Thursday, July 2, 2015

Understanding the Genesis of Human Behavior: Our Propensity


Rick Jones made several false police reports and raised more than $20,000 in donations before he was caught and returned the money.  The locale expended resources investigating the crime, and searching for the perpetrator or perpetrators.  People from around the country showed their support of him in their donations.

Should he be prosecuted for the various crimes he has committed, including fraud, and filing a false police report?

Is this the right thing to do for the sake of justice, as well as to discourage others who will do the same?

Or, is this, as his attorneys said, a "cry for help", for someone who is living in one standardized environment, while being different from that environment, and should be given help, instead?

How you answer this question can reveal to you your personal philosophy about human nature, itself.  


There are two basic viewpoints on human nature (as well as a myriad of off-shoots) that each of us comes to where we embrace one or the other.

One is that mankind, that is, human nature is basically good, and bad comes from negative environment, while the other says that human nature is basically bent towards wrong doing, and needs no lessons on wrong doing, but instead needs lessons on doing right.

You very likely, even if unbeknown to you, believe one or the other.

This is a Statement Analysis view of Creationism, that we might consider what people believe about human nature.

 These are the two basic beliefs:

One is that a child is born with a nature that is naturally bent to do wrong while the other says that the nature of the child has a natural bent to do right.

This is also called "unstable" in some older writings.  It is an inherent selfishness in human nature, that must be countered by instruction.

Often people may say "I hold to neither view", but when they describe the view they do hold to, they confirm one or the other basic view point.  This "neutral" viewpoint, falls to the wayside, generally, in the sentences following, "I don't think either..." as the initial objection.  The "neutral" argument is difficult to maintain.

This, however, is for another day.

Neither holds that the child is guilty of having done anything wrong at birth, nor as an infant,  yet one says his nature, human nature, that is, has a tendency to the wrong, while the other believes that the human nature the child carries into this life is naturally inclined to doing good.

This which is brought to the child, with either propensity embraced  is nurture.

Nurturing is the development and culturing of the child's nature, based upon what one believes the child is born with.

                          Your viewpoint on which a child is born with impacts:

Analysis, specifically in "The Expected Versus The Unexpected", as well as in profiling.

The decision you make also impacts:

How you raise your children.
Whether you embrace traditional religion or statism.
How you treat your spouse.
How you view yourself.
How you cast your vote.
How you conduct yourself at a restaurant, mall, school, library, or anywhere else life carries you.  In general, we all hold to one view or the other.

In other words, whether or not you have conscious awareness of your view or not, it impacts how you think, how you see the world, how you behave, and how you interpret the behavior of others.

At any given time, in any given location, there is an exception to all of us, but principle is not established on exception, no different than a culture is observed as to the majority.

Let us begin with the first:  That human nature is basically "unstable" or "naturally inclined to do wrong" and that restraint and instruction are, therefore, necessary.

Then, we will look at the second:  That human nature is basically "inclined to do good" and that people turn "bad" due to circumstances or poor choices, which is "nurturing."

The first, or "propensity to do wrong" nature is often associated with religious belief, the inherited sin of Adam, brining to humanity a nature that is inclined to do wrong.

The child is not "guilty" of having done anything wrong, but carries the nature of wrong doing.  This will also show itself in non-religious language, including that a child is naturally narcissistic, and must be, therefore, taught human empathy.

The other believes that children are born inherently good, and only become narcissistic through negative exposure, or nurturing (including the lack thereof).

As you work through statements, you will begin to strengthen in your opinion of human nature, one way or another; including changing your view point.

Here, I  begin with the view of the former, that a child is born prone to do wrong, and must be taught to tell the truth and have empathy for his fellow man.  This is the view most people of faith hold and I will show you its genesis, or beginning, and let you decide if this is something that you believe, or are interested in, or if you think it is incorrect.

Since this view point is often associated with religion, specifically "western thought", that is Judeo-Christian, we need to learn why this view developed in mankind.

I am "reading" "Linguistic Archeology:  Unearthing the Secrets of Genesis Using SCAN" by Avinoam Sapir.  It is not something to read, per se, but to study.  It is an amazing work that will make no sense unless you understand Statement Analysis.  As a Jew, he writes by his faith.  It is not my faith, but I am learning from it each time I "tackle" it.  (it's the best word I can find to describe what it is like to learn from this 'manual').  I am enjoying the orthodox Jewish perspective in an entirely new manner, though I am not Jewish.

Let's look at the faith/creation account of human nature to see if this ancient story has relevancy upon life today, especially in analysis. This viewpoint, though no limited to religious view, has its root in ancient Scripture.

As a caution for readers unfamiliar with Statement Analysis, I encourage you to read through some of the "101" articles and look at some of the more famous cases for examples.  As I refer to principle, it would become too lengthy to stop and explain each principle.

Also, I frequently use generalizations in my writing, just as it is used in analysis.  This is because a generalization is established by majority, and not by exception.  Cultures are evidenced also by majority, and not by departures from the standard.

"Men are stronger than women" is a good example. Yet, there will always be, somewhere, a woman who has more physical strength than a man.

The two view points:

I.  Mankind is naturally inclined to do wrong.
II. Mankind is naturally inclined to do good.

I.  Mankind is naturally inclined to do wrong, and must be taught not to lie, and to have empathy for his fellow man, otherwise, this nature will bring much destruction upon the human race.

Where did this come from?

  This is what people of faith (Judaeo Christian) hold to and it is interesting to find out where this belief system came from.

They believe that the origin of mankind is explained in Genesis, and this is truth.
(Truth, by definition, cannot change.)

 Truth is unchanging.  This is both religious and non religious.

This means that if your dear grannie took 2 eggs and whisked them up, and put them on a frying pan, they are "scrambled eggs."  This is truth.  If her mother did the same thing, 40 years earlier, they were still scrambled eggs.  If her great, great, great great great grammie did it 1,000 years ago, truth is not changed by the passage of time:  they were "scrambled eggs."

