The Faa-Matai (Chiefly System) is a unique and profound ideology. It is still a strong resilient and vibrant force within Samoan society today. The faa-matai has been the system under which Samoa was governed for years; possibly centuries. Despite disputes, wars and battles - most of which were caused by title ownership - among factions (tribes, clans, villages, islands and families), the faa-matai has served Samoa well in terms of socio-political order and control, especially on the local level (village/district). National unity and harmony were problems and challenges in the past. Conversely, villages were autonomous units which perhaps attributed - more often than not - to Samoa’s cultural stability and ethnic perpetuity.
The faa-matai is at the core of the faa-Samoa; it encompasses most - if not all - things Samoan. Lose it and the Samoan identity is lost and/or severely hampered. Social relationships, roles and protocols of the traditional nature are based on the faa-matai. In other words Samoan traditional society revolves around the matai (chief), or faa-matai.
However, change - anticipated or not - is inevitable in every aspect of life. Socio-political life in Samoa is therefore no different considering the wave of modern and democratic influences flooding the country.
(Note: The following synopsis represents a snapshot of the requested issue(s) and is by no means or intention a comprehensive and/or conclusive treatment. It is also derived completely from intuition, personal knowledge, recollections, experiences and my observations of the faa-Samoa/faa-matai, therefore I had not consulted any secondary/outside sources for this information.)
Democracy vs. Faa-Matai:
(I’m going to use the “faa-matai” synonymously, hence interchangeably, with “faa-Samoa”. The two , after all, are mutually inclusive and/or intelligible.)
Generally speaking, the faa-matai clashes and contradicts with democratic ideology. The closest at which the two share a commonality is they both are representative in their own respective delineations, otherwise the divergence increases and grows further apart from there.
Priority/Rights
Democracy: The Individual
Faa-Matai: The Community/collective.
Again, the faa-matai is anchored to the community while democracy’s linchpin is the individual. The faa-matai esteems the group (aiga, nu’u, itumalo, atunu’u). It looks at the individual not as a single/separate person, per se, but as a member of a group. Therefore, the collective trumps the individual within the faa-matai system and context.
Naturally, it follows that individual rights - as we understand them in the modern democratic context - are foreign to the faa-matai. In the faa-Samoa system of justice accountability often rests with the group/family, even when a single member of the family is found to be the wrongdoer and culprit. This is in stark contrast with the present modern legal system adopted and espoused by the more democratic central government and constitution in which individual accountability is probed and tried.
Land Use/Tenure
Democracy: Private ownership
Faa-Matai: Communally owned (aiga or village), and intrinsically attached to chiefly titles (matai).
Here’s a question that may not have been specifically answered as far as land ownership is concerned. Who owns family land in the village - the village or the aiga? The Lands & Titles Court, handles and resolves cases involving land disputes among families, hence land virtually belongs to the aiga. Yet, when a family is banished, the expression goes, “ua faasa ma ele’ele o le nu’u” (“they’re banned from village lands”). Of course there’s village land that will be off-limits to the culprits, BUT the land they live on is theirs, and I’m sure there are banished families that can subsist and sustain their everyday lives on their land (and government roads) without ever setting foot on the rest of “village” lands. Banishment is cruel and deprive families of their rights to their land. Where does the village council get its authority to ban an aiga from its legal and rightful property? It may come from the communal mandate on which village administration is based, if not some frivolous eminent domain regulations or confiscating powers of the village council. Or it could be based on the village’s claim and control on matai titles which are inseparable from customary/traditional land ownership.
Elections
Democracy: Voting. One person, one vote.
Faa-Matai: Consensus.
Again the community/group is prior. Consensus can be good, but the individual’s right to his own opinion and voice is infringed upon when consensus is the norm.
Party politics also is a deviation from the old and traditional consensus-based system of the village fono. But ironically, with no official and established opposition in Parliament at the present, it (Fono), in a sense, operates on a consensus-based standard. Some electoral districts and/or villages still choose their candidates by consensus although universal suffrage (21 and older) is the law.
Social Equality
Democracy: Classless open society
Faa-Matai: Status hierarchy and social stratification.
The village and country are heavily stratified (re: “O Samoa ua uma ona tofi”). Village and national faalupega (salutations) attest to this. Social hierarchy and stratification are pervasive elements in society. For example, according to the faa-Samoa, a village comprises of several “villages” (nu’u) - nu’u o matai, nu’u o fafine, nu’u o tane, etc., I understand that many of these groupings are classified based on social roles, but these roles also affect and influence - if not assigned based on - social status which are often designated relative to the matai - the kingpins. According to the faa-Samoa, the matai are the rulers and landowners, while women, children and others are second class citizens. Samoa is not a completely open society as a result; instead, it’s like a fledgling caste system. It’s reminiscent of the lords, vassals and peasants in the feudal system of the Middle Ages.
