Division; Contradiction to the Truth

Two people disagree and fail to communicate

The Prediction of Division

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

A little over two thousand years ago this prophesy was spoken by a man committed to teaching, professing and living the truth.  Not a truth applicable to only one person or one group of people.  No, this man was speaking about the natural laws that effect all mankind.  All races of people and both genders are equal under these eternal laws.  This simple man understood that people, when faced with the truth, would choose one of three ways to react to it; they would either accept it, reject it or ignore it. Despite the choice they would make, others in their life would choose to react in opposition to their decision causing unavoidable division. 

The orator who declared this prediction knew that the truth must be made known and that the division coming from any disagreements were the prices that had to be paid.  As a leaders by example, he himself would pay the ultimate price for speaking, thinking and acting on the truth but through his model the entire world changed accordingly.  No longer would the truth be hidden from the masses and any dissension would have to be dealt with as resulting consequences.

Those words were first spoken long ago but consider the division in today’s society.  The media claims we are more divided than ever before.  If this is indeed a fact then could it be because we have people reacting in opposition to the truth others are trying to make known? 

Take for example the headlines of today; “A Third Option for Gender”.  Eleven States have voted to allow a gender neutral option on driver licenses.  The scientific supported truth is that there are only two genders, male or female.  There is no third option.  Sure, people can chose to claim to be a male when they are a female and vice a versa but their DNA will always confirm their true gender.  This will cause division naturally because people oppose lies especially when the country’s law making bodies create laws that contradict the truth. 

Another example in the news; “Lawmakers Accused of White Supremacy”.  All people are created equal under the natural laws.  Whether your skin is black, white, red or yellow makes no difference to your talents, skills or abilities.  The law of gravity doesn’t treat you differently, the laws of motion will affect your life the same as it affects mine.  The truth will be equally fair with you and your neighbor, but as long as we continue to try to argue with the truth there will be division. 

A third example is the immigrant crisis. Whenever our actions circumvent the law by definition we are doing something illegal. To call it anything else is a lie. Those who oppose the truth can’t change it by naming it something less threatening; undocumented alien. The truth will still remain and as will the division.     

The silly thing about division, it all boils down to selfishness.  We want what we want and the truth doesn’t matter when we are being selfish.  Division will end when we all want the truth even when it goes against our personal desires. The fact is people live in the truth, we will never be able to change or control it.         

Anthony “Tony” Boquet, the author of “The Bloodline of Wisdom, The Awakening of a Modern Solutionary”

If this is my last post, I want all to know there was only one purpose for all that I have written; to have made a positive difference in the lives of others.

Two Fundamental Questions to Ponder

Do we no longer know what morals look like?

or is it;

Do we just no longer care?

Two very important questions. Together, they are both true some of the time, neither are true all the time but anytime either are true, society suffers.

One should be perplexed at the thought of how either of these questions can be true in an advanced and intelligent society such as the United States. Of course the argument can be made that intelligence has little to do with morals. Centuries ago, societies held morals above the man-made laws of the land primarily because morals come first in the process.  It is always the morals of a society that create the belief systems of the leaders who drafted the laws that set the legal boundaries established for the society.  If a society is immoral the laws that they pass will also be immoral.  In those cases, the immoral society is destined to fail due to the widespread lack of trust of all members of the community.  As an example of our decline, it is currently legal to allow the harm of a viable fetus of a healthy woman yet it is against the law, in many jurisdictions, to even whip a non-violent animal.

Are not both acts morally wrong? Yet one is legal.

If any given person holds one of these acts as morally apprehensible while the other morally acceptable what does that say about that person’s belief system?

Can the same person believe it is immoral to safely separate children from their parents while also believing it is perfectly fine to physically remove a healthy child from a healthy woman’s womb resulting in the child’s planned death?

Recently, we were able to view a national job interview where the candidate was accused of an immoral and illegal act. The available facts were brought forth, witnesses were questioned and the candidate was cross examined by a committee of people.  The results showed no clear evidence to support the accusations.  In a moral society, an unsubstantiated accusation would be held to be without merit.  It would be understood that all people are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by facts; but not in today’s America. Many of this man’s opponents and critics, if the candidate would have been them or a loved one of theirs, would have wanted fair treatment; but solely on his moral beliefs they have and are treating him as if he were guilty.  This case was a public one but make no mistake, cases like this happen every day in boardrooms throughout the country.