Should your own grandchildren take the 2 eggs and whisk them onto a pan, they will be "scrambled eggs."

Should you be in a distant culture, past or future, the 2 eggs whisked will be scrambled eggs, as truth is unchanged by the passage of time, nor by the culture around it. Even if the name, "scrambled eggs" is changed, the reality remains the same.

The Judeo-Christian has  two basic "presuppositions" that they hold to.

Genesis record tells them about how people (1) came into existence, and how  (2) they should  live.

Let's examine what they believe are the origins of human nature.

They refer to the Creation account of Adam and Eve.

Is this a silly child's story from thousands of years ago that is now called "truth"?

Or is it true?


"In the beginning...God created...." is how it begins.  This process was over the course of six days, and on the 7th day, the text says "God rested."

A.  How God made man according to Creation:

God took the earth (ground) and formed man from it, and breathed into the dirt a living soul and the dirt became man.  When man dies, he returns to the dirt.

God took man from the ground, and then he took man to "the garden" (the ground)  to work it.

For their belief:

Man has a sexual (or gender)  affinity with work.  His nature came from the earth, and it was to the earth that he was told to work.  Part of his "man-ness" or "being" is to work.  If he does not work, they teach, he does not fulfill his innate calling and lives empty.   Therefore, man must be taught to work as a child, and to find it rewarding, not as a punishment or chore to be avoided.

They say that man was created to work, to build, to do things, to accomplish and when he does, he feels a "sexual or gender satisfaction", that is, a satisfaction deliberately linked to being a male.  Later, this became known as "the Protestant work ethic in America", though it was not limited to Protestants but became known as a distinctly American theme, with "Yankee Ingenuity" and "American know how" and "American exceptionalism."  It was shared by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and non-religious people in America.  (Its origin came in the Protestant Reformation which contrasted Roman Catholicism's "holy orders" with the notion that whatever ma did to provide for his family, if it was lawful, it was "holy", that is "consecrated" to God.  The English tinker, for example, did work as holy as a Bishop, in this view.


  Woman's turn

So, if God took man from the ground, and had him work the ground, what about woman?  Where did she come in to this according to the account?

It says that God made them "male and female" and that they were made in "the Image of God", that is, as "Image bearers."  This is why they teach that sexual assault on a baby is particularly hideous:  it is an assault on the Divine Image within a child.  Even if the infant is not physically hurt, the suffering that may come later tells us that this child is not just a random blast of protoplasm but bears the scars of damage.

The text goes back and gives us a "parenthetical view", that is, out of sequence to move back and fill in specific details.  Once understood, it is no longer "out of sequence" for us.

In working the ground, the text tells us that God gave various duties to the first man, "Adam" and it does not inform us  how much time passed in this way but one duty in particular, is mentioned.  We know that he did lots of things, but remember in analysis:  no one can tell us everything that was done, so what is reported is always sensitive information, that is, important information.

Question:  What was this "work" assigned to Adam?

Remember, he was brought to the garden to "dress and keep it" but without any work given in specific detail.  The statement is alive to us, and it is the statement that guides us.

The account continues:

The creation in six days caused Author to pronounce, "it was good."  The sun, stars, oceans, mountains, birds, animals, and so on, "and it was good."  This is repeated for emphasis. The repetition has called our attention to things being "good" which naturally causes the reader/analyst to then ask, "Well, is there something that is not good?"

Statement Analysis:  Repetition indicates sensitivity.

Statement Analysis:  Order indicates priority.

After repetition of what is "good", we now ask, "What is not good, therefore?"

                                             We are not made to wait long.

God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."

Thus we have the entrance of "not good" in Creation.

God does not, however, create woman here.  This is critical in analysis. Time is going to pass over, and we must learn what the missing information from the text is.

Answer:  Naming and classifying animals.


The text tells us next that God brought animals to Adam of which Adam then gave them scientific names.  This was likely a most lengthy process even before cross breeding, and we are not told how much time passed but we do find some very interesting information in this temporal lacunae:

Adam saw that there was a horse, with a male organ, and then another horse, with a receptacle.  It fit perfectly and the two went together.
He saw this same thing with the dogs, cats, cattle, and all the other animals in this lengthy scientific process.

Let's look at the  order as it speaks to priority:

1.  Man is created from dirt and brought to dirt to work it.
2.  Man is told that it is not good to be alone.  No help mate given.
3.  Man is then given the scientific task of naming and classifying all the animals.  Adam specifically notes that male animals are different than female animals, and compares them to himself but finds no "match" for himself.

In noting the order, man created and told it was not good to be alone, but then he is given the lengthy task of animals, with him concluding that there was no mate for him.

This appears out of order to us.  Causing us to conclude in analysis:  "Out of sequence statements are only out of sequence for us.  Once understood, we can learn why it was placed there."

Why is this inserted in the statement?

By spending a great deal of time (months?) carefully noting the animals' characteristics in order to name and study them, (with the names having specific meanings) Judeo-Christian belief taught that:

God created a deep void within Adam that he saw that all of creation had the "right fit" mate, all, that is, except him.  "Not good" was because it was "incomplete."

Deep within the nature of the male was a deliberately created void that the earth and all the labor could not fill.

This provoked a deep loneliness within Adam which confirmed the first "not good" declaration.

Adam did not express discontent prior to his study of animals.  He was then given this awareness that he was incomplete.

This sets the stage for the creation of woman.

Would woman be also created from the ground, as was man?

The text tells us that God caused a sleep to come over Adam and took a rib and created Eve.

Adam named her, "woman", the scientific name showing how she came to be, that is, "taken from man."

Man was made from the ground.  Woman was not made from the ground, but  made from the man, who's nature was connected with the ground.  This distinction is a dramatic change of language that must represent a change in reality in order for it to be true.

