er. accidental essay

[ainsoph9]

Here is something that has always puzzled me to an extent. Why is it that atheists use "OMG" and other expressions of the sort when they do not believe in such a being? This is not meant to be a pot shot at atheists or a snide remark; rather, I am seriously wondering on this one.

[TheGiftedMonkey]

It's just set itself into the English language itself. Like how people use to say 'Bless you' when someone sneezed because they actually believed that it was the soul temporarily escaping the body or expelling evil. To this day people still say it, but it's now a social reaction that we learned when growing up to be polite even if one isn't religious. There are many examples of this.

[b0mb3r]

i can be mean at times when they say "bless you" cause i immediately respond "I don't believe in God."

yeah ainsoph9 i do wonder about that too though not seriously. for example my atheist brother used "Jesus" when he's angry and i make fun of him of being a "christian." Unfortunately after dating two girls he now develop a new stupid phrase which is "eww" for every nonsensical thing he meets.

[ainsoph9]

It's just set itself into the English language itself. Like how people use to say 'Bless you' when someone sneezed because they actually believed that it was the soul temporarily escaping the body or expelling evil. To this day people still say it, but it's now a social reaction that we learned when growing up to be polite even if one isn't religious. There are many examples of this.

Even if it is set into the English language, does that make the expression an expression that should be used? This is not to take a moral stance. Rather, given the context of the expression and the speaker, it just does not make any sense for the speaker to say such a thing. One may become tempted to say that the speaker does acknowledge things that the speaker does not themselves believe in as part of their lives. It is almost akin to swearing by the name of Santa Claus or some imaginary character from the speaker's point of view. So, why say the thing at all, even out of frustration or anger? Does the possibility exist that despite such a person trying to create a reality or world of their own, the reality that exists outside of their experiences and being come crashing in to testify something contrary to the speaker's beliefs or actions?

[chrnno]

Personally i think the God/Santa Claus/Whatever else part is meaningless. The phrase simply represents certain feelings.

When a person says OMG it does not have any relation at all with God but is simply a way of transmitting the person's feeling i.e. surprise.

I mean there a lot of expressions that if you actually think about what is said/written make little sense. Well at least in my language there is...

[b0mb3r]

I am necroposting with a purpose. This topic I find to be a good discussion of defining a "good" person and how does one lives one's life. At the moment I am struggling with these ideas and like to hear some input of your definition if you have any.

[ainsoph9]

The "simple" answer is by the definition of "law." In other words, "law" in general is made for a reason. I am not talking about the laws of the government either, which is a later human construct. (I say this, knowing that some here posit that morals and laws are not the same thing. I am arguing that they need one another to be fully functional.) Moreover, each human being has a conscience that says that murder is wrong; stealing is wrong, etc. Whether we listen to that conscience is entirely up to us. If we think that we are being told by that conscience that murder is right or stealing is right, then that becomes a problem of application to the situation, not to the definition of what is right. The question you are asking was asked in Plato's "Republic" by Socrates millennia ago. The problem with the argument in that dialogue is not just the questions and answers, but it is also what the impact it has had on modern society is. The question itself, although indicative of a society with no moral foundation, is problematic because of what kind of society the question is coming from. Greek "morals" in those days were very much to the point of what every man thought was right he did. This means that no standard exists for good. At the same time, the question is fine because we can learn from it. However, the answer that Socrates and Plato comes up with is very problematic. Socrates states that the "good" person is a "philosopher king," who rules the people because he is more knowledgeable and therefore more moral and a better person. This logic is fault., Not only because knowledge does not equal application, it also means that people will fight over knowledge as a way to become better and more "moral" people. It also sets up the standard for having no standard of morals or "good" person when each person's knowledge varies, and they apply it however they see fit. The problem with this is that no one has an absolute definition of what "good" is, and we wind up with an infinite number of definitions of what we see as a "good" person; then, we call it "celebrating diversity." That is not diversity; it is perversion of the truth that we do not grasp the absolute truth. The truth is that without a single common standard of truth and good, we are all adrift in the sea of morality. Your question comes from this background.

