the fearsome speaks
some things are so painfully apparent to me... one thing of such things is fear.
many fear me... maybe for who they think i am... maybe for what i think i stand for... maybe they fear me because of what they expect me to do.
maybe because i am the physical embodiment of aggression.
If i did take up any martial arts, i might be the hotrod that'll take on anyone, any size, or i might be the quiet bloke that can freeze a man with a look. I don't know for sure, but i would definitely be a much more dangerous man.
i know for sure that i'll scare the hell out of the demons if i rock on with the LORD. Heck, i got faith, i've got more faith for much more things than the average bloke... And raw my faith may be, but whatever version, faith ALWAYS kick ass...
imagine adding aggression to it.
But well, yea, i am aggression in person. If you don't know me, fine. If you know me, you will fear me. If you know me well, we'll rock and roll.
With regards to matters beyond control, such as the loss of an item placed in a person's trust, the matter is simple enough.
1. if it is important, one should not entrust it to another.
2. if entrusting to another, expect possibility of loss.
as far as i am concerned, if the object entrusted is lost, and the person apologised, close the case.
ONE apology is enough.
if i can't accept that apology, it's between:
1. me the idiot; and
2. the LORD.
If you want to hold on to the guilt, it's your own problem.
My point of view, the guardian of the item got more shit to deal with anyway.
1. feeling bad the item was lost (some call it guilt)
2. wanting to kill the other idiot who took/ate/stole the item
Why the hell would you want to add more pain the the miserable fella anyway?
Consider 3 possible scenario
= = = =
The other concern however... is that 1 sin should not lead to another.
1. item entrusted to guardian
2. item was lost/damaged/eaten when out of guardian's supervision
3. the owner performs verbal haemorrhage. Guardian takes the flak.
4. Guardian does a verbal diarrhea over the person/ persons who caused the loss of the item.
which sounds like a fully plausible case.
= = = =
Forgiveness at early stage is meant to CHANGE THE PROCESS
1a. item entrusted to guardian
2a. item was lost/damaged/eaten when out of guardian's supervision
3a. the owner let's the loss go. Forgives the guardian.
4a. Guardian does a verbal diarrhea over the person/ persons who caused the loss of the item.
Which defeats the purpose of the owner forgiving the guardian
= = = =
The desired CHANGE OF PROCESS
1b. item entrusted to guardian
2b. item was lost/damaged/eaten when out of guardian's supervision
3b. the owner let's the loss go. Forgives the guardian.
4b. Guardian keeps cool when dealing withthe culprit of the foul-up, extends the forgiveness she received.
5b. Happily ever after.
Which is the main point. If, for the sake of a THING, one should cause quarrel or discontentment at home, it's not a good testimony to HIS Lordship.
When one has done all that one can, then it should suffice.
If one did not, learn from this precedent, and move on.
for there is no point crying over spilt milk.
geddit?
my first motto: i've got faith bigger than a mustard seed
my second motto: life goes on
my other motto: leave no enemy standing, leave no man behind
My mantra: i'm here, at this point in time, as who i am, because there is something that only i can do. I ain't going back home till it's done.
posted by max @ 12:30 AM
0 comments