Religion
Democracy: Freedom of religion. No preference or established national/state religion.
Faa-Matai: Christianity ("traditional" religion)
I know this sounds like an anomaly but Christianity - despite its foreign origin and character - is and has been heavily localized and Samoanized that it might as well be given the “traditional” label. As part of their localizing effrontery, some churches are incorporating some cultural practices into their regular worship and church services. The bigger irony here, is that basic and fundamental Christianity is individual-oriented/based, at least in its finality and accountability.
Rule of Law
Democracy: All equal before the law. Individual accountability and responsibility
Faa-Matai: All not equal. Group/communal accountability.
The village fono is an all-powerful body which still gives the village its autonomy. It has executive, legislative and judicial authority and power. The Village Fono Act is seen as an empowering dictum for the village matai; it grants explicit powers to the village fono though the interpretation of some of its provisions and terms is often vague and ambiguous.
In the faa-Samoa, when an individual commits a crime against another individual, the family (aiga) - and sometimes the village - is the real offender. Resolution and reconciliation become the group’s (or village’s) responsibility - not the individual’s. Vindication and pardon are sought through the ifoga (traditional apology) during which the family (or village) performs the ritual on behalf of the individual. Most of the time, when a member of an aiga violates village rules, the matai, along with the family are punished. The whole aiga can be banished and punished even if a son or daughter is the wrongdoer.
Today, with a modern court system, individual accountability is the norm. However, the courts still, in some cases, do yield, concede and even acquiesce to the traditional jurisdiction of the faa-Samoa.
All in all, Samoa is at a crossroad and is not exactly sure how and where it’s headed. It’s got one foot on land and another at sea. It is trying to adapt to the democratic ideals while at the same time holding onto its traditional faa-matai. It is trying to experiment and hopefully carve its own niche within the democratic paradigm. The hard truth is that democracy has already been received, adopted, accepted and cherished by most, if not all. And no matter how hard Samoa tries to create its own cultural democracy, it still has to be at the expense of its faa-matai - eventually, one way or another. The more the individual is revered and venerated - as opposed to the community - the more the faa-matai becomes wither worthy and anachronistic.
Lastly, the matai system has advantages and virtues especially if the titleholders rule and lead with alofa (love), faaaloalo (respect) and faamaoni (integrity) - pillars of Samoan society. However, most matai have become selfish, greedy and self-serving in most of their decisions and choices and those give the faa-matai a bad repute.
...just my thoughts, hence my opinion.
LV
PS: FeshyNZ - I’ll try to post my responses to the post whose link you sent at another time.
10/13/10
Samoa's "Polytical" System
(printed in the Samoa Observer October 12, 2010 under Letters to the Editor)
What is Samoa’s political system? What is the ideal one, and then what is the real one?
Considering the seeming political bedlam burgeoning in Samoa, it is appropriate, fair and perhaps preemptive to ask the above questions? And with the upcoming elections, it is good to reflect on Samoa’s current state of political affairs and fledgling political experiences.
Comparatively speaking, especially within the conglomeration of Pacific island nations, Samoa is a relatively peaceful and stable country. No coups. No violent protests. No uprisings. No revolts.
However, there are enough improprieties, malfeasances and dereliction within the political establishment of the country to warrant - at least from a slipshod viewpoint - a panning examination.
So how should we categorize Samoa’s political system? Ideally, most will say that it is a representative model based on the Parliamentary (Westminster) matrix. Furthermore, there is universal suffrage and so Samoa is essentially a member of the “democracy club”. More specifically, others say it’s a bifurcate blend of the new and the old - namely the Parliamentary model actuated by the matai system with a voting and consensus-based dichotomy.
Much of the above represents the realm of the ideal. The sad - though often hush-hush, if not connived and concocted - reality of Samoa’s political system is that it is a collage of mostly anti-democratic practices and machinations.
Samoa’s “polytical” system, therefore, is:
1. Theocratic.
Theocracy
A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided).
How many times have we heard the PM - and others - making pretentious claims that he and his party (HRPP) are divinely called - appointed by God? In addition, we have a Constitution that endorses and unabashedly puts its imprimatur on Christianity.
Checked.
2. Oligarchic.
Oligarchy:
A political system governed by a few people.
