The virtues of truth

This might remind one of psalm 1:11: "The mouth that lies shall kill the soul"
There is a thin line between deception, lies, and deceit. Is rendering a lie morally permissable? Does one have the moral right to conceal one's self from others? I feel that it is never good or permissable to falsify the truth for the sake of personal gain. One should always consider the heart when forced to make decisions that in the end will bring dishonor, for we all have  to answer to a higher power as well as to suffer  the consequences of karma.  In the text The Mahabharata; a battle of illusion  and the esence of deceit is played out as seen with Sakuni and Yudhisthira in the game of gambling, The prince forfeits all his wealth due to sakuni's cheating. Greed and envious way's  consumed Duryodhana all for the sake of  material wealth and personal gain.

I think it is interesting how the reading explains how negative mental states are experienced as pleasurable when universalized. I thought about how people in groups can watch a movie about something sad or experience something that creates a negative feeling, but the more people that know or the more it is talked about it is, or can be, turned into a positive experience or feeling.

The Art of Religion of Art

When searching for the definition of feeling, I came across about 20 different responses. They referred to the sensation of touch, the examination of sensitivity, and even an aspect of health and well being. Out of the definitions presented to me I chose 2. Feeling (n)- an emotional state or reaction;(v)-consider oneself to be in a particular state or exhibiting particular qualities.


Why am I talking about feelings you may ask? As I think back to our last class a major component of our discussion was tied to the correlation between art and religion and how each one projects a certain feeling from you. Gnoli highlights this fact:


"The successful imitation by the actor of the characters and their experiences is no doubt, Sankuka says, artificial and unreal, but is not realized to be so by the spectators, who forget the difference between the actors and the characters, and in the difference between the actors and the characters, and inferentially experience the mental state of the characters themselves."                XIX-Gnoli

After truly considering the two seemingly different entities, I ended up really uncovering more similarities. Both art and religion are forms of expression, whether it be separate or through each other. The two forms are also respected for the feelings that they evoke. It is in the presence of true art and religion that one can feel happy, sad, emotional, and nostalgic in one piece (or writing). The concept of beauty being in the eye of the beholder can be replaced with either art or religion and still be held plausible. These thoughts made me further consider the fact that each can be used within the other. Art can be used in the expression of religion and religion can be an inspiration to art.

As both an artist and a spiritual person, I find it fascinating to view this concept and really think about it. Sometimes I find it so difficult to understand how people can believe that everything does not have relation to each other. This cycle, in my personal opinion, is what has allowed the formation of the world that we live in today. I cannot exist without everything else in this world existing. The absence one thing in a sense is the absence of all things. We are products of not only our thoughts, actions and experiences but those of us around us as well. You disagree? If so, stop reading- your contradicting yourself.

Vimalakirti's Teachings

"The body is inert, like the earth; selfless, like water, lifeless, like fire; impersonal, like the wind; and nonsubstantial like space"- Vimalakirta Nirdesa Sutra (pg. 17)

This quote by Vimalakirti shows the concept of detachment to earthly tangible solid states. Just as the elements of earth occur, life itself occurs. The feeling of the wind being impersonal, it cannot be captured, recreated nor created by man in its truly natural state. This is the same of life and the body. Vimalakirti makes the concept of being void truth. Although you may be here, materially the body will decay and no longer appear. Knowing this, one must concentrate on being one with the body of the Tathagata to gain all that is needed to continue a great journey of Dharma. 

Different but Same

"Great Sage, in all these multitudes gathered here,
Who look upon your countenance with hearts sincere in faith,
Each being beholds the Victor, as if just before him.
This is a special quality of the Buddha.

Although the Lord speaks with but one voice,
Those present perceive that same voice differently,
And each understands in his own language according to his own needs.
This is a special quality of the Buddha." This passage taken from around page 9 of VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA stood out the most to me.