Such a question indicates a "spiritual crisis" of sorts because one feels that they want to do the "right" thing but do not know what or how at any given time without someone telling them exactly what to do or how to do it. The emphasis on knowledge from Plato and not a combination of knowledge and feeling has left people crippled to the point of being dysfunctional. My suggestion for application is to feel as well; listen to your conscience because your conscience will generally tell you what is absolutely true, good, and right. Most people will have their conscience tell them the exact same thing, to at least a degree. We all know that it is wrong to hit little Johnny, even if little Johnny is the most annoying kid on the block. We all know that we should not steal Suzie's expensive jewelry, not matter how much we want it or envy her. One last thing I would like to suggest. Try reading the different religious texts of the world, whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the Gaudiya Vaishnava texts, philosophy texts, etc. I do not care which you pick. Find someone to study with, and see what you can learn. I suggest reading whatever you can from them all. Do a comparison and contrast with them. Find what is unique about each. If you truly want to define a "good" person, see what you come up with when you are done. I am not saying for you to become religious or anything. I am saying that a well-rounded education does not kill here.

[b0mb3r]

If we think that we are being told by that conscience that murder is right or stealing is right, then that becomes a problem of application to the situation, not to the definition of what is right.

I always appreciate your advise, please as I may comment on your response about conscience. While I believe murder and stealing is wrong because I experience them (friends killed and me personally been theft) and I believe in the Golden Rule, the problems stems moral foundation. For example: slavery. People back then was taught slavery is a right, a control of another being and many also "felt" was right. I am an over-thinker by my peers as it leads me think how fragile and corruptible human morality at the beginning. What bugs me is do we have “natural” morals? Is it naturally wrong to think murder is wrong? I dislike the scientific reason that explains that it is a primal social caste that disapproves it in a way that another word for society. While I believe I have a healthy conscience, it feels very uncomfortable knowing I could’ve been or could be convince murder is right or other traits I find undesirable. The studies I have done is mostly surrounds different Buddhism. What I enjoy about their philosophy is in their practicality and in its appliance on real life. Thanks for hearing me out.

[Mystes]

The "simple" answer is by the definition of "law." In other words, "law" in general is made for a reason. I am not talking about the laws of the government either, which is a later human construct. (I say this, knowing that some here posit that morals and laws are not the same thing. I am arguing that they need one another to be fully functional.) Moreover, each human being has a conscience that says that murder is wrong; stealing is wrong, etc. Whether we listen to that conscience is entirely up to us. If we think that we are being told by that conscience that murder is right or stealing is right, then that becomes a problem of application to the situation, not to the definition of what is right. The question you are asking was asked in Plato's "Republic" by Socrates millennia ago. The problem with the argument in that dialogue is not just the questions and answers, but it is also what the impact it has had on modern society is. The question itself, although indicative of a society with no moral foundation, is problematic because of what kind of society the question is coming from. Greek "morals" in those days were very much to the point of what every man thought was right he did. This means that no standard exists for good. At the same time, the question is fine because we can learn from it. However, the answer that Socrates and Plato comes up with is very problematic. Socrates states that the "good" person is a "philosopher king," who rules the people because he is more knowledgeable and therefore more moral and a better person. This logic is fault., Not only because knowledge does not equal application, it also means that people will fight over knowledge as a way to become better and more "moral" people. It also sets up the standard for having no standard of morals or "good" person when each person's knowledge varies, and they apply it however they see fit. The problem with this is that no one has an absolute definition of what "good" is, and we wind up with an infinite number of definitions of what we see as a "good" person; then, we call it "celebrating diversity." That is not diversity; it is perversion of the truth that we do not grasp the absolute truth. The truth is that without a single common standard of truth and good, we are all adrift in the sea of morality. Your question comes from this background.

Such a question indicates a "spiritual crisis" of sorts because one feels that they want to do the "right" thing but do not know what or how at any given time without someone telling them exactly what to do or how to do it. The emphasis on knowledge from Plato and not a combination of knowledge and feeling has left people crippled to the point of being dysfunctional. My suggestion for application is to feel as well; listen to your conscience because your conscience will generally tell you what is absolutely true, good, and right. Most people will have their conscience tell them the exact same thing, to at least a degree. We all know that it is wrong to hit little Johnny, even if little Johnny is the most annoying kid on the block. We all know that we should not steal Suzie's expensive jewelry, not matter how much we want it or envy her. One last thing I would like to suggest. Try reading the different religious texts of the world, whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the Gaudiya Vaishnava texts, philosophy texts, etc. I do not care which you pick. Find someone to study with, and see what you can learn. I suggest reading whatever you can from them all. Do a comparison and contrast with them. Find what is unique about each. If you truly want to define a "good" person, see what you come up with when you are done. I am not saying for you to become religious or anything. I am saying that a well-rounded education does not kill here.

