Business Health and Fitness Philosophy Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

On Property Ownership

One of the hardest things about writing has little or nothing to do with the actual act. Rather, it comes before the actual time “penning” a given piece of work.

Having once decide about what one is going to speak, there is a tendency to come to the stark realization that, the thing I about which I thought I would be speaking is not what really needs talked about at all.

Such is the case with this piece. I started out with the idea that I needed to cover ownership from a perspective that I now realize would not have been productive in the long run. Instead, I have decided to “take a proverbial step back,” and approach the matter from a simper place.

In order to do that, it is necessary to take government (other than self government) entirely out of the picture. Imagine—for the sake of this post—that you live in a place that is sufficiently far removed from others, as to make government infeasible. You have found “your home” out in some wilderness, and are now in the process of making it a place where you may have some measure of safety and security.

With enough time to find a water source, hunt,  gather and generally fill your most urgent needs, you begin to consider what will be needed in order to be relatively safe and secure.

At present, you have sufficient covering of your person to keep you from dying of exposure, as such, you turn to the next obvious “need,” that of shelter. Why is shelter a need? For a couple of fairly simple reasons.

Firstly, having shelter means it will take longer for the elements (wind, rain, snow, sun and others) to “get the better of you.” To some degree, clothing can be said to cover this as well, but having a way to deal with it on a more permanent basis must be seen as highly desirable.

In addition, having a means to “shut out” things like wild animals looks very attractive, particularly while you attempt to meet one of your other daily needs, that of sleep.

As stated, the need for shelter is partly to protect you from the elements. But the secondary reason listed is actually one that is often misunderstood. The very first truth of life is, your life is yours and it is—as far as anyone is able to tell—the only one you will get. As such, it is in you best interest to protect it!

This is the first statement of ownership that any person makes, consciously or not. He or she ultimately must acknowledge that his or her life “belongs to” him or her self. Without life, there is (as far as one can readily determine) nothing else. Therefor, one ought to and does protect that life. Further one must count it as one’s own; that is, a thing belonging to oneself.

Realizing that ownership starts at the very most basic place in life is significant, as it helps to explain just how important “personal property” is.

In the process of protecting one’s life, it is not in the least unnatural to “take possession” of other things that make it more readily possible to protect and defend that first thing owned. For example, if you’ve clothes, food that you have not yet consumed (which includes livestock and crops), or a place where you shelter, nobody should be surprised if you protect such things as if your life depended on them. This is because, well, quite frankly, it does.

Each subsequent thing over which you assert possession is very likely accounted so for one of three reasons (there are others, but we won’t go too far into discussing them here, as that’s a matter for another post). The reasons are: to keep one alive, to keep one healthy and well, and for the pleasure the things in question provide (which could be said to be a part of the second reason).

To argue that ownership is a bad thing on the face of it, is to argue that I have no right to protect my own life, or the things that keep that life within me. It is my sincere hope that nobody will make such an argument.

Over the course of time, here in my little shelter, I begin to become prosperous. That is to say, I am able to provide for more than my needs and even to some degree, my wants. I know though, that unexpected things can occur, that may make it impossible for me to do the things to which I have grown accustomed. Perhaps I will not be able to hunt, or farm, or gather for a time. As a means of protecting myself, I amass things to make it possible to survive in such times. Are those things still mine? I would argue that since I have taken the necessary actions to amass them, they are.

If I collect “more than I will ever need” in your opinion, does that mean that, at some point, the things I have taken the time to glean are not mine? That seems to be a rather specious concept in my mind. I did the collecting, and I’m betting I by no means collected so much that others have no ability to do likewise.

Equally important, what happens if I find myself in a position where a large portion of what I have collected is destroyed or made unusable by some thing or circumstance I couldn’t even have foreseen? Were it not for my “over collection,” I would have been entirely lost. In the best case, I would have had to “start over.” And if I were no longer in a position to do again what I had done before, that is “my problem.”

In none of this have we even begun to consider others for whom I may “take responsibility,” as doing so would make this post substantially longer than I am willing to permit (again, attempting to stay as close to one thousand words as possible). Even without this, have “exceeded my self-imposed limit” already.

The simple point of what I have here written is simple. Asserting ownership is neither evil, nor even improper. We must “take ownership of” at least our existence (and it makes a great deal of sense to take possession of a good deal more in order to keep our existence).

As usual, I thank you for reading and wish you the best of times.

Philosophy Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

Marriage – An Unfortunate Viewpoint

I think it highly likely that any complicated set of beliefs, will have adherents who have a variety of misconceptions about that belief set. It is obvious this must be true for Christianity, since a pretty crucial reason for the number of sects currently found in Christendom can be stated simply as “differences in beliefs,” often surrounding core tenets.