Yes, that’s right, a few people. Locally, in the villages, it’s the village fono. On the national level, it’s the HRPP - presently. When the people vote for their representatives, they “vote” or agree and coalesce to support a particular party and candidate. At that point, any notion of a government by the people ends and the party takes over. Right now, with the way things have gone, it’s government, not by the people, but by “a few people”.
Checked.
3. Aristocratic.
Aristocracy:
A privileged class holding hereditary titles.
Although universal suffrage is the ideal, the reality is that matai (a privileged class holding hereditary titles) rule. They rule in the villages. And recently by law, one cannot be a Member of Parliament without a hereditary title. How easy is it to get a hereditary title? “Easier than getting a loaf of bread,” according to the PM. Samoa, inherently, is a status society which in essence can be a precursor to a more advanced caste system.
Checked.
4. Autocratic.
Autocracy:
A political system governed by a single individual.
Despite its current democratic template and mandate, there is also, now, a single individual governing the country. It’s an autocracy within a democracy.
Checked.
5. Tyrannic/Tyrannical.
Tyranny:
An ideology which subscribes to dominance through threat of punishment and violence.
This is found more on the local level (villages) where people are threatened, intimidated, punished and banished by matai. These “tyrants” also threaten any opponent who runs against an incumbent ( “consensus” candidate) and loses. Violence, threats, punishment and banishment await such a person. If, on the national level, the one-party rule continues, a similar stipulation and ultimatum may be in the pipeline. In fact comparable preconditions have become laws such as: If an MP switches party, he/she will lose his/her seat in Parliament. Also, if a candidate does not have a matai title, he/she is an outsider; therefore doesn’t belong to the privileged ruling class.
Checked.
6. Totalitarian.
Totalitarianism:
The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
With the one-party state system Samoa has now, who can stand in the way of the complete, absolute and unrestricted power of the present government? Moreover, the other two branches (Judicial and Executive) - that are supposed to provide checks and balances - are just (pun intended) puppets of the Legislative branch (Parliament).
Checked.
7. Communistic.
Communism:
A system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. A state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Self explanatory, though it’s interesting to see the relevance of the expression “self-perpetuating political party” in today’s government. Some HRPP self-perpetuating tactics and contrivances are gradually surfacing which involve party recruiting practices in the villages. With such trends, including obsequious deals with the Commies, the Parliament (Fono) will soon have a make-over and a fitting name change - “Polytburo”.
Checked.
So while paying lip-service to democratic ideals and principles, Samoa is actually incubating a unique - and possibly an ominous -“polytical” system. She may also be trying to create and develop a cultural democracy of her own, however, with the current system imbued with the above anti-democratic elements, Samoa’s future political system is likely to engender and generate coups, violent protests, uprisings and revolts.
Of course there’s order and stability fostered by a good dependable matai system, but like any other inherently good and ideal system, it can also breed seeds of corruption, deterioration and degeneracy. Samoa certainly has shown signs and intimations of these within the last few years - and still lurking even more today.
LV Letalu
Lalomanu and Utah
What is Samoa’s political system? What is the ideal one, and then what is the real one?
Considering the seeming political bedlam burgeoning in Samoa, it is appropriate, fair and perhaps preemptive to ask the above questions? And with the upcoming elections, it is good to reflect on Samoa’s current state of political affairs and fledgling political experiences.
Comparatively speaking, especially within the conglomeration of Pacific island nations, Samoa is a relatively peaceful and stable country. No coups. No violent protests. No uprisings. No revolts.
However, there are enough improprieties, malfeasances and dereliction within the political establishment of the country to warrant - at least from a slipshod viewpoint - a panning examination.
So how should we categorize Samoa’s political system? Ideally, most will say that it is a representative model based on the Parliamentary (Westminster) matrix. Furthermore, there is universal suffrage and so Samoa is essentially a member of the “democracy club”. More specifically, others say it’s a bifurcate blend of the new and the old - namely the Parliamentary model actuated by the matai system with a voting and consensus-based dichotomy.
Much of the above represents the realm of the ideal. The sad - though often hush-hush, if not connived and concocted - reality of Samoa’s political system is that it is a collage of mostly anti-democratic practices and machinations.
Samoa’s “polytical” system, therefore, is:
1. Theocratic.
Theocracy
A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided).
How many times have we heard the PM - and others - making pretentious claims that he and his party (HRPP) are divinely called - appointed by God? In addition, we have a Constitution that endorses and unabashedly puts its imprimatur on Christianity.
Checked.
2. Oligarchic.
Oligarchy:
A political system governed by a few people.
Yes, that’s right, a few people. Locally, in the villages, it’s the village fono. On the national level, it’s the HRPP - presently. When the people vote for their representatives, they “vote” or agree and coalesce to support a particular party and candidate. At that point, any notion of a government by the people ends and the party takes over. Right now, with the way things have gone, it’s government, not by the people, but by “a few people”.