In religion its important to understand the teachings that are being taught to you but what's more important above all else is the ability to be able to teach. The ability to reach out to all walks of life from different backgrounds, languages, and ideologies and still be able to help them understand the same thing; unite them in a common goal which is reaching Enlightenment and Nirvana. (In this case)


There are so many things in this lifetime and world that divides us as humans, that exclude a certain group of people or make them feel less than. You have some people who teach a religion saying its for everyone and yet aren't able to reach a masses and translate/teach what they should be; they're too quick to close the door instead. But in this section of the Sutra it's claiming that each new Buddha is different, they look different, come from different background, and even speak a different language. All of this and yet they still manage to translate their teachings in the same way that will reach the people who need to be reached in a way that they will understand. The same way that includes everyone, that is meant to reach everyone even though they are all different themselves. That's powerful to me, the ability to be different and yet still speak the same language; to be separate but still come together.

I am my brothers keeper

I think it is interesting that when asked about his sickness, Vimalakirti says "my sickness comes from ignorance and the thirst for existence and it will last as long as do the sicknesses of all living beings." I feel that if everyone had this same mentality then the livelihood of people would be somewhat better than it is today, People now are selfish and do not care what is going on with the next person. Not saying we should be nosey, but how can one live a life of extreme wealth and privilege and not feel an aching in their heart when they see someone who is living the exact opposite, and not always by choice. I know Vimalakirti was not necessarily talking about ones quality of life, but it could be applied to this. The same with education, how is it okay that some get superior education, while others don't. There are extremes in all areas of life, healthcare, rights, jobs and pay...etc. If everyone cared about the equality of the world, and got the same "sickness" Vimalakirti  had,  a lot of problems would be alleviated. 

Questioning Ramayanas

 Love is an emotion that is beautiful to experience, yet the pain of love can peirce the hardest of hearts. Born of compassion with longing and desire, cruelty creeps out of the shadow's despite one's desire's, be led by  the heart and the paths of righteousness and your heart will not betray you. This is my summary of the beautiful and poetic love story of Rama & Sita in the Ramayanas.
"It is the ultimate tale about this hero, so tragically torn between love and a totalitarian notion of duty, or responsibility, or whatever else might fit into the elastic  but binding notion of a King's dharma."
This tale reinterates the notion and concept of Dharma and Karma, as it is a metaphor that teaches one that no matter what path you find yourself on in life always choose good as opposed to evil. Be faithful to your spirituality abide by the law through devotion and right relationships and in doing so in the end you will be richly rewarded.

Four Truths and No Self

My initial perspective of this text was like most Christian's, pessimistic in nature. However after careful reading i came to the realization that negative or not, it is reality. The four noble truths of suffering, birth, old age, sickness, and death. The fundamental concept is that pain is inevitable, everything is subject to change, therefore the Buddha prescribed a prescription for the fundamental problems of life. One must abstain from the cravings of worldly things, whether it is love or the love of material things,the desire's of the heart are dangerous to behold. The Buddhas prescription is a powerful mechanism to keep one from being ensnarled and entangled in a web of frustration and defeat in the essence of things being impermenant.
Pain is inevitable, regardless of your origin of religion. What i do know is that we are all seeking a release and escape from the pain's of life, whether one is a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc...
The teachings of the Buddha thus states "that suffering its cause; its cessation, and the path to its cessation are realities which we fail to see as they are, and this is true for the Buddhist and non Buddhist". One may ask the question is it better to experience periods of pleasure in pursuit of our desires or to abstain for fear of  change or failure? Is this truly happiness? Or indeed a dose of medicine and cure for the problems of life?

Reason Based Exegesis 2/26

"One of the foremost proponents of reason-based exegesis was the Spanish Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd (d.595/1198). He argued that Islam addresses people of different intellectual and psychological capabilities, necessitating that the Qur’an be dealt with at different levels. Just as one person’s comprehension may differ from another’s, it is also possible that one person may be more comfortable with simple explanations while another may prefer to rely on complex, rational evidence."- 2008 Abdullah Saeed
 
When reading about Reason Based Exegesis I struggled with knowing what was acceptable because Reason based exegesis is challenged against tradition based exegesis. Using tradition as a tool of guidance keeps new ways of thinking about the Qu'ran at a standstill. While many scholars prefer tradition based, I feel that reason based is a better way to focus on the teachings of the Qu'ran. Reason based allows the seeker to view the teachings in a more personally applicable way. Some students may not see things in the same way and therefore reject the traditions. Traditions are the basis for understanding a culture and order, but after, reason based exegesis should then be allowed for further insight into living according to the Quran.

