Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:36 am
Why would it be? God gave them every good thing they have. It was men/women who did them evil.
God, presumably put some children in the wombs where they would be with abusers when born.
Child trafficking isn't usually done by the family, but that's possible. However, this is what free will is: it means that people have the choice to do good, or they have the choice to do evil. And evil doesn't "play fair": it takes victims. It does cruel and horrible things. That's one of the features that reminds us constantly that it IS evil.
Child abuse is not charged to God's account, but to man's. What God gave the child is life. What man gave him/her is evil.
It's amazing how people want to pretend that all the good they do is their own, but all the evil is God's fault. But that's not how it works. We've been given life and freedom; and if we use them to abuse others, then from God, judgment comes against us, and justice to them.
Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.
Well, there's a therapeutic value in even acknowledging a useless feeling like rage, because it enables one to name it, realize it, judge it, and then redirect it to something positive.
It seems to me rage and anger can be quite useful. They mobilize the energy in the body to stop putting up with abuse: interpersonal, societal, whatever. In the moment it may help to get a rapist off your body. In other moments a raised angry voice may be necessary to get someone's attention, that what they are doing is a violation. In my world all the reasoning in the world does not get some people to take things seriously.
That's just anger, and anger can be warranted. One should be angry when one sees evil, for example; but one should also act, if one can. Another thing about anger is that it's also usually temporary and focused. But rage, I would say, is not that: it's a more abiding state of mind. It's a disposition toward the world, really: and that's what you see in Gary -- not focused anger for a moment, and with a positive action, but bitterness, venom, unhappiness, resentment, and world-hatred.
It's not working for him. But we so often find ourselves drawn to lazy evil, rather than to the hard work of making better choices and making our lives better. That's when rage comes in to power our inertia, our circling of the drain, our cycle of hatred and ingratitude. And there's no getting out of that by way of more rage.
That's what I'm telling Gary to do: to stop raging and get busy making something of himself. It's his only positive move, no matter what justification he feels he has.
I don't know enough about his situation to make such a judgment.
You don't need to. You can see that what he's doing is not working for him. It doesn't take much common sense to realize he should try something very different, if he wants a different result.
...if I were his friend or family member perhaps on some occasion I might express anger at the way he treats himself, an anger coming from...you're mistreating someone I care about: you.
Well and good. But that's only negative advice, meaning, "Stop doing what you're doing," but not "start doing X." Gary needs a better alternative. So what would you suggest he should
start doing instead?
I prefer the compassion that jumps up and helps, not the kind that merely "feels along with" somebody else.
Well, again. You tried to help and he did not accept that. But as I said it was the posts after that I consider not compassionate. They were not jumping up and helping.
I disagree. I'm not accusing you of indulging his illness or failing to be compassionate. I'm pointing out that compassion -- genuine compassion -- is goal-driven, not merely feeling-produced. If one is truly compassionate, one may have to challenge, contradict, confront, intervene, or even arrest a foolish and self-destructive course of action: it may be abrupt, oppositional, blunt or even rudeand shocking, if that's what it takes to wake up the person who's on a self-destructive course. And the kind of "compassion" that stops short of confronting is often no more than a soppy sentimentality without any mercy in it at all.
So let us both opt for the compassion that is not afraid to say what needs to be said, right?
And if that seems to abrupt, then maybe abruptness is what is needed. Gary's seeking the soppy, unhelpful kind of empathy -- pity, really -- and it's doing him absolutely no good at all.
Is he? You could be right, I haven't read the posts you are reacting to.
Well, then, you don't have the whole picture. I've been talking with Gary a long while...not just now, but for years, here. He keeps doing the same things...raging, seeking pity, hating anybody who challenges him, whining when he can't get his way, complaining his life is awful...but never changing it.
It isn't mercy to indulge that. It's mercy to challenge him to change his life. In particular, it's important advice to remind him that hating God is not going to make his life better. He may not appreciate that, at the moment: but it's still the best advice he's going to find.
Mercy doesn't reinforce what's wanted; it adds what's needed.