Those of us who are Christians have been taught about a triune God also called the Trinity. Over the years I have come to form my own visions about just what that means. I am going to share them with you here. But, before I do I am not trying to convince you that I am right or you are wrong about your spiritual beliefs. Some of us choose different paths to our heavenly links.
The Trinity is supposed to be made up of three different entities: God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit. I first learned about this concept in a Catholic primary school via Jesuit nuns and priests. In telling young kids about this it was necessary to keep it as simple as possible. To try to teach the concept more fully would be like trying to teach first century citizens about DNA. They were not ready to understand that twenty-first century finding.
Lets get into the nature of a triune God at least as I have come to understand it today.
God the Father – … the essence of the universe and anything beyond that…
God the Son – … the physical manifestation of God so that we could more easily relate to him and to learn what he wanted to teach the first century citizens….
God the Holy Spirit – … the spiritual presence of God constantly in our thoughts and minds…
To me these words pretty well sum up the three person concept of God but I am going to stretch this some so as to probably make some of my Christian friends uncomfortable.
My brother-in-law sees God in nature but not so much in person and that is fine with me. I think all of us except for the most stubborn avowed atheists among us can see a divine presence in the order of nature. It is just too structured to be otherwise. God, whatever form he is, created the world and his physical laws continue to maintain it. That being is God the Father
Was Jesus Christ the only being in human form used by God to teach us lessons in life. I personally doubt that he was. There have likely been several others but maybe not with the significance of Jesus. The “Son of God” was a commonly used phrase in Jesus’ times to indicate prophets and such. Even Roman rulers used that term to identify themselves. I personally think of Jesus as the Son of God but can understand others who might think others also fit that title.
God the Holy Spirit is what is in each of us that innately tells us what is right and wrong. It is that presence that keeps us from doing things we know we should not do. The Holy Spirit is an important part of our souls. Does God continue to communicate with us via the Holy Spirit? I believe he does just as much today as he did two thousand years ago. It is just that we now manage to tune out those messages. Some religious institutions even go to the point of questioning whether our personal spiritual messages come from God or the devil. Some say that the Holy Spirit stopped giving us lessons when the last original apostle died.
I do believe in a triune God who is present in nature, in lessons taught, and within our personal beings. Past theologians have tried to make it mysterious but to me the concept of a triune God is really not that hard to understand…
This graphic, which I don’t really remember where it came from, seems to be my current philosophy of life. Maybe I am trying to re-live my youth :)
Great Britain has a population of 60 million citizens so they are only about one-fifth the size of the U.S. but I am willing to bet everything that the our cops fired their weapons more than 15 times last year. I’ll bet it is more than fifteen times in the last ten minutes. Our obsession with guns costs us dearly in human lives. I’m sure the NRA and other such folks will say that is because we have so many more bad guys than the Brits but we all really know it is because of the prevalence of weapons. There is no getting around it, because of our guns we are just a much more violent nation. As Peter, Paul and Mary said in their famous song Blown in the Wind, when will we ever learn? The answer to that my friend is indeed blown in the wind.
When’s the last time you heard of a millennial friend or relative getting a raise or a promotion in their current job, excluding a new degree or new job? Almost never, right? Employers rarely give raises anymore, outside perhaps a standard cost-of-living adjustment. If we want a new opportunity, we’re told we need a new degree or certification. Most often, we have to switch jobs.Job hopping is often the only way for us to move ahead. I know friends who are waiting a backlog of managers or supervisors who (might) retire in 5-10 years. The choice is clear: wait out a long retirement or force their hand by getting a different job.
The main topic of this article was not about raises but about pastors and churches. But the comment above from a millennial got my attention. Job hopping did occur in my world but it was usually the exception rather than the rule for at least the first two-thirds of my career. To hear that today’s crop of workers deem it a necessity in order to get a raise kind of shocked me.
I know the statistics bear out the fact that people don’t get raises anymore. The middle class of which most of us relish to be in has been shrinking since the Reagan years of trickle down mentality. When employees became liabilities to be shed instead of assets to be pampered, raises basically disappeared. They say that the average person will change jobs every seven years now.
Of course there will still be those entrepreneurs who will manage to find just that right thing to bring to market at just the right time. More power to them but we must realize that they make up a very thin slice of today’s workforce. We hear the mantra that small business is the backbone of our nation but small businesses employ much less than half the nation’s workforce. The vast majority, as in the past, are in jobs with major corporations and those corporations have deemed it unnecessary to give their workers a slice of their ever increasing profits.