Without Knowledge, There is No Action

Here, the issue is whether knowledge is completely independent of the duties of the several stages of life or is somehow dependent ... Of course, knowledge is dependent on all the duties of the various stages of life, it is not completely independent ... Once it has emerged, [however] knowledge does not depend on anything else for the attainment of its fruit. But it is so dependent for its emergence ... Authoritative [though not sacred] texts too say this; for instance, ‘Action burns up impurities while (valid) cognition is the supreme goal. When action has burnt up impurities, (valid) cognition emerges.’30 

There is a quote from Fredrick Douglas that says "There is no progress without struggle." While this may seem unrelated, I translated it for the purpose of the blog to "without knowledge, there is no action." In our readings yesterday, we discussed Ram Prasad's Knowledge and Action. Within these readings, the correlation between the two are debated amongst the Kumārila and Śaṅkara traditions. While I will not be discussing these traditions in detail for this writing, I really would like to highlight the concept of this battle. 

As I was thinking of what exactly to write, I found myself continuously erasing and typing and erasing again. How do I discuss this epic battle? Is there a winner? I know these questions may seem silly when read out of context, but when I consider how these two sects look at these important virtues as a mean for living (for lack of better words) I don't understand how one could be more important than the other. In my own personal opinion I feel as if they are necessary for the other. Knowledge is... well I don't even know how to define it. I know it is a source of power and all but I can't even describe what I think it is. As far as action, I do believe that action cannot take place without knowledge, but at the same time knowledge cannot really happen without action.  Rereading this I find myself all over the place, but I guess this is the part of readers block or something along those lines.  

 

  

free post

Know Your Self.

"Both sides are agreed, as we will see, that knowledge of the self is required in 
any correctly religious life, that is, in any life oriented towards the attainment of the 
highest good."  The excerpt taken from page 101 of Indian Philosophy and the
Consequences of Knowledge was really important to me.

Within this article, the author is debating the who, what, when, where, and why of knowledge, and its relation to finding oneself in religion, from two main view points which are the Mīmāṃsakas and the Advaitins. This sentence above represented something that was so true and so relevant in today's times an that finding the knowledge of the self. While this is taken in religious terms, to me finding out who you are can relate to anybody and I am evaluating this phrase in that regard.

I've seen some many children in middle school or younger who just seem so lost because they have no idea as to who they are or who they are supposed to be. All they know is what their elder's tell them, their guardians, teachers, environment and even other friends. They watch all these shows, and listen to all this music and all that new knowledge gets absorbed into their brains that they are convinced that this is them. That how they are being portrayed must be how they are supposed to behave. But what's heartbreaking the most is when I hear stories of counselors in high school telling the same kids that they shouldn't even apply to a Uni or college because they won't get in. That they should focus on sports, or not major in Biology or Mathematics because it's too hard.

Some of these same kids grow older, wondering the world aimlessly until they become adults who are still confused as to their placement on Earth or what they are supposed to be doing. But no matter what is that they are supposed to be doing it starts with them finding out who they are and not who other's seem them as. There's a big difference between the two and it all starts with the self. At least to me that's why this phrase was so important because we all need to find ourselves, to know ourselves, and then later on use that knowledge to better enhance our paths to our 'higher goods.' 

Free post

Using my free blog post for this week. 

The Snake Simile and the Raft Simile (Late Post due 2/19)