Sorry, but due to my computer time restriction, I'll read this someday.

[ainsoph9]

Wall of text ahead...

Spoiler! :

Please allow me to put it this way. Wrong is wrong no matter what or who experiences it. While life experience is helpful to understand and empathize with others, it is not the end all and be all of everything. Unless one has a central anchor that goes outside and beyond one's own personal experience that allows for community as an expression of identity as truth, then that individual can and will most likely deviate from any straight path. Individuals can and do change; communities do not when they share the same expression of truth. I am going to flip your statement around now. Instead of morals coming about as a result of problems, how about problems coming about despite the existence of morals? While it is true that without law, no one can condemn any single or groups of acts. Laws come about because of problems, not morals. What is wrong is wrong no matter what.

It is funny that you mention the Golden Rule. Although many religions and cults and even the non-religious believe in or agree on the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule in a sense goes against the grain of logic and human nature. Quite frankly, people in general are greedy, selfish, and could not care less about the next guy, especially if they seemingly have no impact on their life, unless that person somehow "takes a slice of their pie." Yet, the Golden Rule dictates that one should treat others as one wants to be treated and not to do what is hateful to them. Although some explain this as a mechanism for the human race to survive, what put such a mechanism in place in the first place? It makes no sense that humans created a council or something to the extent that dictated that people should "play nice" "just because." We must say that a higher authority exists that created the human conscience and gave people the ability to behave as they do. Without that authority, nothing has a common ground, which means no community, no shared sense of reality, no Golden Rule, no morals, no law, nothing. We would obliterate each other because of the inherent hatred we would feel and express towards one another. A world without lovingkindness and compassion is only exposed to judgment and harshness.

The ancient idea of slavery is actually a perfect example of how people naturally mistreat each other outside of a central authority that says otherwise. Out of all the world's religious texts, only the Bible gives a complete system that teaches on the proper treatment of slaves in a positive sense. That is, one should treat them not as less than human but as one would treat an equal or oneself (excluding masochistic tendencies). At the time that the text was written, the rest of the world had slaves, but they were treated in ways that one would not even treat their horse or mule. Yet, this is the only religious text that says to treat them in such a manner. What is even more interesting is that some note that the way that the commandments concerning slaves is given is right after the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus (note: the Pentateuch has 613 commandments, FYI) are given. They explain that the Creator loved all mankind so much that it was important enough to discuss this first right after those commandments. Yet, they also note that slavery was not the ideal, and the Creator was only dealing with that ideal situation in a "realistic" manner. However, these commandments were given to the Jewish people. This is important because of the slave trade that occurred in the Colonial and Imperialist Ages was done by Christians, who read the same book. The problem here is a matter of taking the text out of context to create pretext for slavery. Unfortunately, the Westernized Christians of the time took the text out of its Middle Eastern Jewish context and understanding to justify the horror of slavery. They did not understand their Bibles nor read them the way they needed to be read. Any text can be taken whatever you want it to mean if you take it outside of the original plain meaning of the text, which is the way that the author meant. So, even if they thought or felt what they were doing was right, they obviously did not have the correct learning and understanding of what they professed they knew and understood.

I do not know your peers, but your peers are all most likely post-modernists who think that carpe diem is the only way to live and do not think for themselves nor know how to think for themselves on a philosophical and religious level, which involves higher learning. I am not saying that your peers are horrible people or that they are stupid. I am sure that they are really nice and great to have fun with on a daily basis. However, I am saying that their understanding of the world and how it functions is dysfunctional. When people tell you that you are over-thinking a major issue, it is sometimes best not to listen to them or just listen with a heavy filter. The current generation does not understand anything outside of their own personal experiences nor cares to think outside of them. They have no understanding of what it means that they are the composite of all who came before them nor of their own actions. In other words, they are people who only act, live, and breathe for themselves and could not give a !$#@ about anyone else. Whenever someone discourages you from thinking in general, do not listen to them. The only exception to this is when it is to prompt you to think in another way or for corrective purposes. Listen to them with a filter and think about what they say. They might be overly opinionated fools, but at least they are not telling you to stop thinking for yourself. All of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth have told people not to think because education is the most dangerous thing for evil to perish.

