Got some questions for yall and I'll go one at a time. (need some participation here cause I'm really curious.)

Would you rather...

Be in a country that is morally bankrupt, or financially bankrupt?

Financially bankrupt, you can always work your way out of it... a morally bankrupt country's situation won't be helped by throwing more money at it...

This can be seen in this country... 1940 vs. 2000... guess which era is which?


------------------
Allen

Dont want either one but if I have to choose I agree w/Allen!!!

Purity

------------------
Love,Joy,Peace,
and Holiness Always

Well let's see..... I guess I would have to say neither and both. Stay with me now...

If I say I would rather be in a country that is financially corupt but morally sound then I have to question why I am living in America.

On the other hand...

If I say I would rather be in a country that is morally corrupt but financially sound then I have to question can a country that is morally sound not prosper?

I guess my answer would have to be both and neither because if it is financially sound then I can live morally sound in order to do the work to finance change that will affect the morality of the nation. Or if there were a nation that is both, then of course I would by a ticket and move. Or would I????

innerdawg


------------------

Glad you brought that up. (by the way I guess I should tell you all the rules: you have to pick one.) It's not supposed to be like an easy choice. It's supposed to make you think. I had a book called "Would you Rather" a long time ago, and the questions in in were something like: Would you rather step in a doggie pile or get pooped on by a bird? Would you rather steal from an old lady or laugh out loud at a funeral? Would you rather be invisible or be able to fly?...
And I have just been thinking about all these other serious questions and figured if they could make a silly book out of it, I could maybe use the same format to ask serious questions. So I did.


About the condition of your country...I am inclined to agree with Allen and Purity--if I HAD to choose, I would rather be in a country that is financially bankrupt and morally sound. However, whit-Dawg brings up a good point. Is it possible for a nation to be morally sound and not prosper financially? Is it possible for a person to be morally sound and not prosper financially? We know it's possible for a country to be financially stable and be morally bankrupt...so can it go the other way?
I'll save my opinions for later...

There are lots of examples of morally sound countries and people who do not prosper financially... some can be due to circumstances, some to choice, etc... which leads me to...

Dawg, that would work if finances and morals were the only determining factors for living in a country. As much as I do not like the directions and actions of our leaders here in America, the country is still head and shoulders above whatever "doggie pile" is in second place...

I answered on the basis of having to choose one or the other...

------------------
Allen

So when do we decide that we "HAVE TO CHOOSE"? We as Americans can choose at anytime to do that which we feel we have to in order to better our lives. I agree with Allen that the US, in all of its faults, is still a great place to live...but if I was to look around the world I too believe that I could find a place that is morally sounder than we are.



I say this not as " A nation is morally sound and a person is financially bankrupt... can a nation be morally sound and a nation be financially bankrupt?

Nations are governed by minds that are intuned with financial needs of the people. I believe that there are morally sound people who do not have the gift of financial understanding. But wouldn't morally sound nations elect financially wise leaders?



I agree Allen... but, wasn't that the question?

What yall think?

innerdawg

------------------

i was just speaking hypothetically...
i didnt mean that anyone here would ever have to choose one or the other...i was just curious as to which one people would choose and why if they had to choose between one or the other...

okay, lemmie try to word this a little differently...I was thinking more on the lines of:
Say there were 2 possible leaders to choose from. One is financially smart but morally bankrupt. The other one is morally upright but a financial idiot. Which one would you choose?

------------------
the tYpInG FOOL

This one is prolly harder... I would choose the morally sound leader, mainly because he should be smart enough to choose a cabinet full of financially savvy people, those he can give morally sound guidance to.

------------------
Allen

i like this topic, got any more questions to start us on ... this one seems beaten to death foreverchanged ?

------------------
Jennifer

Sure. Okay:

Would you rather...

be phenominally good at one thing and not too good at anything else, or moderately good at many things and not outstandingly good at anything at all?

The people who are phenominally good at one thing are the people ruling the world... in politics, sports, business, even religion and Christianity... which explains why they suck at so many other things that isn't their focus... which also explains their success... focus.

Those pretty good at many things, but not outstanding in one particular area most likely fail to change the world due to lack of focus... They most likely could attain the "phenominal" status in one area if they chose to, but do not, so they attain not.

Which leads us to personal choice... do we enjoy comfort, status quo, being non-confrontational, less stress in life? If we do, then we choose the good at many things, not real good at anything...