Let's look at the change.

Woman did not come from the ground, but man did.  This gave man a "sexual or gender affinity", that is, his "masculinity" has a deep embedded connection with "the ground", which is, "work."

Woman did not come directly from the ground but from the man, who has "ground" within him. This is an "indirect connection" of her gender (femininity) to the earth, which represents work.  To see this even more fully, we then read:

God did not take her to the earth to work, but to Adam, to help him in work.

 Is this a psychological difference?  Judeo-Christian thought says it is.

 She not only received some of the affinity of work from him, but also an element of humanity from him.

Adam got humanity and dirt (work)
Eve got more humanity and indirect or lessened dirt (work)

 In other words, she got a "double dose" of "humanity" as coming from Adam.

This is why people of faith (especially long ago) said that man was physically stronger due to the necessity of working the ground, but the female, with the greater gender or 'sexual' affinity with another human (the man) has superior emotions to the man.  He may be physically stronger but she is emotionally stronger which is given because to give birth and nurture a child takes a greater affinity or bond with humanity.

Historically, this is why courts often awarded mothers custody over fathers unless she was unfit.  A man, no matter how good a parent he was, was not a mother and does not posses the greater capability of emotion and affection for the child, who is in need of this very thing.  This is why motherhood was considered "indispensable" to child raising and held in high esteem in such things as, "women and children first" philosophies.

If you were to generalize which parent would most likely abandon a child, most would conclude that a man would before a woman.

They of faith say that this is why men and women think and subsequently speak differently.

Remember the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus"?  I think most people did not read it but remember the title and laughed a bit.  The premise was that we do, in fact, think, speak and hear differently from one another and growth comes from accepting the difference and celebrating it, rather than struggling for uniformity.

The idea that men and women "hear" things differently and speak things differently comes from the Genesis account.

One was not superior, in total, to the other, but were "one" when as a union, complementing each other.  Where a man may lack in emotion, he gets from his wife, and where she lacks in strength, she gets from her husband. The creation account shows that "not good" is in incompletion.  Neither was declared superior, in total, to the other, but different.

In the United States, statistics  found that children that came from a home where both father and mother were present, were more likely to:

have better grades;
higher income;
less alcoholism;
less crime, etc.
less incarceration...and so on.

This is why, historically, western civilization (with its Judea Christian roots) gave special benefits for married couples; they knew it was good for society.  This was its basis for doing so.

This was the generalization in history.  Remember, principle is not established on exceptions.  Good citizens have arisen from single parent homes.  We look at the larger picture.

This view of Creation is how religious organizations often conducted themselves and even in choosing roles for man and woman, the arguments are based upon creation, and not upon changing cultures.  In ordination and assigning of roles in the New Testament, for example, the authority referred to is not culture, but creation.  There are some places where culture is cited, but not in the roles of men and women, nor even in the places where clothing, hair length, and military duty is addressed.

Masculinity became defined as "the sacrifice of strength for right purposes."  A man who was "masculine", therefore, put women and children first, and learned to corral his strength, rather than use it to exploit.  This was, in this philosophy, something that needed to be taught, otherwise, nature would take over, and women would suffer because of it.  This was the basis for childhood lessons such as "a real man never hits a woman, son."  The appeal to be a "real man" was distinctly gender specific.


                              Man, Woman and their Natural Inclination  

The account continues with "the fall", that is, the entrance of death.

The two were put to work, now as "one person", together, and were given everything in the garden to eat,  but one thing which was prohibited to them.  They were permitted all but one.

Guess which "one" they wanted more than anything else?

This reminds me of children choosing a toy, or two dogs choosing a bone.

Question:  "Which one is better?"

Answer:   "The other one."

                                                       Death at the doorstep?

In fact, Adam and Eve were warned that "in the day you eat of it (the only tree forbidden them) you will surely die."

We note that "die" is made sensitive by "surely", which is not necessary.

Since it is not necessary, it is to be deemed "doubly important."  Let's remember that in the day they eat of the forbidden tree, they would not "die" but "surely die" to see why this is "doubly important" to analysis.

"Surely" is to "make certain."

What is it about death that one would have to make certain?  It seems on the surface that a dead body is not going to debate whether or not he is dead.  Why would "dead" be sensitive to the subject?

Evil, as personified by the serpent, who approached Eve.

Now remember, Eve as a "double dose" of humanity, or human emotions.  Adam has a percentage, but Eve was created not directly from the ground, but from him, which increased the capacity of emotions, that is, superior emotions.

We say that those who love much risk much hurt.  Some say, "better to love and lost than not to love at all" while others disagree.

The serpent approached Eve and sought to bring her into treason against her Creator.

Q.  What technique did he use?

A.  Deception via words.

This is the introduction of deception to people of faith, in history.  From this, we learn such things as "reduced stress through parroting" and the sensitivity of answering a question with a question.

The serpent approached Eve and asked her about the tree, which was really good to look at, which provoked desire for its fruit.

She answered evil and said, "God said not to eat it or touch it."

That is not what God said.  She has misquoted her Creator, changing words that, according to the definition of God, has altered perfection.

Evil then said, 'Did He really say this?

His reply was to question reality of what was said, that is, to create doubt upon, not the words, but the Character of He Who spoke the words.  This is to bring doubt into the mind of the listener, not healthy scientific skepticism.

'Did He really say this?', and evil went on:

'It isn't so, but when you take it, you'll no longer be subordinate to Him, but will be His equal', which was of his own invention.  This was to fabricate reality with a direct lie.  This is the form of deception that less than 10% of liars use.

In essence, evil not only questioned what God said, first, but then declared it to be a lie, which is a false accusation.

Eve thought things over...it would be good to be the king, said Mel Brooks, and besides, this fruit looks delicious...

The appeal was both in status in life (15 minutes of fame) , and in the simple base element of human appetite, from the eyes to the stomach.

                                                         She ate it.