Checked.
3. Aristocratic.
Aristocracy:
A privileged class holding hereditary titles.
Although universal suffrage is the ideal, the reality is that matai (a privileged class holding hereditary titles) rule. They rule in the villages. And recently by law, one cannot be a Member of Parliament without a hereditary title. How easy is it to get a hereditary title? “Easier than getting a loaf of bread,” according to the PM. Samoa, inherently, is a status society which in essence can be a precursor to a more advanced caste system.
Checked.
4. Autocratic.
Autocracy:
A political system governed by a single individual.
Despite its current democratic template and mandate, there is also, now, a single individual governing the country. It’s an autocracy within a democracy.
Checked.
5. Tyrannic/Tyrannical.
Tyranny:
An ideology which subscribes to dominance through threat of punishment and violence.
This is found more on the local level (villages) where people are threatened, intimidated, punished and banished by matai. These “tyrants” also threaten any opponent who runs against an incumbent ( “consensus” candidate) and loses. Violence, threats, punishment and banishment await such a person. If, on the national level, the one-party rule continues, a similar stipulation and ultimatum may be in the pipeline. In fact comparable preconditions have become laws such as: If an MP switches party, he/she will lose his/her seat in Parliament. Also, if a candidate does not have a matai title, he/she is an outsider; therefore doesn’t belong to the privileged ruling class.
Checked.
6. Totalitarian.
Totalitarianism:
The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
With the one-party state system Samoa has now, who can stand in the way of the complete, absolute and unrestricted power of the present government? Moreover, the other two branches (Judicial and Executive) - that are supposed to provide checks and balances - are just (pun intended) puppets of the Legislative branch (Parliament).
Checked.
7. Communistic.
Communism:
A system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. A state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Self explanatory, though it’s interesting to see the relevance of the expression “self-perpetuating political party” in today’s government. Some HRPP self-perpetuating tactics and contrivances are gradually surfacing which involve party recruiting practices in the villages. With such trends, including obsequious deals with the Commies, the Parliament (Fono) will soon have a make-over and a fitting name change - “Polytburo”.
Checked.
So while paying lip-service to democratic ideals and principles, Samoa is actually incubating a unique - and possibly an ominous -“polytical” system. She may also be trying to create and develop a cultural democracy of her own, however, with the current system imbued with the above anti-democratic elements, Samoa’s future political system is likely to engender and generate coups, violent protests, uprisings and revolts.
Of course there’s order and stability fostered by a good dependable matai system, but like any other inherently good and ideal system, it can also breed seeds of corruption, deterioration and degeneracy. Samoa certainly has shown signs and intimations of these within the last few years - and still lurking even more today.
LV Letalu
Lalomanu and Utah
10/5/10
Idol Worship
LV: From LVis to LVin
Has the main title already caught your attention? Hahahaa...Good! And no I don’t have any carved images - wooden or otherwise - in the faleo’o, the shed or in a room. LOL!. Neither am I trying to sound impious.
I am however referring to the boyish, teenage and past years of my life. Hey, I ain’t a saint... uhmm ...it’s a goal, however - becoming one ... though now, I’m just a latter-day saint. (Doesn’t every sinner have a future, and every saint, a past?) ...anyhow, speaking of the past, here’s a snippet from yestertimes.
Today, in pop culture phenomenon, especially movies, I’m a semi-devout fan and admirer of Vin Diesel (re: LVin).
Has the main title already caught your attention? Hahahaa...Good! And no I don’t have any carved images - wooden or otherwise - in the faleo’o, the shed or in a room. LOL!. Neither am I trying to sound impious.
 |
| "LVis" |
While growing up, I had Elvis as my idol. (Who didn’t?) I don’t quite remember how it started but it could have been from my older brother. (He too is an avid Elvis fan and impersonator/impressionist.) Anyway, I had done most things associated with being a fan of a popular entertainer like memorabilia and keepsake collection as well as different types of imitation.
 |
| "Priszita" |
In high school, I had a scrapbook of Elvis - pictures and magazine/newspaper clippings. I even saved some lunch money and bus fares to buy issues of “Elvis Annual”. In college I styled my hair and sideburns like Elvis’ (above). I even imitated his voice and have done some impressions of him. I play the guitar and so that helps in the overall imitation propaganda...hahaa...I even had pictures of Elvis on the wall of our student apartment. I also had quite a collection of his records; I still listen to his music.
But there’s another idol I worshiped in my youth ...and one that I still and always will “worship” ... forever - she’s my “Priscilla” (Priszita).
