Catholics Believe Liquid From 'Miracle' Tree is God's Tears -- Arborist Says It's Lice Excrement

I think that the smallest acts can be the most meaningful or significant but I have a hard time associating them with being “powerful.” They have great effect as in they begin a turning point or mark something larger but often it is just a small part of something larger.

I would hope that people realize small acts are important and should not be overlooked, but they are not the end goal.

Rather the answer is relevant or not is really up to how it is used. For me, like I said, I am just one and should not dictate policy. If most are of like opinion, then that would form the majority. But we should never hold so much importance in our own opinions as to expect them to set precedence.

I think the difference is whether or not you are harming someone. Believing the tears of God are coming from a tree won't harm anyone. Telling people it's true won't harm anyone. Peacefully protesting to stop the tree from being cut down won't harm anyone. Going door to door to preach about the crying tree, while annoying to some people, won't harm anyone. Trying to get your beliefs about the crying tree taught in schools won't really get very far anyway because the religion of crying trees just doesn't even have enough standing to be an issue there. And even if it did, put your kid in a school that doesn't teach that. No big deal. We have schools that teach religion, we have states that teach religion in public schools (not sure what it's like outside the US). You can move, homeschool, go to a different school. There are options.

Killing someone for your beliefs, harassing someone insistently or loudly to the point where they can't function in their daily activities, throwing things, attacking people, advocating for war based on religion, trying to suppress someone else's freedoms because of your religion: those are things that harm people, and most people see those as unacceptable. There is a line that is usually pretty clearly drawn in society.

I think that the smallest acts can be the most meaningful or significant but I have a hard time associating them with being “powerful.” They have great effect as in they begin a turning point or mark something larger but often it is just a small part of something larger.

Big things barge in through the front door. You see them coming, and their impact tends to get balanced out.
But little things? the creep in through the cracks of the floor. They just act, one little step at a time.
It's something very obvious in psychology. You on't manipulate people by being upfront. you creep in through tiny little suggestions. By saying the same things, but in a slightly different way. that is power.


Anyway, can you answer my question? I didn't want to know what it is you define as "too much", but:
"By which process do YOU define "too much", and how can you know that you, and only you, have control over this process?"

First you asked…

That's why I'm trying to talk about here. How do you define "too much", and why do you define it as "too much"?

Then you asked…

By which process do YOU define "too much", and how can you know that you, and only you, have control over this process?

Which in the previous post I commented…

And depending on your overall mood at that moment, things that were okay yesterday may be too much today. It’s completely subjective.

And the post directly after your second wording of the question I wrote…

I also believe that control, complete control, is an illusion. A construct of our society used to keep people in line by limiting their possibilities. So, little point in debating it.

So by default, I really don’t think I can answer your question to your satisfaction as I do not believe I ever have control over anything. Through patience and understanding we can attempt to influence things, but I hardly consider that being control by the normal understanding and use of the word.

If knowing what part of me influences my definition of “too much” would help, then I would say it is a balance between my understanding of the situation and my emotional state at that moment.

I don't know, if you really wanted to argue it- doing all of that stuff would harm others if the time is being taken away from others which could really use your time. Such as: it would be much better spent at a soup kitchen, spending time with your family, working on a vaccine that will completely eradicate some disease(such as the recently vaccine for malaria).

Anything can the be twisted to show that you are actually harming someone in the long run.

I'd specifically draw the line at physical violence or endangerment.

Wescli Wardest wrote: First you asked…

That's why I'm trying to talk about here. How do you define "too much", and why do you define it as "too much"?

Then you asked…

By which process do YOU define "too much", and how can you know that you, and only you, have control over this process?

Which in the previous post I commented…

And depending on your overall mood at that moment, things that were okay yesterday may be too much today. It’s completely subjective.

And the post directly after your second wording of the question I wrote…

I also believe that control, complete control, is an illusion. A construct of our society used to keep people in line by limiting their possibilities. So, little point in debating it.