This was not mere disobedience, but something far deeper than a single act. The judgment that fell came because of the motivation behind the crime:  it was more than a moment of weakness, it was to:

A.   Call God a liar
B.   Betray the King's commandment
C.   It was high-handed treason.

This was done because the lie told by the evil entity, "in that day you shall be like gods, knowing good and evil", that is, no longer subordinate but to grab the spotlight and overthrow the rule of God, Who had created them, and given them a marvelous life, with but one prohibition; everything else, including dominion over all of creation, was there's.

It is like having all the food in the world, free of charge, yet still wanting the single candy bar that you were told not to have.

This reminds me of a funny story.

I was out to dinner one night with a large, extended family.  The matriarch was talking about how, with the children all grown, she wanted to get rid of the old furniture.  The children were not only all grown with families of their own, but were, in their own right, quiet wealthy.  Sisters, Susie and Joanie were close in age.

One of the two sisters said, "Mom, what are you going do to with that old night table?"

This caused a chuckle from the family.  It was an old worthless item, made of particle board or something as cheap.

"Susie, why in the world would you want that?

Before she had a chance to answer her mother, Joanie's husband said,

"Oh, Susie just wants it so Joanie can't have it!" and everyone roared with laughter.

Human nature, once again, in its marvelous display.  This is why teaching to share is necessary:  without it, selfishness would reign, according to this philosophy.

Back to Adam and Eve.

Eve had:

a.  listened to the lie told her;
b.  incorrectly quoted the Creator
c.  reasoned within herself that she would like to be as in charge; all knowing, and powerful, and wanted to de-throne God;
d.  that the fruit looked really good to eat.

So, upon consideration of all these things, in whatever human nature she had (recall the 'double dose'), she was deceived and she ate it.

The day continued.

 She did not die.

Please recall, "In that day you shall surely die" was pronounced to them, with death being seen, in the language, as "sensitive."

She then went to Adam with her arguments about:

1.  We can be like God and no longer subject to Him;
2.  I ate it and I didn't die (God lied).  There's been no punishment.  That whole thing about dying just is not true.
3.  It is really good to eat, too.

Adam's resistance did not hold up.

He ate of it, and the text says "immediately his eyes were open" and he saw his nakedness and went and tied some fig leaves together for a pair of boxers.

They did not die.

Recall, "in that day you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

To "die" has been made sensitive with "surely" and death did not come.

Or, so it appeared.

God then rebuked them, banished them and told them that they would suffer many things:

1.  The earth (ground) was now cursed and fruit would come, but through toil and with lots of weeds. Adam's brow would now produce a great deal of sweat (hard work, anxiety) to produce food (presupposing how easily things used to be).

2.  Eve would give birth to children, but the process would be painful.

"Death" now entered their lives and although the description of the natural environment was described like a green house, they would eventually return to the ground from which they came.

Death came into their souls that die, and would eventually wear down their bodies, but this rebellion was now part of their nature, and would come to every offspring from there on in.

The people of faith teach that the "Adamic nature has been passed to all generations", that is, a propensity towards treason (transgression, sin, lying, etc) as their 'spiritual father' was now the serpent (evil) as they chose his words over God's words.

Thus the need to teach children "thou shalt not" and human empathy because it is no longer natural.  Although born without having committed any wrong doings, they teach, children are born with a propensity towards selfishness, naturally, and if not taught, will naturally lie, steal, and even kill his fellow man, all to obtain something that has come from the ground.  (all things in life come from the ground, from food, to my house, to my guitar).

Thus, human nature is bent towards doing wrong and unless well taught, when tested, will choose self over good.

This is theory number one, and it impacts everything you do, believe, and think and especially, what you feel about people you analyze who may be lying to you.

It is the theory behind the words of "Amazing Grace", where the author, a slave trader, called himself a vulgar name (for that time) when he wrote, "saved a wretch like me."

It is fascinating to look at your children, and consider the difference between your sons and your daughters and may explain why, for example, my sons always said, "Mom!  Dad!  Watch me hit this ball!" (doing something) while my daughters held a different view and would say, "Mom! Dad!  Watch me!", with the emphasis upon the attention to the person, rather than to what was accomplished.

It does not mean that they did not want to be seen accomplishing things; they did.  It does not mean the boys did not want to be noticed for themselves, as they did, too.  Yet, the priority was different.

This is very far from the philosophy that there is no difference in how men and women think, hear and speak.

This is why it is your belief on human nature will impact everything in life, from how you relate to your spouse, to who you vote for, and how you think, or expect someone to respond in analysis.

It is also why people of faith believe that since male and female are created differently, the role of the parent includes cultivating this "maleness" or "femaleness" in life, judging what child has been given to them, and raising them according to the assignment of organs, differing one from another.  We may seek to compliment the "maleness or femaleness", or we can ignore it, or we can choose to go "cross grain" and deliberately raise our children to the opposite should we wish to do.  We are free to do so, but this allows us to understand what a large group of people in history have done, for better or worse.

Anonymous Threatening Letters 

When we write, we reveal our:

Background
Experiences
Priorities
Personality

This means that when analyzing an anonymous threatening letter, we seek to learn the identity of the author, which is to say the gender, age, race, education, background and experiences of the writer, but also the priority.

Is this threat for real?

In a perfect world, all threats are taken with the upmost delegation of resources, but this is not the reality of limited budgets, and by reducing the exterior to a more measurable form, we can properly discern how to answer the threat.

Imagine having a very frightening threatening letter and saying, "we cannot know if this is written by a man, or by a woman, since there is no difference between the two!", but saying this due to fear of offending someone?

When we viewed the Baby Ayla case, we began with 300 million suspects.  We can do a nationwide search for the missing toddler.