Do we know longer care about treating people morally fair?

Do the facts and evidence still hold any substance of order?

Every day you hear people blaming the presence of guns for the high level of gun violence in the world. Yet,  many of these same people who scream and posture to make gun ownership illegal depend on armed security to be with them around the clock.

It would seem that the protection of one’s security is morally right for everyone; not just those who can afford a personal security detail.

In today’s society, we seem to rationalize morals to our whims instead of living to moral standards. The difference is clear.  When I am allowed to rationalize my personal moral code; no one has the “right” to question my beliefs.  They become relativistic to the individual not to the truth as it pertains to the events in question.  The facts and the truth no longer matter.  On the other hand, if I must live to a moral standard, a level much higher than any one individual, then society has a say in what is perceived as moral or immoral. Each member of the society relies on one another to keep the society grounded in the truth.

The Evolution of Relativism

“The natural law is itself the eternal law, implanted in beings endowed with reason, and inclining them towards their right action and end.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologiae”

The human race has forever questioned the “truth” or at the very least the “righteousness” of man-made laws.  Take speeding for instance; it is a good “idea” to restrict everyone from speeding, that is, until it is you who is late, struggling to make up for lost time.  I bet that as soon as that first speed limit was established, someone decided it would be okay to ignore the posted speed.  Consider another example, every society throughout history has had laws against the theft of property but the laws have never stopped some from stealing what is not theirs.  It is clear, by the activity level of the judicial system we view man-made laws as ours to break whenever we believe it is right for us.  If we get caught, we will surely have an excuse and when that doesn’t work we will deal with the consequences the best that we can.  Continue reading “The Evolution of Relativism”

A Parent’s Journey; Together Life

I am not sure how many of you know about the Law of Symbiosis.  It is a very interesting law that happens all around us every day of our life.  The word symbiosis actually means “together life”.  The law refers to the three types of relationships organisms share that live in close approximation to one another; often one cannot live without the other.  In extreme cases, one organism actually lives inside the other organism.  This law is the basis of ecology; the study of living organisms and their environment as well as the definition of a family environment.   This law like so many others is powered by the wisdom of three.

Relationship one is Parasitism: the parasite benefits and the host is harmed.

Relationship number two is Commensalism: one species benefits, the other is neither hurt nor helped.

The third relationship is Mutualism: when both species benefit.

In a family environment we see all three as an evolution from one to another.  As we examine each separately we can see how each pertains to a parent’s relationship to the children.

Parasitism is often viewed as a negative way to live life because of the harm the parasite brings to the host organism.  Many times in life the host organism knows the parasite is harming them but graciously allows the relationship to continue.  I can site hundreds of cases where a father or mother selflessly gave their all for the children.  When the child is young this is understandable and is a very natural occurrence. It is only when the child becomes older and knowingly “feeds” off the parent’s generosity does this affiliation become a negative situation.

As the child matures into adolescence the relationship should become one of Commensalism.  The child should benefit from the parental support and developmental guidance while the father and/or mother are made whole through the results of these efforts.  From the parent’s perspective it is enriching to be able to be a part of the fulfillment of their child’s needs and the rewards are great on many levels while the detriment is minimal.

Once the child has matured into an adult, the relationship should have reached a healthy state of Mutualism.  The child and the parent both benefit from the others existence without harm to either.  It is here that the parent can observe the start of a new cycle of relationships and the continuation of their legacy.  The child takes the lessons of the guardian, applying them in their lives while passing them along to the next generation.  The one time parasite has now becomes host to their children; the cycle of life continues and thrives.

Science proves once more the Power of the Wisdom of Three.  It is our God, through the Wisdom of Three, who gives us the blueprint we need to solve our problems.  The term symbiosis, together life, is His explanation of the steps Solutionary parents should take in order to teach others the truth to their children.  In May we celebrated Mother’s Day; in June we recognize the role of the father with their special day.  Thank you to everyone who selflessly leads another along their life’s journey with the motto; Together Life.

If this is my last post, I want all to know there was only one purpose for all that I have written; to have made a positive difference in the lives of others.

Anthony “Tony” Boquet, the author of “The Bloodline of Wisdom, The Awakening of a Modern Solutionary”