4 thoughts on “Day 168 – The True Convincer”

1. Is that like the Decider?

   LikeLike

2. HI Kip,

   Which “decider” are we referring too? Are we discussing recent history or a specific political references? Alternatively, are we referring to the origin of the word, “decider”?

   Most of the time, my writings are written from an introspective perspective. Meaning, they come as I write. My heart considers the current people in my life, my ecosystem, a particular situation someone I know is facing at the time, or my worldview on a particular issue. Overall, it just depends on where I am in the moment.

   Conversely, my writings are always open for interpretation. No two people are alike and no two experiences are the same. Therefore, what I say may replicate in someone else’s life. However, it does not always mean the same to them as it does for me.

   In 2006, Pres. Bush, incorrectly declared himself the Decider. While in some ways, as the President of the United States, he did have certain instruments available to decide some laws (policies); he did not have a legal authority to operate in a silo.

   A true decider answers to no one but his or her understanding of all previously established laws. These laws can be biblical, oral, or codified. The origin of the word refers to an issue or law in conflict with another issue of law. It means to decide, settle, resolve, or finalize an argument over legality.

   In Judaism, the decider refers to a Posek. The Posek, decides between conflicting laws, by evaluating each law in conjunction with the codified laws. Their role is to remain consistent with standing laws while not establishing new laws or setting a precedent to overturn existing laws.

   In the United States, we call them arbitrators. Their rule is final, binding, and irreversible.

   At the time, I wrote this piece, I was thinking about our society in general. It has been my experience, many people, societies, and nations refuse to entertain the idea that their standing laws are deficient or in conflict with other codified laws. Therefore, even when factual evidence disapproves their position on an issue, they attack the evidence to their own detriment.

   I included an overview of my understanding of a “the decider”, because in reality, terminology is always in the eye of the beholder.

   Upon deeper reflection of this post and the use of convincer, I offer the following.

   I believe in Emmanuelle. I believe in a living convincer. I believe sometimes, we ignore Emmanuelle’s steady guidance for a host of reasons, which always results in destruction within our hearts, minds, souls, homes, workplaces, churches, governments, etc.

   What is your understanding or belief?

   LikeLike

3. in reality, terminology is always in the eye of the beholder… Yes, I completely agree. According to astrophysicists, there had to be a first cause. Some call that God. Christians say Jesus died for our sins and we’re all going to heaven. Since I haven’t died, I can’t know if that’s true, but it sounds good. I think we should do good and not do evil, so said Buddha.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   • 🙂 Touché, it bears to reason regardless of our individual belief system(s); we can draw from a multitude of sources for information, explanation, confirmation, exhortation, and validation. As a believer in Christ, I see Christ and God, throughout and in, the entire universal construct. Therefore, I am determined to seek out the stratified flow of knowledge, wherever, it exists.

     I have only done a little reading on Buddha. I will add him to my list of future reads. Thank you for sharing.

     LikeLike

Comments are closed.