I truly try to not divide people into tribes, liking or disliking them because of their affiliations. It doesn’t matter to me if you’re a fan of the LSU Tigers or a member of the Rotterdam Symphonic Orchestra, my only goal is to listen to your words and hear the motives of your heart. I will bask in your company or stay away from you according to your kindness to others as shown by the goodness you live. And so when people begin berating actions because someone is labeled as liberal, it brings up questions in my mind as to why they are throwing these barbed verbal attacks. Since the accusations usually sound uniformly similar to each other, I can only surmise they are being spoon-fed by a larger source. Our information transportation is so fast today that almost anyone can set themselves up to spread the word — no matter its veracity. This statement from John Smallman’s writings rings true: “The only way forward is for humanity to engage lovingly with itself, instead of divisively and judgmentally, by fully honoring and respecting the sovereign rights of every individual on Planet Earth”.
“The relationship of anger to attack is obvious, but the relationship of anger to fear is not always so apparent. Anger always involves projection of separation, which must ultimately be accepted as one’s own responsibility, rather than being blamed on others. Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked, that your attack is justified in return, and that you are in no way responsible for it. Given these three wholly irrational premises, the equally irrational conclusion that a brother is worthy of attack rather than of love must follow. What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests. You cannot be attacked, attack has no justification, and you are responsible for what you believe.”
A Course in Miracles T-6.in.1:1-7
“Jesus was the son of a virgin. He was appointed to speak God’s word and to appear to mortals in such a form of humanity as they could understand as well as perceive. Mary’s conception of him was spiritual, for only purity could reflect Truth and Love, which were plainly incarnate in the good and pure Christ Jesus. He expressed the highest type of divinity, which a fleshly form could express in that age. Into the real and ideal man the fleshly element cannot enter. Thus it is that Christ illustrates the coincidence, or spiritual agreement, between God and man in His image.”
Mary Baker Eddy - Science & Health Page 332:23-2
No comments:
Post a Comment