The Snake Simile reminds me of many situations in life about truth telling and when the truth should be told and how it should be told. There are times where the truth needs to be told right away as a savior or as a means of clearance. However, telling the truth in the wrong times and how you tell it can have a bigger effect than you expected, and often in an opposite way than you would have hoped. In reading Ganeri's Concealed Art of the Soul, I quote that, "Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time." shows me that the truth when used in the right way, can e used for the advancement of life and prosperity. Otherwise, learning the truth in the way of a vicious snake would cause one to be fearful or scarred by the truth.
In the Simile of the Raft, holding on to things that have helped you previously. may not be of utmost importance to hold on. For example, I still hold on to objects that have served their purpose in my life. I have teddy bears that were of use when I was a young child growing up. When thunder storms came, I would sleep with my teddy bears so that I would not have to feel afraid. Now that I am older and no longer afraid of thunder storms, there are no needs for me to take my teddy bears with me to college. That phase of my life has passed, as so should I in the case of holding on to things that have served their purpose in it's given time. Over time, holding on to my stuffed animals may become a hindrance when I want to make room for the new useful objects in my life. As the Buddha taught about the raft, when things no longer have value to us, we should let it go because attachment is a form of suffering. We should use what is needed to tackle the obstacle at hand then move on accordingly.

Thou Shall Spread the Good Word, or Not?

One of the most interesting things that I have seen in religious practices is the varying ideas of social or community responsibility. What I mean by is this is the 'duty' for lack of a better word, that is given to members of a certain faith to 'spread the word', or 'bring followers to the light' of whatever truth that is supposed to be uncovered. In Christianity we are told that while the process of getting to heaven is your responsibilty, if you do not share the teachings of Christ with others, you are not sharing the salvation of The Lord and that is a great sin. In Islam there is also responsibility of the man of the family to make sure the rest of the family is following correct Islamic practices. This weeks readings concerning the Buddhist faith stance on this has confused me however.

In The Concealed Art of the Soul by Ganeri, one of the most famous stories is told about the smilie of the raft. Now, this parable was told by the Buddha as a lesson of truth, but also of responsibility. 

"The Buddha tells the story of a man who, having built a raft in
order to get across from a dangerous place to a place of safety, then thinks
to himself 'This raft has been very helpful to me. Suppose I were to hoist
it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.'
The Dhamma is similar to the raft, says the Buddha: it is for the purpose of
crossing over, not for the purpose of holding on to."

(Ganeri, 45-46)

In class we discussed the fact that it was not uncommon for people to be concerned with the self and nothing else. This fine line between what is considered selfish and self-consumed is toyed with in this reading as the man had to be selfish to cross over, but must not be self-consumed enough to not aid another in there journey. This becomes an area of difficulty for me, though as I am not sure if this is aid is given because of the feeling of responsibility or fear of bad karma, inhibiting the continuation of the man to parinirvana. 

After looking at other passages for guidance I also came across this quote in Mahayana Buddhism:

The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams:

‘The Lord has admonished us and praised us that we should live in seclusion’. But it is the
hermit, who considers the monk who visits villages and mixes with laity to be possessed 
of impure morality, who falls to hell after death, while the altruistic preacher is revealed to
be the Buddha in a previous life (Braarvig 2000: 130–1; cf. also Karashima 2001: 159–60)

(Williams, 38)

After reading this, I felt as if I was even more unsure of the answer to this question. The problem for me lies in the fact that the quote leans so much towards the social responsibility ideas that it doesn't actually sound like Buddhism to me. Now I am very aware of my minimal knowledge of Buddhism and when I look back at the last sentence I am confused as to what I menat by 'sounding Buddhist' but it just seems very liberal in comparison to the conservative readings that we have done previously. 

What are these readings saying? Is there a responsibilty to spread the word? And if not then how has the teachings of Buddhism spread over the thousands of years? If there is a responsibility then why is the culture areound the process of enlightenment a singular one? How can one truly release the idea of 'self' if the self is apart of the whole that you are carry responsibility for getting 'to the other side?' Is there even a black and white answer to these questions? 

Does This (Dress) Make Me Look Fat?

These are probably the most dreaded words someone could ever say. Not because of the complexity behind the sentence or the meaning of each word. The difficulty lies in the answer to this age-old question, and many questions just like it. Honesty is sometimes brutal, and yet it is what it is. I guess this allows one to wonder what the idea behind the truth is and what it really means to tell the truth. Does the truth really set you free? Or does the truth set you up? Ganeri focuses on this subject he refers to as "Dangerous Truths" in The Concealed Art of the Soul. 

So to, prince, such speech as the Tathagate knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true and correct, but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe knows the time to use such speech.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true, correct, but unbeneficial, and which is also welcome and agreeable to others; such speech the Tathagathe does not utter.