So at least in the field and context of pop culture and entertainment, I can say that "idol worship" is found in my past, present and will be in my future ....
9/24/10
More Answers for Mr. Atherton (Samoa Observer)
(Re: Letters to the Editor - Sept. 22, 2010: "It is never too late.")
Free Will and Morality
Mr. Atherton:
Morals do not begin or end with the Bible. Neither the Bible nor Christianity has a monopoly on morality. Several moral codes have been developed over the years by civilisations unfamiliar with Judeo-Christian scripture.
LV:
God predates all these sources including the Bible. His Spirit was in the beginning; He was in the beginning. His “light” enlightens and elucidates every man and creature. Morals begin and end with God - the Alpha and Omega.
Mr. Atherton:
But here is a question for those of your readers more knowledgeable about these matters than I am: if God intended humans to be moral, why did He forbid Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge between good and evil?
LV:
I don’t claim to be more knowledgeable about matters raised by Mr. Atherton. I do however have some idea of what he’s enquiring about and I hope my insights will at least shed some light on the issue(s). My answer lies in Free Will and its indubitable link to morals and morality.
Free Will is a broad and complex subject and has become more convoluted, if not more controversial in recent decades. New fields and disciplines such as neuroscience, cognitive psychology and even new branches of the prototypical fields - philosophy and theology - all subscribe and contribute to the discourse and disputations. Because of such complexity, I will try to limit my response to the Biblical context as mentioned in the question.
Free Will - in its connotation of agency of man or freedom to choose between good and evil - was granted to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It’s true that they were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, BUT, along with the interdiction, Adam and Eve were allowed and given the freedom to “choose”. In the LDS canon, we find this clear specific consignment of the freedom to choose by God to Adam and Eve:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Moses 3:17)
Now before any accusatory scream of heresy is launched and fired, it is well to understand the Bible itself, since it does basically say the same thing - that Adam and Eve were given the freedom to choose. Let’s examine the applicable verses.
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:16,17 - KJV)
God is essentially - and in a real subtle yet compendious way - saying: “You can do this, BUT not this.” That’s CHOICE right there! In other words, God gave them a choice between two opposite alternatives. Alternatives along with clear and specific consequences also suggest succinctly the possibility, opportunity and ability to choose as individuals.
Again, Adam and Eve were forbidden but were also given the freedom to choose which is tied to our ability to make moral choices.
On a bantering note, I wonder if God was punning when He said to Adam and Eve that they may “freely eat”.
Free Will and Morality
Mr. Atherton:
Morals do not begin or end with the Bible. Neither the Bible nor Christianity has a monopoly on morality. Several moral codes have been developed over the years by civilisations unfamiliar with Judeo-Christian scripture.
LV:
God predates all these sources including the Bible. His Spirit was in the beginning; He was in the beginning. His “light” enlightens and elucidates every man and creature. Morals begin and end with God - the Alpha and Omega.
Mr. Atherton:
But here is a question for those of your readers more knowledgeable about these matters than I am: if God intended humans to be moral, why did He forbid Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge between good and evil?
LV:
I don’t claim to be more knowledgeable about matters raised by Mr. Atherton. I do however have some idea of what he’s enquiring about and I hope my insights will at least shed some light on the issue(s). My answer lies in Free Will and its indubitable link to morals and morality.
Free Will is a broad and complex subject and has become more convoluted, if not more controversial in recent decades. New fields and disciplines such as neuroscience, cognitive psychology and even new branches of the prototypical fields - philosophy and theology - all subscribe and contribute to the discourse and disputations. Because of such complexity, I will try to limit my response to the Biblical context as mentioned in the question.
Free Will - in its connotation of agency of man or freedom to choose between good and evil - was granted to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It’s true that they were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, BUT, along with the interdiction, Adam and Eve were allowed and given the freedom to “choose”. In the LDS canon, we find this clear specific consignment of the freedom to choose by God to Adam and Eve:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Moses 3:17)
Now before any accusatory scream of heresy is launched and fired, it is well to understand the Bible itself, since it does basically say the same thing - that Adam and Eve were given the freedom to choose. Let’s examine the applicable verses.
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:16,17 - KJV)
God is essentially - and in a real subtle yet compendious way - saying: “You can do this, BUT not this.” That’s CHOICE right there! In other words, God gave them a choice between two opposite alternatives. Alternatives along with clear and specific consequences also suggest succinctly the possibility, opportunity and ability to choose as individuals.
Again, Adam and Eve were forbidden but were also given the freedom to choose which is tied to our ability to make moral choices.
