Contrasting Carnal And Spiritual Manners: Alpha (Parte Uno)

From a distance, all things seem typical...

Let us explore an exercise differentiating what is carnal from what is spiritual.

When we were children, we likely reflected the manner in which we were treated.

Many adults still do this today, fortunately and unfortunately.

Typically, if treated nicely we would return attitudes and words nicely.

If treated poorly, we may have been apt to also treat others poorly.

The manner of our upbringing depended greatly on how we were treated by others, and also how we were raised to treat others regardless of how they treated us.

Some of us were taught to return insult for insult, and violation for violation...to the point of physical pain if necessary.

If this was not specifically taught, it was learned by observation of those around us.

Some of us were taught to not return insult or pain for insult and pain given.

Some of us were taught to forgive, to move away from abusers, and to pursue another manner in dealing with those who would hurt us.

This may have been directly taught and likely learned also through observation.

The human being may or may not be directly taught certain things and ideas, yet the human surely does learn by imitating those around them.

Whether we learned lessons from older siblings or older children, or parents or adults, we learned from their words and manners.

This is the human condition, the way cultures are formed and forwarded.

A culture that has only known war is likely to not expect peace, but more war.

A culture and people who are taught since childhood to never submit to others, but to fight for what they hold to be true, may seem logical and reasonable according to their human standards.

We read this in the world's histories...and no political entity today has been immune.

How about religious movements?...have some religious ideas been immune?

Have some religious ideas started as peaceful and then turned violent?

Has violence been not only present, but justified and taught as a means, in all religions and their religious ideas?

Has the approach of returning insult and injury for insult and injury received (always) worked?

I think it 'works' only in the minds of those who continue to insult and cause injury.

How it 'works' (to mistakenly use that word) is only by further insult and injury and for those who subdue others by violent / forceful means.

In actuality, this is a manner which does not 'work', but rather is repeating something broken and always capable of falling apart.

This manner only furthers strife, resentment, and eventual retribution.

The 'eye for an eye' circle of death.

I'm going to cite from some sources believed-to-be inspired, yet they are from two distinct ideologies.

The ideologies are from two unique places that have shaped certain regions of the world and in turn influenced the largest number of the world's population.

Although these two ideologies share similar ideas, their historical outcome is very distinct and different.

Despite their internal differences and similarities, their external attributes can be understood as quite obvious.

Some scholars or historians would argue the sources of inspiration are a singular expression simply found in different times and circumstances.

The latter portion of this argument is I think correct (found in different times and circumstances).

The portion of them collectively being singular or very much the same is I think not correct.

From where the inspiration is derived will be clarified, hopefully, according to the content of the sources cited.

We shall see how by observation of actions, not so much 'words', children and subsequently adults have learned the ways of their inspirations.

The difference is I think quite clear and very obvious.

Perhaps piercing popular propaganda promoting peace presently pacified per programmed perception.

Looking closely, the message detailed in the two ideologies couldn't be further apart in actuality and in application.

One has to only observe their lasting affect throughout the world we have come to realize Today.

Some scholars infer, incorrectly I must add, that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are 'three Abrahamic religions'...using the character of Abraham as a unifying factor.

I agree the three cite Abraham, yet one historically graduated from another .

The third is altogether contrasted sharply when compared to the two.

The three stand very different with one standing out very sharply from the manners of the two.

I'm speaking to the religious teachings, not their political or secular counterparts.

I think the premise using the phrase Abrahamic religions is argued because it is easy; a summarizing catch-all.

But I think it is a very lazy and incorrect attempt to summarize and unify ideas without distinguishing the contradicting realities.

The distinctions need to be noted and dissected.

Not sure if there is a popular desire to mainstream the three as having a common source due to their similarities.

Not sure if this is proper without highlighting the differences which, when explored, are worlds apart.

Farther than the sun is to Pluto, or Andromeda is to the Milky Way.

Although there is much similarity and repeating of themes between the three, the differences are sometimes ignorantly viewed as inconsequential by news media and even scholars at times...and this is quite poor scholarship and dismal journalism.

When looking on the surface, things can seem a certain way and argued in a certain manner.

This is the first step; we are all humans, creations of God.

It is when looking closer that the details show different directions.

The parts that they do have in common and are agreeable should be a basis for dialogue and peaceful agreement.

Perhaps this is the intention of some journalists and scholars and politicians.

It is the differences in the details that need careful attention and exploration, yet these are widely ignored or excused away in mainstream media at times.

These media shortcomings are coupled together as mere humanistic ambitions (the fighting, incongruent contradiction in jurisprudence, etc., being a byproduct of humanity).

Yet one of the three has no such allowance, warrant nor teaching for violence, killing, fighting, etc..

This is explicit and clear, only misunderstood interpretations 'qualifying' to make such an argument...but the claim is false.

There is only one which is at its heart 'peaceful' and 'submitted' to both God and man in peace.

It is in reviewing the details where we find one source is absent an allowance for violence.

Depending where on earth you live, your current thoughts over what is herein presented may vary.

You may live in a state that allows the killing of an intruder, or of a violent person trying to hurt or kill you.

This 'act of defense' may be justified only inside your home, or on your property, or may extend to the street depending on certain factors.

You may live in a state where the police / government / military are the only ones allowed to extinguish a life for any certain or specific reason.

Perhaps a form of punishment / justice by the state government is killing someone for crimes committed...and this 'right' to kill a human being is 'allowed' by the government, and possibly mentioned in religious text.

You may live in a state where religious ideas are included in justifications for taking a life; perhaps if a religious idea or icon is insulted and death is the 'justice' for such an offense.

The laws of men change all the time...and men have written many laws.

While some human laws reflect ancient ideas, some people adapt and adopt newer ideas into law.

In some places on earth, the law is not popularly considered to be God-inspired, but a work in progress over centuries from mankind learning to be civilized.

In other places, God-inspired laws are proclaimed to be the reality, and death for certain humans is weaved into government jurisprudence for a variety of offenses.

We will explore what is understood as God's law, and how this too contrasts and is distinct from man's law..

We shall see what some claim to be from God . . . is actually man's law written another way.

Continued in Parte Dos.