Such speech as the Tathagate knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is also welcome and agreeable to others; the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech.

This passage comes from a lesson from the Buddha himself. While looking upon this initially, it seems quite repetitive and can be a little confusing. What is occurring however the explanation of the truth in the relation to certain scenarios is. Notice that in only two areas does the Buddha decide it’s a time to speak. Ganeri talks about this decision in the 'Dangerous Truths’. Within the book, he also uses other parables, such as the simile of the snake, as well as the simile of the raft to explain the gravity of truth. To paraphrase both of these parables, there is a time and place for the truth and if it is handled incorrectly the effect is almost certainly negative. As stated in the reading above, it appears that the Buddha does not waste time or truths on unnecessary causes.

Within this chapter of 'Dangerous Truths' Ganeri poses the question does the Buddha lie? The answer to this question however, depends on many factors. First, what is a lie? Is a lie considered the complete absence of the truth or the altering of it? What about the omission? Is the omission of the truth a lie or is it just that? Ganeri tells us that the absence of the truth is not necessarily a negative thing when the absence of truth is not beneficial to a specific situation (54). Ganeri refers to the 'value' of the truth as instrumental, meaning the need for it is not always instant and may vary. With these implications, it would seem that if the situation called for such action, then the truth will not be presented if it has no overall benefit (55).

As I attempt to draw the correlation between these Buddhist concepts, and my own life I, too agree with the idea that the Buddha poses. We are taught by society to tell the truth and that it is the only way to go to heaven, (or nirvana in the Buddhist practice) as well as be a better person overall. As an individual who is known for being blunt, I felt as if I am persecuted for the one thing that is so valued in our society today. As I have matriculated through Spelman, I have realized that I do not express myself as much as I once did, because I find myself considering the feelings of others more important in some cases. Even though I may not agree with this idea. I believe that the negative energy that comes out of an unwelcomed truth is incapable of making impact. So in the future if I am asked those awful 7 words (Does this ___ make me look fat), I know that my answer may be no or even the omission of no and all other words.

Remindings

When I read the readings from Friday It reminds me of how when someone tells you what shouldn’t be done (how the Buddha says not to delight in pleasures) you try to find exceptions or make up your own rules to try and test what was said or to find a way around the rules (how Arittha says pleasure is not an obstacle along the path to liberation.) In the end we know that most rules are set to help us and not hurt us.
            When I read the story of the simile with the snake I also thought of how when people hear things, they like to take it and run with it, when they don’t know the essence of what is being told to them. I also thought of the saying “the more you think you know the less you actually do.” When I read the lines “Instead they learn the Dhamma only for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma” many things popped in my head. The first thing I thought about, being a Christian, is how many people feel that Christians are hypocrites because many of them act in this manner. A lot of Christians will throw bible verses at you, but do not live according to the words in the bible. Then they use the verses to try and condemn you and make you feel like a bad person when in reality they are the ones who are worse off than you. I also thought of how some people to charity for recognition instead of doing to from the heart. Some like to pretend to be interested in the needs of others, but truly couldn’t care less about the beings of others. Or in movies, and possibly real life, people put on for the cameras and when the cameras cut off they show their true character because they feel no one is watching. It reminds me of a movie I watched called Good Deeds and the woman felt as is she was a charity case for the man and she didn’t believe that he would ever want to interact with her if she didn’t need help. I don’t remember the exact quote, but they got into an argument and she said “you don’t even know the price of a gallon of milk!” she was basically saying that he was to busy worrying about how other people saw him that he didn’t truly know the lives of the people who worked for him. (I know I probably went off topic but that’s what I thought about when I was reading.)
            When I read “while the one limits the impact the truth can have on them, the other allows it to saturate the whole of his mental” it goes back to what I was saying in the first paragraph and rules and how they are made to help and not hurt. I thought about how when we don’t learn our lesson from something the first time, you keep going through it, maybe something worse, so that you actually learn your lesson. When we are more receptive to things we don’t have to go through hard times for the point of the lesson to come across. I also thought about how we don’t take things for what they are worth and how we take so much for granted.
            The simile with the raft it reminded me of how as kids our parents/guardians give us things such as pacifiers, night lights, and baby blankets to help us get through different phases in life during times of transition. Once the object has served its purpose it is not needed anymore. Sort of like using training wheels to ride a bike, once you master how to balance on your own the training wheels aren’t needed, but you know the next child on a tricycle will eventually need to the training wheels to get from a tricycle to a bicycle.
            In the next chapter I thought about how sometimes it is so important for people to learn things, people don’t care how the message is said. Some people may even lie to you if it means that you get/understand/hear what you are supposed to. Or how when people have something that you need to hear, but there will be opposing views, they simply state facts as to not appeal to a certain side.