On a bantering note, I wonder if God was punning when He said to Adam and Eve that they may “freely eat”.
9/22/10
My new thinking and writing - and stop teasing - hat
I have to move my computer and, therefore, my cheese.
In the past few months I have been using my daughter’s room for blogging and for some serious writing (blogging is not serious writing?). Now she’s back from AZ and that means I have to move my computer ...and my cheese (writing).
On a recent Saturday morning, I was up early, writing. When it was time for our family to leave on our weekly ritual and pilgrimage to several little league football fields to watch the grandsons let off some steam, I still had the hat on and even throughout the games, so our children were teasing and making fun of my girly hat. Now I think I’m going to switch to my BYU (True Blue) hat. Yes, I said “I think”....since some in my family are ironclad fans and afficionados of the Utah (University) Utes - BYU’s perhaps fiercest rival - who may continue teasing the hat at my team’s expense.
I have a solution though. I’m going to remind them that it’s my new “don’t you dare bother me” hat; therefore, any teasing and taunting shall and will stop. Anyhow, it’s a rebuilding year for my Cougars. Oh, but wait ... Jake Heaps is starting at quarterback this Saturday, so I bet you that things will start turning around. Just you wait and watch! ...my Cougars are going to have heaps (punning of course) of wins ... Go Cougs!
From the cheesy to some real cheese, if you haven’t read “Who Moved My Cheese" I'd suggest you do; I read it several years ago. It’s an excellent inspirational and motivational book. It’s an easy read, yet effective in its message.
Speaking of inspirational messages, here’s one of several from the book:
“If you don’t change, you can become extinct.”
In the past few months I have been using my daughter’s room for blogging and for some serious writing (blogging is not serious writing?). Now she’s back from AZ and that means I have to move my computer ...and my cheese (writing).The sign “Writing in Progress” - which has stayed up on the door even at times when I wasn’t writing - needs to be moved too. And my writing hat will change as well. My mentors recommended that I have a “writing hat” to let others know when not to bother me - in other words, something along the lines of the Carl’s Jr. commercial slogan “Don’t bother me, I’m eating.” So when I was looking for a “don’t bother me” hat, I just settled for my daughter’s that was on her dresser. It’s a girly hat and it looks farcical and boorish on me. Just give me some dorky glasses to go with the hat, and I’ll be on a Spike Lee look-a-like lineup - alliteratively speaking, at least.
On a recent Saturday morning, I was up early, writing. When it was time for our family to leave on our weekly ritual and pilgrimage to several little league football fields to watch the grandsons let off some steam, I still had the hat on and even throughout the games, so our children were teasing and making fun of my girly hat. Now I think I’m going to switch to my BYU (True Blue) hat. Yes, I said “I think”....since some in my family are ironclad fans and afficionados of the Utah (University) Utes - BYU’s perhaps fiercest rival - who may continue teasing the hat at my team’s expense.
I have a solution though. I’m going to remind them that it’s my new “don’t you dare bother me” hat; therefore, any teasing and taunting shall and will stop. Anyhow, it’s a rebuilding year for my Cougars. Oh, but wait ... Jake Heaps is starting at quarterback this Saturday, so I bet you that things will start turning around. Just you wait and watch! ...my Cougars are going to have heaps (punning of course) of wins ... Go Cougs!
From the cheesy to some real cheese, if you haven’t read “Who Moved My Cheese" I'd suggest you do; I read it several years ago. It’s an excellent inspirational and motivational book. It’s an easy read, yet effective in its message.
Speaking of inspirational messages, here’s one of several from the book:
“If you don’t change, you can become extinct.”
9/16/10
An Answer to a Question in the Samoa Observer
Beasts, creeping things and birds.
"The reason God [blotted out man, beast, creeping things and birds with the Flood] was because the people were wicked. But does anyone know where the beasts, creeping things and birds went wrong?" - John Atherton, Siusega.
If I surmise correctly, the assumption made by Mr. Atherton was that the beasts, creeping things and birds were not wicked or evil; they were innocent and therefore should have been vindicated.
His question therefore is a thought-provoking one; though to any diehard religionist, it’s an easy one that can be answered with this familiar, convenient, one-size-fits-all and pat response: "It’s God’s will." Inevitably, in the end, it may very well be "the answer", as it is for most other Biblical mysteries and/or faith-based conundrums. In that case, I may be guilty of making a circular argument in my reply.
Nonetheless, for curiosity and fecundity’s sakes, I think the question deserves ruminating and cogitating over. So here’s my take, not as a freethinker but as a free thinker.