Yet, when the father spoke and said that someone might not like the way he parented Ayla, the number went from the entire population of the United States, all the way down to a handful of people who knew him.  (His words and failed polygraph, along with the life insurance policy taken out by him, against her,  limited the number down as well).  This is why we heard his supporters wanting ads taken out across the country, broadening, rather than narrowing the scope of the search.

This philosophy of human nature believes that lying, for example, is natural to a child, and the child must be taught not to, and that he must resist, that is, build up a will against lying because lying  is easier than telling the truth.

The other philosophy, which is up next, teaches that a child will only lie because he has seen an example of lying (negative nurture) and must now be taught that it is wrong.

Therefore, how you see the criminal justice system comes from how you view human nature.

When a man made a false police report and raised money from it, he was seen as deceptive.

Some call for justice saying he made a false report as a thief and returned the money because he got caught.

Others, his attorneys in particular, said, he is not a criminal but did this as a cry for help.

The two philosophies about human nature are displayed here, in this one example.  The former says to prosecute so not only is justice realized, but others will be warned.

The other says not to prosecute, there is no need to dissuade others, but concentrate on helping him, instead.

It may seem like a small difference when we speak in philosophical terms, especially about babies,  yet when it comes to its outworking, the gulf between the two philosophies is not reconcilable.

You may choose to disregard the story in Genesis as fable, or you may embrace as eternal truth, but in either case, it is fascinating to read of an account that has been repeated for more than 4,000 years of history, and has endured for some.  People of faith hold to its Divine origin, making it immovable.  For them, "good" is not subjective, nor is "evil" subjective.  The subjectivity only comes when truth, itself, is attacked.

For example, to kill your neighbor for the motive of taking what is in his house, is considered "evil" or "wrong" and is addressed in the Ten Commandments.  This is, according to those of faith, an absolute that does not change.  Therefore, the elements of both greed and of violence must be addressed in early childhood, lest the refusal to share, for example, become a strengthened position, which then leads to theft, and possible violence, should the theft be opposed.

In objective truth, for another example, racism is condemned as "wrong" or "evil."  For people of faith, this is "truth" that is not changed due to time or culture.  The same believe that it must be taught to children, at a very young age, lest racism take root, and trouble society.

Should a young boy be uncorrected in hitting his sister, might he become involved in Domestic Violence later in life?  If so, the parents must consider:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" in thinking, "by not correcting little Johnny, who is so very cute, am I setting up his future wife for heartbreak and assault?  If so, I am not "loving" my neighbor, my future daughter-in-law."


                                                      What do you believe?

Do you believe that human nature has this bent towards wrong doing and must be taught accordingly?

Or, do you believe that mankind is basically good, and that the natural bent is towards doing right, and only fails to do so when given improper example?

Or...

do you wish to wait until the next article to answer?


What you believe will impact your life, and specifically, how you discern truth from deception.

As I always seek to learn:

Are you open to changing your view point?


25 comments:

C5H11ONO said...

He is a common criminal and he should be made to pay restitution for the costs spent in investigating this crime, which he perpetrated to the community. He should be sent to jail, and at the behest of his attorney should have to undergo psychological evaluations and enter begin a heft process of counseling at his expense, but be required to show the courts he completed his counseling.

Anonymous said...

O/T: LE says they now have a person of interest (as yet unnamed) in the Dylan Redwine case.

The La Plata County Sheriff's Office told 11 News that new evidence was discovered after two recent searches near the location where Dylan's remains were found two year earlier. Investigators worked with Pete Klismet, a former FBI profiler from Colorado Springs.

Klismet told 11 News he can not reveal the name of the person of interest, but investigators have made contact with him or her. They are not ready to call this "person of interest" a suspect until they do more searching for evidence on Middle Mountain Road near where Dylan's body was found.

11 News talked to Dylan's aunt Wednesday night. She told us his mom left her Monument home earlier Wednesday for Vallecito. She says investigators did not tell the family who their "person of interest" is. We asked the sheriff's office if it was someone they had in mind all along or if it was a new person, but they wouldn't say.

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Person-Of-Interest-Identified-In-Redwine-Case-311331491.html

CBS4’s Kelly Werthmann was able to contact Mark Redwine by phone. He told her that he didn’t know anything about the new developments in the case. When Werthmann told him a person of interest has been identified, he said, “One would like to believe that.”

“It’s hard to have emotion when you don’t know what’s going on. I haven’t heard from the sheriff’s department,” Mark Redwine told Werthmann when she asked about the potential break in the case.

He declined a recorded interview, adding he is not in Colorado, but said he “looks forward” to hearing from authorities.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/07/01/report-person-of-interest-identified-in-dylan-redwine-case/

Sus said...

Wow. This post is interesting. I do think everyone is born with a propensity to selfishness. How can it be any other way? We are only fulfilling our own needs.

I can't fully answer the Rick Jones question as I don't know the full circumstances. I believe he should be prosecuted or there should be some type of plea deal. To me the punishment depends on whether he was caught or whether he owned up. His mother's language bothered me from the beginning. She never wanted to focus on the gay hate part, just the stolen money. Did she know? Was Rick trying to get his family to accept him? (Albeit in a sick criminal way.) Rather than just making him pay back money and/or serve time in jail, I hope some judge assigns community service, maybe with homeless gay youth...those who truly are not accepted by their parents and thrown out on the streets.

Buckley said...

I don't believe adhering to one or the other is wise. "Good" and "evil" are vague, subjective words than mankind places on actions or words. I do believe that humans are inherently self-centered, but that doesn't necessarily mean "bad" or "evil." Sometimes self-centeredness is self- ish sometimes it's self-sacrifice. We are self- centered because we are the center of our perception. It is natural to put ourselves first, even if it is for thst feeling we get for helping others.

Man is born neither "good" not "evil" but is born with a propensity to both, and the beliefs and actions that engender man's actions are learned. That we can say one, or the other, is a "truth" is short-sighted and will lead to some verification and some "exceptions" to principle. If there are exceptions to a belief or theory, then it is not "truth."