In some things, much of Christendom is in agreement. This does not necessarily make them correct in what they believe.

One example of this, is the apparently quite commonly held belief that marriage is a thing between one man and one woman. Another that is less common, but equally incorrect, is that a marriage can be between two men or two women. By the way, the belief that the latter is the case seems to be sharply on the rise.

There are so many other widely held beliefs I could (and probably should) challenge, that the number boggles the mind. At the moment though, I would like to cover just misconceptions related to marriage. In particular, I would like to focus on the belief that Christianity supports the idea of marriage between two men or two women.

I would like to take a moment before doing that, to reiterate my unwillingness to accept the system of supposed jurisprudence in any country (but most particularly in the United States) as some sort of authority on marriage. Frankly, I don’t really hold that “the church” can hold that position, but if any Earthly authority were equipped to handle it, that authority would assuredly be the church before it was the state.

I bring this up in order to make it crystal clear that laws surrounding who can, can’t, should or shouldn’t be married, are of little to no consequence when it comes to actually answering these questions. From a Christian perspective, the question of who can and should be married is one that can only be understood by seeking God’s will and heart on the matter. Interestingly, though it can be misconstrued by those reading it without understanding, it will be very clear to those reading the Bible with understanding.

As an example of misunderstanding, anyone trying to make the argument that “marriage is the union of one man and one woman, probably either has not spent much time in the Bible, or has failed to see the truth as a result of doing so. The reality is, that the Bible essentially says that a man can have more than one wife. Without essentially stating that the Bible is not a written representation of the will of God, one cannot ignore what the Bible says about marriage.

Personally, one wife is—quite frankly—often already more than I can handle. As such, even though I believe the Bible supports my having more than one, I cannot imagine ever having two at the same time. Nonetheless, the only time the Bible specifically speaks about a man having “but one wife,” is when it talks about a person holding a certain office in the Church. At no other time of which I am aware does it even imply such a restriction. And it is rife with examples of powerful people considered righteous before God having more than one wife (no doubt, more than a few not so righteous as well).

In the United States system of “justice,” having more than one wife is bigamy, and as such, is against the law. I see no reason to test that law. As I say, one is more than enough for me.

Even so, in my view, the only perspective that “matters,” is the one that is significant to God. As such, the reason I will not test my liberty to be married to more than one woman at a time is no different than the reason that I chose to follow speed limits on public roadways; that being, that I have zero reason to challenge them. Put another way, I still believe what the Bible says to be correct and proper, entirely regardless the law of the land.

That is why I hold the beliefs I do with regard to two men or two women being married. It isn’t a matter of what I personally support, or think “just.” Rather, it’s a matter of what God lays down as the way one ought to live one’s life. And I believe the majority of people in the U.S. who support (improperly in my view) laws endorsing the idea of marriage being between men and women (and particularly, one man and one woman) are using this as the basis for their statements and actions doing so.

I’m equally sure that the majority of such folks, consider marriage a sacred bond, set forth by God Almighty. They don’t see the woman or man to whom they are married as a “piece of meat” or somehow subservient to themselves. They see them as a “promised helpmeet.”

At the same time, I believe, and I think most of the aforementioned are with me on this, that most people seeking “marital equality” for themselves or others who are “gay” etcetera, are doing so because of a belief that those people are being treated unjustly. In other words, I don’t think they largely have some insidious plot simmering in the backs of their minds with regard to a reduction or corruption of the morality of the general populace.

That being said, I do believe that some of the more powerful “movers and shakers” in the “debate” have exactly that intent. To wit, they wish to “change the moral climate to one somewhat more to their liking.” I believe the reasons for that desired change vary from one group to the next. That being said, more than a few of them wish to make that which is shocking and considered to be improper “into the mainstream” with the idea of making things that are even more shocking and improper seem less so.

Examples of such things would be pedophilia and beastility (there are others, but I’m not going to get into them here).

So to sum up and hopefully clarify the reality, rather than the fantasy some folks would like to live and like you to believe, I don’t by any means believe the average person supporting the “one man, one woman” marital concept have it at all in mind to somehow “keep women down” or “treat them as property or meat.” Rather, by and large, most of them support the idea of marriage as a holy, sacred institution under which only a select set of people may live. Whether you agree with them or not is really not the issue. If you are a Believer, you must make your own decisions, but beware, you will not stand before me or any other Earthly “authority” for your choices and decisions.

As usual, thanks for reading, and have the best of days, nights, or, whatever!