Human morality itself is frail because "self cannot fix what self does not know how to fix." Human morality with an absolute sense of right and wrong that comes from a higher authority is another story. I am not talking about your parents either, although you should listen and honor them to the best of your ability. The morality itself is not corruptible; rather, human beings are. Man's heart is inclined towards evil. All know what is right and wrong, but many choose to do wrong.

If by "natural," you mean morals that have evolved over time for whatever reason, then no. Although people try to better themselves, people still fail to meet the ideal mark, which really has not changed. If you mean "natural" as in a conscience, then yes. Let me ask you a couple of questions. How did humanity get here? If you answered that it did so by evolution, where did the matter comes from? If you answered that it came from the Big Bang or wherever, where did that come from? However, if you answered that it came from an eternal Creator, then you might have something. One of the laws of science is the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. By this law, matter produces matter or energy, and nothing produces nothing. Put another way, going the route of evolution does not work because it would have to come from something else that could not exist without a Creator. It must be that by this Creator that this same Creator imbued humanity with a conscience and a sense of morals. However, that Creator also imbued humans with free will (not if you are a Calvinist though ), which allows them to have the choice to go against the will of the Creator to do things that go against the morals that the Creator imbued. This is called sin or evil. Evil is not the result of people offending one another, nor is it the result of money or some other force or thing. Rather, it is just missing the mark of what that Creator says is true. Now, we can argue all day with said Creator, but arguing with something or someone more powerful than us is probably not going to do any good, now is it?

The next thing I am going to say, I will ask for your patience and restraint to become offended. The problem with Buddhism is that while it may be practical, it is not practical. What do I mean by this? Buddhism does provide structure for people's lives. It sounds like that is what you desire and, yet, you still find yourself lacking no matter how much effort you put forth. Many of the other world's religions offer the exact same thing: structure but with a sense of not knowing why. Regardless, the problem with Buddhism is that no matter how good one is, one is stuck in an endless cycle of reincarnation until they get it right, if they get it right. For most, this means that there is no escape or hope of escape from the pain of this world. So, most people will be stuck here until whenever they get out of the loop or the earth is destroyed, whichever comes first. In other words, no matter how good you are, you are essentially screwed in the end. Quite frankly, that does not exactly make for a "happy ending," especially when you feel that you have been set up for failure or cannot truly understand why something is practicable or even truly moral or not. Almost every philosophy or religion in the world is practical in one way or another; otherwise, people would not adhere to it. The problem does not lie there. The problem is that I personally screw up often, big, and hard and need a way to live freely with the freedom to screw up often, big, and hard without having being made to feel like dirt or live in fear all the time because I will not have a single hope of redemption if I do. In all of my studies of the world's religions, only one religion, Judaism, allows for this and indeed commands it. Imagine the freedom to be able to screw up, despite having to repent, being able to not have to feel like crap all of the time for it. Going back to practicality, Judaism also is just that: practical. They have a term for it called "halakhah," which means "walking," just like down the path of life. Everything is done with authority, a clear sense of morals, practicality, and the ability to live with the questions and problems of life.

While my aim is to not try to convert you to Judaism or any other religion, it is to get you to recognize that much of the questions and thoughts you have come from not having a clear sense of absolutes. In my personal experience, most people who do not have a clear sense of absolutes are the ones to ask the kinds of questions that you are asking. Again, while I am not trying to get you to convert, I do suggest that you read a couple of books that may perhaps help you grasp some answers to your questions a little differently and be able to live with the ambiguity of not having the answers to the rest of your questions. The books are Abraham Joshua Heschel's "God in Search of Man" and Solomon Schecter's "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology." Both of these books are classics and say much of the same things in different ways. They are somewhat challenging, but I feel that they will answer much of what you are questioning. If you do decide to read them and have any questions or comments, feel free to PM me.

[Mystes]

Wall of text ahead...