Just as it is not "truth" to say "Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong," or "women are emotionally strong and men are physically strong," the "truth" lay somewhere in between. Humans are predisposed to both; our upbringing and environment train us how to behave in the midst of our internal struggle with good and bad. We are predisposed to self-centeredness, the extent we become selfish or self serving is determined largely by what we perceive as expected behaviors. Having two parents, two "role models" is an advantage because we have more examples from which to glean.

We are both good and evil. Humanity is our struggle to deal with the conflicting emotions that come with both being an inherent part of us.

Worrying to much about philosophy, the "righteousness" of right or left, worry to much about being "PC" (either a desire to be politically correct, or contempt for the notion that we should be), this all gets in the way of our being an objective analyst. Reading a statement cold is about letting go of much more than if we perceive guilt or innocence, if we wonder whether the sender is guilty of being the recipient. Just as the human struggles with "good and evil" so does the analyst with "objectivity" and "subjectivity." Only adhering to one, we'd never come to a conclusion, with the other, we'd come to too many.

Anonymous said...

YES Rick Jones should be prosecuted to the max; the fullest the law allows.

His is NOT a cry for help. The little b'stard does not want any help. He is a grown man, fully in control of his faculties and knows exactly what he is doing and did his dirty deeds willingly. No one was holding a gun to his head.

Buckley, bless your little heart; with all due respect, you have an awful lot to learn.

Anonymous said...

Sus, I shake my head when I read some of your posts. He should be thrown out on the streets? He certainly should be! He has chosen a deviate lifestyle and it's his baby to support it, NOT his parents or anyone elses.

I get so SICK and tired of reading what others think OTHERS owe these nasty sex deviates when we don't owe them a damned thing. They have the same choices to make as the rest of us. Sooo? Let'em pay the piper they chose to dance too.

Buckley said...

Anon- Aww- seeing the level of "goodness" in your heart does make me reconsider.

PS I'd rather have a lot to learn than a lot to unlearn. Good luck with that!

trustmeigetit said...

On the Dylan Redwine person of interest comment. Below is what is quoted that Mark said about that update on the case. Not what you would expect and innocent parent to say. I would be beyond anxious for updates. I would want my childs killer found. And he fails to even own it with "I hope so" but again generalizes with "one would hope"


When told a person of interest had been identified, he (Mark) replied, "One would like to believe that," according to the station.

JC said...

Re Mark Redwine

I would want my childs killer found.

JC said...

Off Topic

Deputies ask FBI for assistance in Leaona Wright case

ANDERSON, SC (FOX Carolina) -
Investigators with the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office are reaching out to the FBI for assistance as they continue to investigate the case of a missing Pendleton baby.

Deputies said one-year-old Leaona Wright was reported missing from Edgewood Square apartments on June 6 and they have yet to find any sign of the girl.

DSS has since placed two of Leaona’s siblings in emergency protective custody. On June 12, DSS agents confirmed that a six-year-old and a three-year-old had been removed from the apartment where Leaona had been seen last.

READ MORE: DSS: 2 kids removed from home where 1-year-old disappeared

On Tuesday, Anderson County deputies said the Leaona’s mother, 22-year-old Kiara Sullivan, and her boyfriend, Travis Jones, were both charged with unlawful neglect of a child after deputies said Sullivan’s three-year-old tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and THC. Deputies said Jones admitted he has used drugs while caring for the child.

Sullivan and Leaona’s father, Richard Wright Jr. was also charged with assault and battery third degree in an unrelated case, deputies said.

Sullivan was released from jail Wednesday on a $2,000 bond. She faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted. While she was leaving the jail, a woman with Sullivan pushed a FOX Carolina photographer and yelled threats and obscenities at other reporters on scene.

VIDEO: Kiara Sullivan bonds out of jail

READ MORE: Mother of missing 1-year-old charged with child neglect

On Wednesday, Lt. Sheila Cole with the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that investigators had contacted the FBI to seek use of the federal agency’s laboratory “to help speed-up the processing and analysis of any evidence in the Leona Wright case.”

“We normally use SLED’s laboratory for this type of processing but the FBI labs should provide a quicker turn-around,” Cole said.

Local residents had recently started an online petition calling for the FBI to get involved in the case.

View a timeline of events in Leaona’s disappearance here.

http://www.wistv.com/story/29459880/deputies-ask-fbi-for-assistance-in-leaona-wright-case

Peter Hyatt said...

Buckely,

I deal with the Neutral position in part two. Thanks for brining it up.

Others:

although I ask you to consider your own position, and whether or not you are open to change, the principle purpose is to allow you to see the ideology that has played a dominant role in shaping our current nation. It is no longer popular, but I think it holds not only fascination, but value to those of you who wish for precision in "the expected" views, and for those of you in positions of authority such as hiring, firing, and, all realm of investigations.

We will also cover in part two how the 2nd position entered into religious discussion.

As to truth, and objective right from wrong, that will have to wait for another day. :)


JC,

Mark does not want his son's killer found. good point.

Peter

Susan said...

http://allenbwest.com/2014/12/quite-possibly-racist-article-will-ever-read/


Hello. I have posted this before and it went poof. I don't know if you can do this but this is an anonymous article that came from a book on race relations under a false name. Can you give us a hint who wrote it? Can statements analyzing do this?

If the blogger doesn't want to do it can one of you others like hobs?

Anonymous said...

My position is that I am not open to change when it comes to the dumbing down of America which includes the whitewashing of our PC excuses for the LBGT and transgender communities. It is sickening to see so many blind sheep following the leader straight to the slaughter; AGAIN, more dumbing down of America. God have mercy on us.

And yes, I am in a position of hiring and firing.

Peter Hyatt said...

in analysis, I study positions contrary to my own, not to refute or debate, but to understand. This understanding, although it may sound moral, isn't for that purpose.

