Case Study #1
A person comments that President Obama is a hypocrite because he supports gay marriage but is married to a woman.
Case Study #2
A person quotes scripture based on a single verse while eliminating the impact of context.
Example:
"Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured." Leviticus 24:20
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:38-39
So then, with this and countless other examples, what is the point? Is it best to scream to the heavens that all people are idiots, declare ourselves supreme geniuses, and begin to demoralize and crusade against the less educated, the blinded masses, and ultimately improve the world as a whole?
No, that will probably not end well. In an extreme example this mentality could go as far as.... well lets just say Germany latched on to this pretty seriously in World War II.
So is our only alternative then to give up and live in a bubble of happy complacency with no effect on the outside world and follow the following example?
Once upon a time there were four people: Their names were Everybody, Somebody, Nobody, and Anybody. Whenever there was an important job to do Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. When Nobody did it, Everybody got angry because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Somebody would do it, but Nobody realized that Nobody would do it. So consequently Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done in the first place.
No, perhaps black and white are not the only options here. Perhaps there is a grey option as well. Here's some food for thought, what about the individual focusing on becoming a master craftsman. A craftsman of the individual. Rather than trying to mold the masses to what the law should state, try molding the individual to question. Question everything.
Political ideology, personal beliefs, values, ethics... all of these should be able to be rigorously tested and considered so that when the discussion is initiated our principles do not falter at a sound counterargument, or we are not forced to stick our fingers in our ears and say "lalalalalalalalalalalala"
Believe what you believe, and hold on to faith. But ask yourself, are you arguing out of conviction or understanding? Did you question your conviction so that your faith is enhanced by your knowledge?
If you cannot say yes... wouldn't you prefer that you could?
This is the grey. Don't enter into an argument with the person from Case Study #1. You could present them a picture of a circle and they will still call it a square. You will not win that argument. Rather than trying to fix the planet and make them think and feel the same way you do, try to find the rare person who is willing to listen and able to explain. You may just learn something new. That person could turn your masterpiece painting on it's side and help you realize you were only painting one side of the canvas.
Don't bathe in a teacup, don't swallow the sea, and question everything.