Some consider it a chicken/egg thing but living through this corporate change it isn’t to me. The logic goes something like this. Corporations don’t give raises to their employees because the employees are not loyal to those who pay their salaries. My peak earning years were in the 1970s through the 1980s and I saw a definite change in corporate mentality over that period of time. For the first half of my work life I was a proud employee of AT&T. I, and most of my co-workers were very loyal to the company. We all had a pretty strong healthcare plan and received a slice of the profits we generated. In years when the corporation made lower profits we willingly got smaller raises. We were loyal to our company.
Then came 1980 where very conservative Republican started his presidency by firing all members of a national union and it continued to get worse from there. Employee loyalty evaporated over that decade due to a basic change in corporate mentality and that change continues to today. Is it possible to get back any level of the trust lost during those decades? Probably not….. and that is truly sad…..
In the US, it’s always seemed like the answer was “extrovert.”
Being social is lauded and most people seem skeptical of all that skulking about that introverts do. There’s no doubt research has shown a number of advantages to being a people person….
What about more social areas of expertise, like leadership? It definitely gets more complex. Extroverts are better leaders of passive employees, introverts shine with proactive workers:
…although extroverted leadership enhances group performance when employees are passive, this effect reverses when employees are proactive, because extroverted leaders are less receptive to proactivity.
The extrovert vs introvert thing has frequently been a topic of conversation in our society. As the beginning of the quote above says the answer to which is better in the U.S. has always been extrovert but is it really. Being a basic introvert and NOT a type “A” male I have a different view of things.
For the sake of this post lets concentrate on the last part of the quote above. That is about introvert/extroverts in leadership positions.
I spent thirty years in the corporate world and was exposed to several bosses in both of these categories. I had bosses who would look over my shoulder at everything I did to make sure it was done as they wanted it. I was only the “grunt” to do what they couldn’t physically do themselves. I had one boss who would demand elaborate memorandums about the project I was working on. When I submitted the document he proceeded to change every sentence in it! I was tortured by those kind of bosses much more than I care to discuss.
And then there were some bosses who would give me a task and then go away and let me solve it my own way. It is not that they didn’t want me to report on my progress but they didn’t get involved in the details. I don’t know about you but for me it was a pleasure to work for this group of bosses. Because it was a pleasure I took extra pains to make sure everything was right the first time. With the old bosses I would intentionally leave somethings undone so they would have something to complain about.
When I became a boss I had a very loyal group of enthusiastic workers who I let use “their” creativity to solve the problems at hand. We were a happy group who actually had fun doing our jobs. My job was to support them in any way that I could. Their job was to creatively solve the problems at hand. I was an introvert who was not into taking credit for others work. I gave credit where it was due.
One of the problems today is that there are too many bosses who demand loyalty instead of earning it and when you do give them any sense of loyalty they will take your work as a means for advancing their own careers. Let’s face it due to the prevalence of extrovert type A bosses in the U.S. going to work is a drudgery for too many of us. It is the primary reason too many workers are passive….
Ferguson has been dominating the news lately. Especially after the grand jury decisions. This post is not going to be about that except to say that needlessly taking another life is as tragic as all those lives lost previous to that young man. I thoroughly support a police officers right to defend himself and that is what the grand jury decided. The way to defend himself is the matter of this post.
The point is that there should be a logical alternative to using lethal force against someone who you feel threatened by. That is especially true for our police officers who keep us safe. Reaching for a lethal weapon should be the last alternative, not the first one.
It seems that since the first episode of Star Trek was shown more than forty years ago we have come pretty far toward actually implementing many of the technological advances dreamed up in the series. No, we haven’t got a teleporter yet, that’s the one I am waiting for, but we have accomplished much in other technological advances. One thing that is totally doable today but is being held back by an obsession is the phaser. You know the one that Kirk almost always said to set on stun.
Since we seem to have appointed ourselves as the policemen of the world we should be inventing new technology toward doing that job right. Why do we need to kill someone who may be threatening physical abuse on us? Whey is it necessary to take a life in order to preserve our own? I kind of think the total reason for it comes from our obsession with guns. If we found killing another person was as tragic as surely God does we would leave our weapons on stun and only use the kill setting for imminent death situations.