I seek to put myself into the shoes of the subject in the most intense manner I possibly can.

Over the years, I have learned from many people, and I admired the imaginative powers of Kaaryn Gough to, as it seems, almost 'be' Mark Redwine, for example .

I know another analyst, also female, who comes close to making herself sick by doing this. She has to walk away from a case, as she "enters into" the language of sex offenders, for example.

There must be a healthy disassociation, too, but to understand, that is, to enter into the language to such a powerful degree as to uncover hidden truth, is something amazing in itself.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Susan,

It was deleted, not because we thought you were trying to stir trouble, but because of the controversial content and, if memory serves me, it was about the time of the Baltimore riot?

If so, perhaps you can understand why.

It is most controversial and you are not the first person to request a profile. Most people want to know if:

the writer is a lawyer;

the article is real, or is the writer making it up.

Allen West posted a link to it, but you are correct; it is from a compilation (At Amazon) about race relations in America. I think it is over a year old, but I am not sure (the book, that is).

It caused no small amount of controversy and the author's own political view seemed to bring in quite a few challenges.

What is missing is any solution, as well as a defense of black, middle class America and their culture. Yet, this may not have been the author's purpose.

West is no dummy, and likely knew he could link to it where others would have been condemned for it.

For me, truth and deception are paramount.

I will give it some thought.

Are others curious as to the author's profile? If an identity were produced (doubtful) I would not post it.

Peter

GetThem said...

We are born sinful. That is why we have Jesus.

I loved your article and you did a great job hitting a lot of key points but... it always bothers me when discussing creation, people never seem to talk about Adam's sin except in a passive role. People focus on Eve and casually mention Adam almost as a side note.

Adam, was the MAN and therefore should have told Eve "no" on a bad decision. He was expected behave as the head of Eve, but he was weak and ultimately made his own decision to eat the fruit. Eve did not open his mouth and place the fruit in there. Adam knew God and as you mentioned, he named all the animals and he named Eve "woman," so he had a longer knowledge of God and His unquestionable greatness in what God did for Adam so he should have manned up and refused Eve. It's weak leadership.

GetThem said...

Anon, you aren't a bible follower, so I understand why what I said won't make sense to you. The article clearly noted that woman and men think differently, in fact, at the risk of sounding controversial, I find woman to think faster and therefore, I find us to be often smarter by getting to an answer before a man. However, to further clarify for you, I don't think men should tell woman what to do, I did not say that, and, if my husband tried to boss me around, it wouldn't work, just ask him loll! My personal religious belief is that men are the spiritual leaders of the household as instructed by the bible, which is very different than "men telling woman what to do." In our home, we both make decisions together, many times I defer to him, by choice, and when I don't want to agree with him, I don't... I'm just secure that way! I did not say that "men tell woman what to do" so you wrongly misquoted me, inaccurately told me what "doctrine" I live and called it ridiculous. I'll refrain from saying what else is on my mind right now out of courtesy to my friends in here.

Anonymous said...

GetThem; to quote just one of your comments in your post on 7/2 @ 6:36; "Adam, was the MAN and therefore should have told Eve "no" on a bad decision. He was expected (to) behave as the head of Eve......." and so on. "It's weak leadership."

I submit to you; 1) you are saying that Eve was to be treated like a child, as if she had no mind of her own. (Rightly or wrongly, she DID have the right and the will to make her OWN decision); And right there, you are placing the woman under subjection to the man, he is her boss, no matter what he says or does, this is what goes, HIS word. This subjection of woman to man applies to all of mankind and all women throughout the ages and not just the disobedience to God in the Garden; as taught by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, the apostle WHO places woman under mans authority for all time and in every instance; woman MUST give over to the man and keep silent. Therein, women are made slaves to man.

2) Eve ate of the fruit FIRST, having a mind of her own and having been deceived and fallen to the deceitful lies and wiles of the devil. Adam might not have even been anywhere around when Eve first ate of the fruit; you don't know this and neither do I. Finding it good to eat Eve persuaded and gave unto Adam and he did eat. We weren't there, it could have been that day, that minute or eons later. Adam succumbed to Eve's persuasion to eat of it and he did eat. This was HIS choice. However, their temptations and sin goes much deeper and further than just eating of the forbidden fruit. Forever since, we have been deceived; AND warned by Jesus repeatedly not to fall for the deceit of satan.

3) You are wrong in assuming that I am not a Bible follower; however, I do apologize for my manner in making my comments to you (subsequently deleted by Peter, which spewed my anger at reading yet another one of these "placing women under the authority of men" when I have read the entire Bible (more than once) and I KNOW that NO WHERE in the teachings of Jesus did he ever EVER say this or even infer such a doctrine. NOT ONCE.

4) However, Jesus did say; "Take heed that you follow no man, lest you both fall into the ditch." "Follow me, I am the truth and the light, none cometh to the father but by me." "He that hath an ear too hear, let him hear." Paul came along three years later after Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended to the father; however, Paul WAS on this earth at the time Jesus was teaching HIS doctrine and chose his diciples; NOTE: Paul (Saul) was NOT one of his disciples.

5) It was The Apostle Paul (known as "Saul" during his many crimes and murders against Christians and followers of Jesus) who laid the foundation for women to fall under subjection to men; it was never Jesus. THIS is who you and most Christians are following? The one who set up these many diverse church doctrines who teach following Jesus "PAUL'S" way?

I submit to YOU that you get back to the teachings of Jesus and follow HIM alone. "Rightly divide the Word." You cannot follow both and still be following the simple guidance and beautiful words of Jesus. Following Jesus is a beautiful way, peaceful and easy, it is NOT bound up in restrictions and heavy rules and burdens and men holding women hostage to their whims and their OWN disobedience to God, causing women to stumble and fall with them. Study the Word and look into it for yourself with an open mind and eyes; without dispute, that's all I'm saying.

GetThem said...

Dude, what's your issue?