If we really decide to impact the world, then we choose to focus... we must accept that people will not like us, maybe even hate us (those who heard Kirk's message Monday night will understand where this is going...). We will be blessed at STAND because we choose to be good at it... We will not have God's favor, until we have that burn to be the best at it... forget all the silly infighting, territorial wars, sloth, hypocrisy, etc...

Just being honest, yes, I would rather be phenominal at one thing, but allow myself to be good at many things, not oputstanding at anything...

------------------
Allen

ok. hopping in here... i am personalizing these responses, not overgeneralizing or trying to place a socialogical persepective on them, so i am saying what i "would rather" being jennifer and all ... to this question i can speak solidly that i would rather be good at many things moderately and not phenom. at one. i think that when i have tried to be the best there is at one particular thing or stand out, (not stand up.. there is a difference), there has always been and there will always be twenty more better than i. thus i am a well rounded student, social interactor and contemplative. maybe this is the realist's view, not partaining to the world as a whole, but if we all were to try to be the most phenom. at whatever we might chose, i think we might find ourselves wanting to be the best at the same things, and thus never combining our efforts and wide range abilities. make sense ??? that is if you do want to think of the "good of the general public etc." i think the world would be being done out of a world of talents that would remain undiscovered if we held fast to one strong trait a peice.

------------------
Jennifer

I say this not to pat myself on the back.... but I am good at any and all things it seems, but am not outstanding at any one thing and it gets frustrating. The only thing being good at a lot of things and not the best at one gets you is a lot of people asking you to do a lot of things.

innerdawg

------------------

The world is built on the back of the people who are good at many things... as whit-dawg said here, cuz you get asked to do a lot. But this same world is ruled by those who excel at one thing...

One reason you run into so many people who resist your advancement has to do with the "crab in a bucket" theory. Those from the Gulf Coast will recognize this easily...

If you put one crab in a bucket, he will get out of that bucket as fast as you put him in... but if you have more than one in the bucket, the other crabs, as soon as one tries to escape, will pull it back into the bucket.

"We are all in this together bud! It's ok if I am miserable, as long as everyone else is miserable too. But heaven help you if you try to better yourself and climb out of this bucket, cuz I got one big claw that says you ain't better than me..."

Joseph experienced this "crab in a bucket" theory first hand. The moment he said he was better than the situation he was in, that God had better things for him, was the same moment his own brothers began to hate him and plot against him.

He did not succomb to their will tho, instead he rec'd God's favor as he went above and beyond at doing what his situation demanded. He rose from slave to second in command of the nation, focusing on the path God laid before him.

Me, I am good at many things as well, (at least I like to think so), but, well, I can't say it is laziness that keeps me from excelling, nobody works more than I do, but more likely it is a lack of focus on that one thing God has for me that keeps that big claw on my heel.

It seems that as I get closer to God's perfect will in my life, I begin to experience His favor. What I do, I do much better, more efficiently, and recieve greater reward... when I get unfocused and flail around, then I am running in quicksand... lots of busy-ness, nothing to show for it...

------------------
Allen

ahhh, no whit-dawg, for what it truly gets you is too many ideas, for i find that i want to be too many things,start too many things, indulge in too many things to better myself, and if you allow people to ask it of you, yup, you get overstretched, but isnt it great ? i wouldnt want to be any other way .... question asker .. we havent heard from you yet .......... ???

------------------
Jenn

Wonderful points.
Ready for a new one?

Okay. Would you rather...

...have one faithful friend (other than God) that you can trust with your life and all of your secrets and have NO other acquaintences, or have many fairly close acquaintences but no one that you would trust with everything?

Ok here is what i think about this question. I would love to have just one faithful friend and no aquaintances however I would have to go for more aquaintances because through those aquaintances, i can develope greater relationships and I can also share God's word with more people. And being tied to just one person i think is a little strange because we are called to love and accept everyone and it would seem to me that if i only closed myself off to one person, it means that i would have no desire to get to know anyone else. By having more aquaintances, i can continue to meet new people and develope relationships and then hopefully develope trustworthy ones also. But if i never found a 100% trustworthy friends, then i would share everything with God. I would talk to him. But umm yea..thats what i think

Erin Grace

I totally agree. I have heard the comment from many people (Christians and non-Christians) who say that if they could find one completely faithful human companion, then they would give up all of their other regular acquaintences or "friends". I think that this is an expectation that cannot be met by a human companion. No matter how faithful and trustworthy your human companion may be, they will let you down at one point or another. Especially if your expectations of them are too high. God is (I have found) to be the only "perfect" friend. So I would rather have many acquaintences and not one extemely close friend if I had to choose between one or the other. After all, this isn't my REAL home anyway, and the things here are only temporary...