So by default, I really don’t think I can answer your question to your satisfaction as I do not believe I ever have control over anything. Through patience and understanding we can attempt to influence things, but I hardly consider that being control by the normal understanding and use of the word.

If knowing what part of me influences my definition of “too much” would help, then I would say it is a balance between my understanding of the situation and my emotional state at that moment.

Then if you do not control most of the process, and since the part of you which influences your decision falls outside your conscience (ability to understand, emotional state), your definition of too much is really not yours at all... it is (one of)the definition(s) of "too much" of everything that has influenced this decision in some way.

Since the definition of "too much" that applies to you isn't the product of your ego but that of "a greater force", and that you are part of that "greater force", you take part, even if unconsciously, in shaping the "too much" of others. As such you have control, though not individual, over others...

As the "greater force" is a collective being of sorts which you part create, does it not fall to you (and the other components of that being) to organize that being in a meaningful way? Is it not your "sacred" duty, as a Jedi, to seek harmony in what you do? To put the illusion of your own ego aside and take your place as an integrated part of something (let's call it "The Force" ) greater than that ego?

Yes. We are a part of something greater than ourselves and influence everything around us to some extent. Yes, it is or responsibility and privilege to be the best influence we can be.

In my opinion there are several parts to the ego. There is the part which we use to identify our self and that is where our sense of self and our self image comes from. Which as long as it is realistic, I think is a good thing. But, more often than not, that ego is distorted and inaccurate.
:lol:

Alethea Thompson wrote: I don't know, if you really wanted to argue it- doing all of that stuff would harm others if the time is being taken away from others which could really use your time. Such as: it would be much better spent at a soup kitchen, spending time with your family, working on a vaccine that will completely eradicate some disease(such as the recently vaccine for malaria).

Anything can the be twisted to show that you are actually harming someone in the long run.

I'd specifically draw the line at physical violence or endangerment.

But you aren't directly causing someone harm in those cases. You are, at worst, not providing them with help when something else has already caused them harm. And if you don't do it, someone else will. We have no social obligation to spend time at a soup kitchen, with our families, or working on vaccines. We have a social obligation not to murder people, not to take away their rights and freedoms, not to torture them or assault them, not to make them feel so unsafe or emotionally attacked that they can't live their own lives in peace. But those are all things you can do that you should refrain from doing. They aren't services that we are obligated to provide our time to, such as soup kitchens and medical research.

I'm not saying don't go work at a soup kitchen, and I'm not saying that I personally wouldn't, but that we shouldn't make people feel obligated to or shame them into it if they would rather watch a tree cry or go to a movie or go to a Temple forum and discuss whatever topics seem to be hot that day. There are other people who will fill in for those people while they aren't donating all of their time to helping others. And hey, these people looking at the tree might very well volunteer at a soup kitchen every week. That doesn't mean they can't do things outside of that or that their entire life should be working for the soup kitchen.

"Anything can the be twisted to show that you are actually harming someone in the long run." -Alethea

To which I'll twist it further:

Depending on the culture you grow up in (and your gender, specifically women), spending time with your family absolutely is a social obligation. In fact, I've got people (mostly women) all around me right now getting irritated with the fact that I opened up communication with the Coast Guard so that I can go back in. Every single one of them trying to pressure me into remaining a civilian because I now have a family to take care of. And some of these people are not even blood related to me, they are simply women that feel my place is in a non-hostile environment. I managed to get two of them off my back by explaining just how much of a detriment it would be to me being a parent if I DO NOT go back into the service full time. I have one male (my biological brother) that is vehemently against the idea because I have a son.

In a deeply rooted Muslim culture, a woman's place is raising the kids- so taking away from that time could easily be skewed as against Allah's will if you are taking time out of your daily life to protest that no one cut down a tree.

Anything can be argued as being harmful to others outside of yourself. Which is why I specified that I would draw the line at physical violence or endangerment.

I would say harassment (verbal or physical) would be up there, too. People should have a right to go to work, school, and home at least without feeling like they're going to be verbally attacked to the point where their day is disrupted and they have trouble going about their business.

But someone worshipping a tree isn't exactly harming anyone.