I am going to start my supposition with a popular quote by the Greek philosopher Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things." Generally, this quote has been handed down with no clear or concrete interpretation, although it is oftentimes linked to agnostic and relativistic contexts in which man - not God - is purported to be the ultimate source of morals and values.
Within such vagueness and speculation - as well as in an attempt to answer Mr. Atherton’s question - I would take the liberty in rephrasing Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things [God created]." The insertion of God, I hope, clears up the ambiguity and the obvious irony established by the godless context of the original quote.
As believers in God, we understand that man is the epitome or crown - hence "measure" - of all of God’s creations. Therefore he was given the charge to be "lord" over all the earth:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image,... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26).
With that as a premise, here are the two probable reasons for the seeming unfairness on the part of God in condemning and cursing the beasts, creeping things, birds, etc., - again, as assumed by Mr. Atherton.
1. Beasts Creeping Things and Birds as Accomplices and Cohorts.
The influence of man as being the measure of all things created, can have a far reaching effect that even the animals become evil in their own way when man - as master and measure - himself becomes irreparably evil and his cup of iniquity is full. In other words, when man becomes evil continually and is found lacking in all of God’s attributes (love, patience, compassion, etc.,) he tends to treat the animals, birds, and creeping things unkindly. This in turn can make the animals more ferocious, vicious and hostile against man and against each other. Once I quoted this saying that "even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over."
This overall deterioration and degeneracy can be transmissible to the point that a comprehensive and universal moral pandemic becomes a precursor to, and harbinger for, the condition of ripening in iniquity that would, in turn, prompt God’s wrath and vengeance upon all - man and beast. The destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities of the plains is a good example.
Another example is found in the book of Jonah. God commanded Jonah to preach repentance to the city of Nineveh whose inhabitants had become exceedingly wicked and evil. The king and his nobles then decreed man and beast to fast and repent, and turn from their evil ways (Jonah 3:7-8).
In this first part, I’m suggesting that it’s quite possible for beast, creeping things and birds to sink to a degenerate condition - within their own sphere for the most part - from the ripple effect of man’s own wicked condition. Accordingly, God would therefore see fit to blot out man and his subordinate cohorts. Man should not underestimate his influence - moral and otherwise - on the totality of his environment.
2. Beasts, Creeping Things and Birds as Inclusive Collateral.
The act of God on the beasts, birds and creeping things is to exact (pun intended) punishment on mankind. In the Bible, God allows deserving, indiscriminate and annihilative punishment only when a people, again, ripens in iniquity - not at the very first incident or episode of evildoing. From Genesis 6:5, this clearly was the case in Noah’s day - that the people were evil continually in their hearts and minds, hence deeds as well:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
So if everything (animals, birds, etc.,) was created by God for man’s benefit and welfare, then it would seem appropriate to have them recanted and eradicated too along with man - if not to impose further and fair punishment, it can also be an intrinsic part of God’s inclusive collateral and compensatory system. The concept could be akin to the modern legal precedent where the guilty party is required to sell or surrender his/her property in order to satisfy a court judgment/settlement.
The belief in the harmony/unity of man and nature - as one indivisible whole - may also be used by some to explain the same concept of inclusive collateral. In fact, the trickle down and contiguous effects of man’s evildoing that include his environment and other living things are neither farfetched nor impractical.
Take the Fall (of Adam) for example. When Adam fell, everything (animals, plants - in essence the whole earth) fell. The ground was cursed with thistles and thorns and the serpent was "cursed above every beast of the field." This means that other beasts were cursed too with the serpent being cursed above all of them.
Further, as stated, the ground was cursed for man’s sake (Genesis 3:17). The point here being that the effects of man’s disobedience extend far beyond himself. In the book of Zephaniah - prophesying about Judah’s fate - we get this all-inclusive reach of God’s cataclysmic hand as a result of man’s vile and abominable sinfulness.
"I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the Lord. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord." (Zephaniah 1:2-3).
Again, indiscriminate, widespread and utter destruction is part of God’s judgment on mankind when their cup of iniquity is full. The Flood was such an incident and event.
In a sense, also, we can view the Flood as a cleansing act of God in order for the earth to comply and conform to His pure and unblemished nature and character, or at least His will (pun intended) for His children.
"The reason God [blotted out man, beast, creeping things and birds with the Flood] was because the people were wicked. But does anyone know where the beasts, creeping things and birds went wrong?" - John Atherton, Siusega.
If I surmise correctly, the assumption made by Mr. Atherton was that the beasts, creeping things and birds were not wicked or evil; they were innocent and therefore should have been vindicated.