No police officer, or anyone else for that matter should have to decide within a split second to take another life when there are logical alternatives available. If we were able to disable someone attacking us without extinguishing another living soul I”m sure most of us would take that option. A taser is a good starting point but is just not that accurate and must be used close up. How about a laser guided wireless taser? We can laser guide our bombs so why not a temporary disabling beam? I know the NRA would fight it as taking away our constitutional right to a “real” gun but isn’t it about time we told them where to stuff all their opinions. We have needlessly killed enough young men, especially it seems those of color….
Beam me up Scottie, or at least put our weapons on stun…..
After yesterday’s post about people resisting change and not adopting the latest technology I thought I would take the opposite route today. Today I am going to talk about Facebook by giving you a view of my personal habits there. How is that for yin/yang??
Unlike so many, I have not made it a life’s goal to grow my “friends” list to any gargantuan level. Some I follow there have hundreds of “friends”, some even have thousands! I think mine is currently almost fifty and several of those are institutions not people. I know that is pathetic by most standards for that site. Who has only fifty friends and some of them not even people??
Another thing about Facebook that I simply don’t get are all the games you can play. I admit up front that I am just not a game player and have never tried them or even know how to access them but I do get it seems daily someone wanting me to play this game or that with them. I do dabble occasionally with some free Euchre and Pinochle apps when I am thoroughly bored and am too lazy to do anything else. It passes the time…
I do get onto Facebook at least a couple of times a day. I visit the Will Rogers page frequently there and a couple of others just to see what is going on. A local town council member is very active on Facebook so I count on him to keep me up on what is happening in our small town politics (thanks Anton). A few family members and past friends also get a glance once in a while.
Facebook is a valuable medium as long as you don’t get obsessed with it. It seems most people complain about how busy and hectic their lives are but millions spend way too much time in social media sites. You can’t seem to walk into any place where people congregate without seeing as least a few kids, and some not so kids, Facebooking. Yeah, I understand it is a verb now. Maybe if they put down their cell phone once in a while life would seem considerably slower for them. Maybe their hectic lives wouldn’t seem so hectic. That is the opinion of this old but tech savvy senior citizen. Since I stream my two most active blog sites to Facebook I guess I better check my Facebook page now to see the reactions to this post, I don’t want to lose any friends over my reckless words here …. :)
“Quite frankly, a lot of it has to do with the strength of the Apple brand and how much merchants and customers love how easy the experience is. I’m not saying it’s changing the landscape overnight. But this has never happened with other mobile wallets.”-Denée Carrington, analyst, Forrester Research
I have been personally reminded lately of just how adamantly some people resist change while others embrace it. Some don’t accept even the simplest changes in their lives without serious complaints. The smallest changes can set them off. And then there are others who are bored when nothing changes on a regular basis. They welcome change; they even embrace it.
Apple Pay will be one of those issues. It is a much simpler and more secure way of paying but it does require a change in how we do it. For that reason there will be some who rant against it. Apple Pay is just getting started down a long road of implementation. Only iPhone6 currently has the capability of using it so its coverage is somewhat limited right now. But as more and more people upgrade and more discover the ease of use of iPhones this payment method will move swiftly into the main stream.
I upgraded my iPhone last week. I had been using an iPhone 4 for three years now and was ready for the change. The new phone has some nice new features and some added capabilities for those of us who are deaf and the bigger screen is certainly welcomed for these old tired eyes. :) One of the first things I did was to set up an Apple Pay account. Although I have not yet used it, it is ready to go. I live in a small town with about the only retailer of any size being Walmart and since they are one of the ones who are currently resisting the change it might be a while before I use it on a daily basis.
The system Walmart and some others are promoting is better for the companies but not so much the customers so I kind of think it will go the way of Betamax. For those of you who don’t know about Betamax look it up on Wiki. :)
Getting back to the title of this post, change is a serious topic for some of us. New technology by its very nature mandates constant change. Some, including me, consider that a good thing. There will always be that group of people who will continue to use their old flip phones if they even have a cell phone. Change is just so hard for them. That may also explain why some of us continue to support one political party who has abandoned anything helpful to us who are outside the 1% long ago. They hate change so they will stick with something even if it is more harmful than helpful. Change is hard stuff…