1. Ummmm yah, God told them not to eat the fruit. She should have said no and then HE should definitely have said no to her. If she felt like "a child" too bad, you don't deny God. When you do, there is punishment.

2. Correct, but thanks for the bible lesson.

3. You may want to read the bible again, or at least research it before you make statements that are not true. How you wish to interpret my words or the bible in this matter is your choice, but frankly, I'm not interested in being corrected by you as you lost your credibility with me in your first response. However, since you said it is stated nowhere in the bible, here are a few versus for your reference: 1 Timothy 2:11-14-15, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1-7, Genesis 3:16-19. Again, interpret them as you wish, but I'm not interested in your attempts at belittling or correcting me. To be honest, I feel like I'm right and you're wrong so you're really wasting your breath because I won't listen to what you say. If you need more bible versus, ask your pastor or just Google them and then, feel free to argue with someone else.

4. Which verse is "Take heed that you follow no man, lest you both fall into the ditch?" I looked it up and then asked my husband, who knows the bible very well and he wasn't sure, but right away he thought maybe you meant Provers 28:18? Normally, he knows his bible versus from memory immediately because he studies the bible daily. Maybe Adam should have taken heed to that advice though, huh? Oh and wrong again, Paul did not "lay the foundation" for woman to heed to men, it started in GENESIS!!!

5. Everyone that wrote the bible did it through Jesus, so ALL te books of the bible are Jesus's words written by man, through Him. You may not agree and you may not like it, but please argue with someone ELSE, maybe chat with your pastor.

I SUBMIT TO YOU that I do follow Jesus and HIM alone. I really think you should follow your own advice and "Study the Word and look into it for yourself with an open mind and eyes; without dispute, that's all I'm saying." I also recommend further discussion with your pastor. Lastly, I don't feel like trying to attempt to clarify what I said to you, because twice was enough. I don't know why you continue arguing with me when you refuse to do your own research. I frankly have researched it with pastors and bible study and I am very comfortable with my opinions and beliefs.

Anonymous said...

First off GetThem: I am not a dude. I am a woman. Secondly, I made a sincere apology to you for my previous outspoken (questionable, it's all in how you look at it?) rudeness which Peter deleted. No problem, I DID sincerely apologize which you have refused to accept. So, where's your spirit of gentle Christianity? I'm not feeling the love.

My issue? It is clearly spelled out. IT's the same age-old issue of women being under subjection to men when Jesus never taught this at all. But there you go again, telling ME how I'm supposed to see it your way; that women are beneath men and he is her boss, he makes the decisions; which you are avoiding while justifying, AND denying since you have talked to your pastor, your supposed 'leader'; yet those are clearly your implications. I don't need some pastor to misinterpret anything or think for me. I know how to read.

Alrighty then. Have it your way, whatever makes your ears tingle, another scripture you will be unfamiliar with since you aren't familiar with any of those words of Jesus I mentioned to you.

THEN you tell me to contact a PASTOR? As if I can't read for myself and have full understanding of what I read? Why play 'follow the leader' and risk dooming my own soul to hell, when I am not a follower? This is how cults are formed and thrive, just believe whatever you are told; the result being all those diverse and different denominations that act in opposition to the teachings of Jesus. But then, you don't know about those scriptures since you haven't read them for yourself.

Your husband doesn't know the Bible very well either, otherwise these words would jump out at him. And he's your 'leader'? Read the teachings of Jesus for yourself, just as they are written in the New Testament of the KJV. One more I will leave for you to ingest: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling".

I'm not going any further with this nonsense. Waste of my time. I just hope somebody else might have read how easy it is to find Jesus, and will come to know that they don't have to follow any man made doctrine, which in fact, will more than likely lead them in the opposite direction; WHICH is why so many have turned away from God and don't even believe in his existence, then smirk at the Name of Jesus. Jesus taught against man made doctrines.

I just hope somebody is listening or will remember before it's too late for them to remember how easy it is to find Jesus and how peaceful and easy it is to follow Him. He did NOT demean women. He loved them, and set them free from the shackles of man. He even justified, forgave and understood their sin and shame and held them blameless in many parables and instances. But of course, you wouldn't know this. Have a good day and God bless.

GetThem said...

I don't believe you ever read the bible twice. But I do believe you read it three times. Have a pleasant day.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. PULEEZE, you were way off base. I was being conservative when I said twice. Parts of it I've probably read more than a dozen times, especially those teachings of Jesus, but do I need to prove it to you? Nah...

Uhh, still now feeling the 'love' you're supposed to be showing from your blind leaders having itching ears... The blind leading the blind.

Anonymous said...

A small but important point to note -- if one reviews Genesis chapter 2, it will be observed that Eve was not even yet created when God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree.

Thus, there are 2 possibilities...

(1) Eve misquoted God's instruction even though she had heard it relayed accurately from Adam.

OR

(2) Adam was the one who changed/added on to God's word when relaying the command to Eve.


We have no way of knowing that the first scenario is any more likely than the second scenario.

Peter Hyatt said...

(3) God repeated the command to them both...

(4) Eve misquoted on her own accord as she was the one approached by the entity of evil for deception

No condemnation came until after Adam had eaten, which suggests responsibility.

foodnerd said...

It isn't about being neutral, the wrong question is asked: All mankind isn't anything; we are all different in every possible way. One of those areas is our values and personal sense of right and wrong.

Some people are born inherently evil; others are shaped that way by environment or their own failures. Others are born inherently kind. Some would never consider committing a crime (or more serious crimes) only because they think it's a foolish risk, not because they'd have any remorse whatsoever over harm they would cause to others.

Most, but not all of us find different human behaviors reprehensible, cruel, nauseating, outrageous, and just about every other response or reaction.

If it's ignorant to classify an entire race, religion, culture, sexual orientation or age group based upon the few you've actually met, how could all of mankind be so easily packaged up?