Spoiler! :

Please allow me to put it this way. Wrong is wrong no matter what or who experiences it. While life experience is helpful to understand and empathize with others, it is not the end all and be all of everything. Unless one has a central anchor that goes outside and beyond one's own personal experience that allows for community as an expression of identity as truth, then that individual can and will most likely deviate from any straight path. Individuals can and do change; communities do not when they share the same expression of truth. I am going to flip your statement around now. Instead of morals coming about as a result of problems, how about problems coming about despite the existence of morals? While it is true that without law, no one can condemn any single or groups of acts. Laws come about because of problems, not morals. What is wrong is wrong no matter what.

It is funny that you mention the Golden Rule. Although many religions and cults and even the non-religious believe in or agree on the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule in a sense goes against the grain of logic and human nature. Quite frankly, people in general are greedy, selfish, and could not care less about the next guy, especially if they seemingly have no impact on their life, unless that person somehow "takes a slice of their pie." Yet, the Golden Rule dictates that one should treat others as one wants to be treated and not to do what is hateful to them. Although some explain this as a mechanism for the human race to survive, what put such a mechanism in place in the first place? It makes no sense that humans created a council or something to the extent that dictated that people should "play nice" "just because." We must say that a higher authority exists that created the human conscience and gave people the ability to behave as they do. Without that authority, nothing has a common ground, which means no community, no shared sense of reality, no Golden Rule, no morals, no law, nothing. We would obliterate each other because of the inherent hatred we would feel and express towards one another. A world without lovingkindness and compassion is only exposed to judgment and harshness.

The ancient idea of slavery is actually a perfect example of how people naturally mistreat each other outside of a central authority that says otherwise. Out of all the world's religious texts, only the Bible gives a complete system that teaches on the proper treatment of slaves in a positive sense. That is, one should treat them not as less than human but as one would treat an equal or oneself (excluding masochistic tendencies). At the time that the text was written, the rest of the world had slaves, but they were treated in ways that one would not even treat their horse or mule. Yet, this is the only religious text that says to treat them in such a manner. What is even more interesting is that some note that the way that the commandments concerning slaves is given is right after the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus (note: the Pentateuch has 613 commandments, FYI) are given. They explain that the Creator loved all mankind so much that it was important enough to discuss this first right after those commandments. Yet, they also note that slavery was not the ideal, and the Creator was only dealing with that ideal situation in a "realistic" manner. However, these commandments were given to the Jewish people. This is important because of the slave trade that occurred in the Colonial and Imperialist Ages was done by Christians, who read the same book. The problem here is a matter of taking the text out of context to create pretext for slavery. Unfortunately, the Westernized Christians of the time took the text out of its Middle Eastern Jewish context and understanding to justify the horror of slavery. They did not understand their Bibles nor read them the way they needed to be read. Any text can be taken whatever you want it to mean if you take it outside of the original plain meaning of the text, which is the way that the author meant. So, even if they thought or felt what they were doing was right, they obviously did not have the correct learning and understanding of what they professed they knew and understood.

I do not know your peers, but your peers are all most likely post-modernists who think that carpe diem is the only way to live and do not think for themselves nor know how to think for themselves on a philosophical and religious level, which involves higher learning. I am not saying that your peers are horrible people or that they are stupid. I am sure that they are really nice and great to have fun with on a daily basis. However, I am saying that their understanding of the world and how it functions is dysfunctional. When people tell you that you are over-thinking a major issue, it is sometimes best not to listen to them or just listen with a heavy filter. The current generation does not understand anything outside of their own personal experiences nor cares to think outside of them. They have no understanding of what it means that they are the composite of all who came before them nor of their own actions. In other words, they are people who only act, live, and breathe for themselves and could not give a !$#@ about anyone else. Whenever someone discourages you from thinking in general, do not listen to them. The only exception to this is when it is to prompt you to think in another way or for corrective purposes. Listen to them with a filter and think about what they say. They might be overly opinionated fools, but at least they are not telling you to stop thinking for yourself. All of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth have told people not to think because education is the most dangerous thing for evil to perish.

Human morality itself is frail because "self cannot fix what self does not know how to fix." Human morality with an absolute sense of right and wrong that comes from a higher authority is another story. I am not talking about your parents either, although you should listen and honor them to the best of your ability. The morality itself is not corruptible; rather, human beings are. Man's heart is inclined towards evil. All know what is right and wrong, but many choose to do wrong.