When to tell the truth

This is the first part of my blog post and the quotation is taken from The Concealed Art of the Soul, Passage on Dangerous Truths:

“The Buddha too comes across as reluctant to speak the truth about the self; indeed, he is portrayed as wondering at first whether to try to teach it at all. In a telling moment, he is made to liken his ideas to a snake, hard to grasp safely, dangerous if seized the wrong way. More often, he is given to speak in parables,…”

This section stood out the most to me in the entire section because it’s the most important lesson for one to understand about knowledge. When the question is asked what is the meaning of life? That phrase in itself is a normative question derived from a normative word which is life. We have the biological and scientifical explanations for how to determine a person is alive but what is the meaning of life? There are thousands and millions of answers to that exact question because in reality every one perceives life, their own individual life, to mean something different than someone else.

And the fact that the meaning of life can’t be measured or broken down into one to two simple explanations it’s that reason alone that the Buddha feared trying to blatantly answer that question. And he couldn’t really answer that question because there is no one answer; or to some there may not be an answer at all but if there is an answer then it’s up to us, the people or followers, to figure out and understand the meaning for ourselves. Something this grand and massive can’t merely be given to us but we have to seek it for ourselves.

Because we would not be able to handle the truth about the things the Buddha has already seen, or the things he knows. Somewhere the translation would be lost and that’s why it’s easier to speak in parables to say things are like something else or such as because if we knew the truth we would not be able to grasp or handle it at one time. So does that mean we don’t deserve to know the truth? Don’t deserve to understand the meaning? No. It means we have to read and reread the texts, follow the teachings and try to seek understanding for ourselves as well as vision for ourselves. If the truth got out and taken in the wrong context it could lead to disaster for oneself or many if we can’t comprehend what it is we should comprehend at the time. At least that’s what I got from that passage. 

The Most High T. Norman

"Holy be the name of your lord most high
who created then gave form
who determined then gave us guidance
who made the meadow pasture grow
then turned it to a darkened flood-swept remnant

We will make you recite. You will not forget
    except where the will of God allows"

This sura makes me fully aware that I have no control over the universe where I have not been given that power. GIVEN. I also now know that there will always be reminders of the Sura recitations."The Most High" gives a label to only one entity, who cannot be called a mere person, but a God. the divine God that has allowed life to grow. At any moment, when people of the world under the God that is powerful do not obey or do not honor their blessings, all of it can be taken away. (Taken from: then turned it to a darkened flood-swept remnant).

THE DAWN

This quote is from The Dawn, in The Qu'ran:

"Such is the human being that when his lord
  tries him with generosity and bounty
  he says: my lord has honored me
but when his lord tries him with hunger and lack
  he says: my lord has treated me with disdain"



      When I finished reading this passage, for about the third time, I came to realize thatThe Dawn was an awakening. As The Most High stated, there are constant reminders of what god has done for his people. Here in this reading is the subject of being ungrateful for struggling times, only acknowledging the honor of God in times when He gives, and not when he takes away, or makes day times harder. Another reminder that is present is that you have to be grateful and appreciative of struggling, because after one endures a struggle but continues to honor his lord, good will come of it. One cannot simply live with God if they are constantly praising for good times and favor. The bad times, or times of strife are where you are supposed to pull strength from your God and be buried in his teachings and live in Faith, for not all times are good and not all resources are plentiful.
      In another approach, humankind will point the finger at their God and say what their God has not done, or how they have been shorted, but fail to acknowledge what they as humans have not done in accordance to the God they live by.