worked for me except to see no more duality, just God everywhere and everything.
It is actually not as hard as it seems. Do as the great Yogis do and just test this truth. Try to create feelings of love for even the most evil of people and realize there is impurity amidst purity. Also, remember that however dark someone may appear to be, their actions will ulitimately create their rebirith in this world again and again and again until they too realize that God is Love and Love is God. If we fail to understand and feel this, we end up in this cycle of birth and re birth. You are hearing this from someone like me, who could not have been more disgusted and frustrated at seeking God.
What is ironic is that the truth has never changed and could not be more simple. Once you start practicing this love and oneness with others, weird things will start happening, like you will be talking to someone, and then all of a sudden, you feel as though they are really you. A weird but absolutely wonderful experience as you are starting to feel oneness.
Some people have never meditated in their life and still reached enlightenment throuhg realizing we are all one and in the same boat.
Post a Comment