If by "natural," you mean morals that have evolved over time for whatever reason, then no. Although people try to better themselves, people still fail to meet the ideal mark, which really has not changed. If you mean "natural" as in a conscience, then yes. Let me ask you a couple of questions. How did humanity get here? If you answered that it did so by evolution, where did the matter comes from? If you answered that it came from the Big Bang or wherever, where did that come from? However, if you answered that it came from an eternal Creator, then you might have something. One of the laws of science is the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. By this law, matter produces matter or energy, and nothing produces nothing. Put another way, going the route of evolution does not work because it would have to come from something else that could not exist without a Creator. It must be that by this Creator that this same Creator imbued humanity with a conscience and a sense of morals. However, that Creator also imbued humans with free will (not if you are a Calvinist though ), which allows them to have the choice to go against the will of the Creator to do things that go against the morals that the Creator imbued. This is called sin or evil. Evil is not the result of people offending one another, nor is it the result of money or some other force or thing. Rather, it is just missing the mark of what that Creator says is true. Now, we can argue all day with said Creator, but arguing with something or someone more powerful than us is probably not going to do any good, now is it?

The next thing I am going to say, I will ask for your patience and restraint to become offended. The problem with Buddhism is that while it may be practical, it is not practical. What do I mean by this? Buddhism does provide structure for people's lives. It sounds like that is what you desire and, yet, you still find yourself lacking no matter how much effort you put forth. Many of the other world's religions offer the exact same thing: structure but with a sense of not knowing why. Regardless, the problem with Buddhism is that no matter how good one is, one is stuck in an endless cycle of reincarnation until they get it right, if they get it right. For most, this means that there is no escape or hope of escape from the pain of this world. So, most people will be stuck here until whenever they get out of the loop or the earth is destroyed, whichever comes first. In other words, no matter how good you are, you are essentially screwed in the end. Quite frankly, that does not exactly make for a "happy ending," especially when you feel that you have been set up for failure or cannot truly understand why something is practicable or even truly moral or not. Almost every philosophy or religion in the world is practical in one way or another; otherwise, people would not adhere to it. The problem does not lie there. The problem is that I personally screw up often, big, and hard and need a way to live freely with the freedom to screw up often, big, and hard without having being made to feel like dirt or live in fear all the time because I will not have a single hope of redemption if I do. In all of my studies of the world's religions, only one religion, Judaism, allows for this and indeed commands it. Imagine the freedom to be able to screw up, despite having to repent, being able to not have to feel like crap all of the time for it. Going back to practicality, Judaism also is just that: practical. They have a term for it called "halakhah," which means "walking," just like down the path of life. Everything is done with authority, a clear sense of morals, practicality, and the ability to live with the questions and problems of life.

While my aim is to not try to convert you to Judaism or any other religion, it is to get you to recognize that much of the questions and thoughts you have come from not having a clear sense of absolutes. In my personal experience, most people who do not have a clear sense of absolutes are the ones to ask the kinds of questions that you are asking. Again, while I am not trying to get you to convert, I do suggest that you read a couple of books that may perhaps help you grasp some answers to your questions a little differently and be able to live with the ambiguity of not having the answers to the rest of your questions. The books are Abraham Joshua Heschel's "God in Search of Man" and Solomon Schecter's "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology." Both of these books are classics and say much of the same things in different ways. They are somewhat challenging, but I feel that they will answer much of what you are questioning. If you do decide to read them and have any questions or comments, feel free to PM me.

I'll add that to the 'Read when I have time to spare' category. Seriously, my brain cannot support this...

[Mystes]

EDIT: Damn, Internet is slow.

[b0mb3r]

kira had such a headache that he posted twice!

[TheGiftedMonkey]

Welcome to the moral grey area. Society teaches us to go to fight against our base animal instincts and give structure/meaning to our actions. Some promote order and a semblance of peace, others do not. The only 'golden rule' I think truly exists is, live life for as long as you can hold out.

[b0mb3r]

Welcome to the moral grey area. Society teaches us to go to fight against our base animal instincts and give structure/meaning to our actions. Some promote order and a semblance of peace, others do not. The only 'golden rule' I think truly exists is, live life for as long as you can hold out.

funny how our brain is gray too.