Because I'm in school, and very fascinated with indepth learning in the subject of Human Understanding, I thought I'd combine my efforts to learn into a thread, because I realized today that I hardly ever Create topics but usually follow the thoughts of others, and may need to work on creative initiative

Here's a "Favorite" to soothe your mind if you will listen and also take time to think philosophically with me: YouTube - George Jones - He Stopped Loving Her Today

But also really, I do have a subject on my mind lately, which is related to what I thought was such a thoughtful phrase that a thoughtful person made recently, which was, "We often resist the sufferring it takes to gain understanding." That could sound like a negative judgement type statement, "if" perceived that way, so along with that thought, I want to add this one...that it's "our" own "thoughts" that create the Perseptions or Beliefs that we develop in response to things that are said or that occur.

This would mean then that the object of "our own" Perseptions and Beliefs (what someone else said) are not as based on what they said as they are based on...the Perspetions and Beliefs our "present thinking" "feels" about what they've said or Perceives of it. Considering that people in general are happiest when they have established goals in life and seek to attain them, these Perseptions or Beliefs of ours are then either rational and goal directing, so that we can achieve our basic goals and purposes by these "thoughts" which cause our emotional responses, or they are irrational, in the sense that these thoughts "we use" to form our emotional responses, form Responses that Do Not work toward us attaining the very goals that are ours.

I need to give an quick example to clarify this: Say that one of your personal goals is to be a person who is sensitive and understanding (Oh what a heated example this is!). So say someone makes the statement to you that, "You are a trouble-maker." How may different responses can we think of that different people might respond to this with? What would Your response be if say, a friend said this to you? Would Your response be different if someone you didn't think so much of said this to you? think for a minute.

Let's be honest if just with ourself; what if someone we didn't think so much of said this to us; first, what would our "thoughts" be? Then what would our verbal response be? Can we see how our verbal response was a product of our "thoughts" in this particular encounter? What if our verbal response was to put the person in their place? Would this response give a public impression that we were sensitive and understanding? Or would it give impression that we: do not tolerate such blatant and public criticism? Or that we have too much pride to allow someone to say this to us publicly without setting them straight?

If our goal was to be viewed as a sensitive and understanding person, would such a response as these mentioned display that? If not, have we defeated our goal ourself by our thinking? Or did the person who said it have the power to defeat our goal for us?

What if we "thought" something different, such as: "I have been accused of being a trouble-maker, and I want to find out why this was said so that I can identify what I am doing that has caused someone to see me as a trouble-maker....and as a result of this thinking, our verbal response becomes: "What causes you to say that I am a trouble-maker?" Now would we be viewed as more sensitive and understanding if we used this response? And could we say this this kind of response is more Rational, in that it sets us up to achieve our origianl goal?

The Point in all this is that we can either advance or defeat our own goals by choosing our thoughts carefully, because our thoughts will determine our outward responses, which will then determine whether our goals are advanced or thwarted.

What if our goal is to rationally and objectively judge the content of what people say here in this place? What kind of responses would display that this is our goal, and what kind of responses would display us rather as a person who was not rational and objective? (Another heated example?).

Back to our "thoughts." So if someone says, "Water Baptism is a significant part of being saved or redeemed," what are the "thoughts" that come to your mind in particular? And can you agree that your verbal response would be based on your "thoughts?" If our response is to deny this statement and then give supporting reasons for why it is not true, have we succeeded in showing ourself as a rational and objective person to the person who made this statement? We may have shown ourself this way to those who agree with us; but what about to those who do not agree with us?

Is it really our verbal response that causes people (who do not at this point agree with us) to see us as rational and objective? Or might they see us as rational and objective far more if we showed evidence that we "understood" how "they" have come to believe this and why?

Has our goal changed from being viewed as rational and objective to just voicing our Beliefs to people who we know will deny our beliefs?

Will a person respect our views more if we respond by refuting their beliefs or if we respond by displaying understanding of atleast how they came to believe what they do?

Is it possible that we sometimes verbally respond out of how we "feel" about things that are said, and may actually cause the person who said them to feel misunderstood, because they "felt" a whole different way about the "thoughts" they had that caused them to say what they did?

Is it possible that others ever respond out of how they "feel" about the "thoughts" "they" have about what "we" say, and then "we" feel misunderstood because we had totally different "feelings" about the "thoughts" that "we" had about what "we" said?

There's no doubt that "thoughts" can change, grow, develop, when we accomodate new knowledge...what if people are coming from different perspectives or kinds of knowledge, so that they have different "thoughts" about things that are said, and then two people or two sides of people have conflict over the same idea or statement, even though their "thoughts" were not even nearly the same regarding the statement or thing....

But at the same time they had the same original goals? Sounds like our "thoughts" may sometimes be the source of misunderstandings that cause conflicts even when original goals may have been the same? No doubt people can see the very same thing from so many different angles, and disagree "only" because they are seeing from a different angle, the very same thing.

[PermaPetra]

There is a prayer by one of the saints... wish I knew which one and also the whole of the prayer.

One of the lines, as I remember it, is: Let me be understanding, more so than to be understood.

Maybe the prayer, or poem, is by St. Francis of Assissi (sp?)

Sorry for posting prior to actually knowing. I think I will go look for it now.

[PermaPetra]

Ah! It is by Saint Francis of Assisi, and here it is:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

[thequestioner]

we pray that every time at youth group! lol i have it memorized

[PermaPetra]

Originally Posted by thequestioner

we pray that every time at youth group! lol i have it memorized

What a wonderful idea!

Thank you, tq. (may I call you tq?)

With the love of Christ,
Perma