His question therefore is a thought-provoking one; though to any diehard religionist, it’s an easy one that can be answered with this familiar, convenient, one-size-fits-all and pat response: "It’s God’s will." Inevitably, in the end, it may very well be "the answer", as it is for most other Biblical mysteries and/or faith-based conundrums. In that case, I may be guilty of making a circular argument in my reply.
Nonetheless, for curiosity and fecundity’s sakes, I think the question deserves ruminating and cogitating over. So here’s my take, not as a freethinker but as a free thinker.
I am going to start my supposition with a popular quote by the Greek philosopher Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things." Generally, this quote has been handed down with no clear or concrete interpretation, although it is oftentimes linked to agnostic and relativistic contexts in which man - not God - is purported to be the ultimate source of morals and values.
Within such vagueness and speculation - as well as in an attempt to answer Mr. Atherton’s question - I would take the liberty in rephrasing Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things [God created]." The insertion of God, I hope, clears up the ambiguity and the obvious irony established by the godless context of the original quote.
As believers in God, we understand that man is the epitome or crown - hence "measure" - of all of God’s creations. Therefore he was given the charge to be "lord" over all the earth:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image,... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26).
With that as a premise, here are the two probable reasons for the seeming unfairness on the part of God in condemning and cursing the beasts, creeping things, birds, etc., - again, as assumed by Mr. Atherton.
1. Beasts Creeping Things and Birds as Accomplices and Cohorts.
The influence of man as being the measure of all things created, can have a far reaching effect that even the animals become evil in their own way when man - as master and measure - himself becomes irreparably evil and his cup of iniquity is full. In other words, when man becomes evil continually and is found lacking in all of God’s attributes (love, patience, compassion, etc.,) he tends to treat the animals, birds, and creeping things unkindly. This in turn can make the animals more ferocious, vicious and hostile against man and against each other. Once I quoted this saying that "even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over."
This overall deterioration and degeneracy can be transmissible to the point that a comprehensive and universal moral pandemic becomes a precursor to, and harbinger for, the condition of ripening in iniquity that would, in turn, prompt God’s wrath and vengeance upon all - man and beast. The destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities of the plains is a good example.
Another example is found in the book of Jonah. God commanded Jonah to preach repentance to the city of Nineveh whose inhabitants had become exceedingly wicked and evil. The king and his nobles then decreed man and beast to fast and repent, and turn from their evil ways (Jonah 3:7-8).
In this first part, I’m suggesting that it’s quite possible for beast, creeping things and birds to sink to a degenerate condition - within their own sphere for the most part - from the ripple effect of man’s own wicked condition. Accordingly, God would therefore see fit to blot out man and his subordinate cohorts. Man should not underestimate his influence - moral and otherwise - on the totality of his environment.
2. Beasts, Creeping Things and Birds as Inclusive Collateral.
The act of God on the beasts, birds and creeping things is to exact (pun intended) punishment on mankind. In the Bible, God allows deserving, indiscriminate and annihilative punishment only when a people, again, ripens in iniquity - not at the very first incident or episode of evildoing. From Genesis 6:5, this clearly was the case in Noah’s day - that the people were evil continually in their hearts and minds, hence deeds as well:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
So if everything (animals, birds, etc.,) was created by God for man’s benefit and welfare, then it would seem appropriate to have them recanted and eradicated too along with man - if not to impose further and fair punishment, it can also be an intrinsic part of God’s inclusive collateral and compensatory system. The concept could be akin to the modern legal precedent where the guilty party is required to sell or surrender his/her property in order to satisfy a court judgment/settlement.
The belief in the harmony/unity of man and nature - as one indivisible whole - may also be used by some to explain the same concept of inclusive collateral. In fact, the trickle down and contiguous effects of man’s evildoing that include his environment and other living things are neither farfetched nor impractical.
Take the Fall (of Adam) for example. When Adam fell, everything (animals, plants - in essence the whole earth) fell. The ground was cursed with thistles and thorns and the serpent was "cursed above every beast of the field." This means that other beasts were cursed too with the serpent being cursed above all of them.
Further, as stated, the ground was cursed for man’s sake (Genesis 3:17). The point here being that the effects of man’s disobedience extend far beyond himself. In the book of Zephaniah - prophesying about Judah’s fate - we get this all-inclusive reach of God’s cataclysmic hand as a result of man’s vile and abominable sinfulness.
"I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the Lord. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord." (Zephaniah 1:2-3).
Again, indiscriminate, widespread and utter destruction is part of God’s judgment on mankind when their cup of iniquity is full. The Flood was such an incident and event.
In a sense, also, we can view the Flood as a cleansing act of God in order for the earth to comply and conform to His pure and unblemished nature and character, or at least His will (pun intended) for His children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)