America Lucky or Blessed?

mark41974

New Member
The history of the United States is on of constant military conflict. Our beginning is from a military revolution, and most of our expansion is from military conflict or the result of another nations need to finance a military conflict. We rarely set out with the intention of war but our inability to see it coming or our failed attempts to try and avoid it often left us on a unavoidable course with it.
In our history i feel there are three events that speak loudest as our pivotal moments as a Nation.

1.The Battle of Saratoga - our first Major Victory and a paradox of our gratitude. In it we are forever in dept to our most infamous traitor who without we may not have found our selfs a nation.
The shooting of general Burgoyne and pivotal American attack led by Benedict Arnold gave us the international intervention that was needed achieve victory over the British empire (realistically there was no way we could have won without the preoccupation of English forces all over the world and Europe with French and Spanish forces.). It also for the most part weekend the British army in Canada taking away another avenue of approach for a thinly stretched continental army to deal with. Arnold and Morgan were not alone the reasons we won our Independence put without them it becomes far less likely. Arnold may not have been a man of great character but he was a man of great skill.

2.Little Round Top - This may or may not be the pivotal moment of the civil war, that part can be argued. but with the folding of the union left flank the battle more then likely would have been lost, with the battle goes the first time the union has a clear victory in the east, more than likely swaying a already close election in 1864. One thing that cant be questioned is the bravery and luck of then Col. Chamberlain of ordering a charge while outnumbered and out of ammunition at the perfect time to push the southern attackers beyond there limits. Without this move how different would our history books read of the war that set our nation on a more unified and clearer path for a stronger Federal government that would not again be looked at as separate states but as one unified nation.

3.Midway - In no other battle in my opinion is it more apparent that god is on our side. We had the enemy's location, perfectly placed our forces to best deal with the incoming threat and still managed to screw up our initial attack. To me to many factors lead up to the perfect Carrier attack ( the opposite of what American Carrier doctrine is at the time.) to be interpreted as anything less then divine intervention. one a failed submarine attack makes a Japanese destroyer lag behind the main task force. Two our own failed coordination brings our torpedo bombers in for one of the most heroic and wastefully attacks in history.( the courage of those men to go in knowing that more then likely they would be shot down and that there efforts would more then likely be fruitless was amazing we as a nation are forever gratefully to them for there sacrifice.) Three the perfect timing at which the American dive bombers appear with the refueling of the zeroes and refitting of the attack planes on the Japanese decks not to mention the number of hits scored in the attack. This just being the tactical examination of the battle.
Strategically midway changes the aspect of the war in the pacific. we no longer are outnumbered fighting a defensive action. the Japanese navy's offensive capabilities would never be the same and all they could do from that point on is defend what they have. with the fall of midway pearl harbor and the pacific fleet is just a few thousand miles away. without the loss of thoughts carriers they could have more than likely pressed the naval advantage leaving us without the ability to resupply or relieve a force at pearl harbor. with pearl goes the pacific supply line and we are forced to the peace table with our tail between our legs. If you think this is unlikely just look at when our new capital ships and carriers start coming on line not until 44 is the us Navy unstoppable and i point out again thats because its not facing 5 veteran Japanese carriers. world war two looks much different without US victory in the pacific and i think we ow that to the pilots and crew of those two torpedo squadrons.

please comment or point out faults in my logic i would love the exchange.
 
I'm not a specialist in US history, but such views always surprise me. Superpowers do not emerge from scratch or by pure accident. If the Americans were unprepared but still won the battle anyway, it doesn't point neither at the Divine Intervention nor at some blessing. It is only because the Americans were still prepared better than their opponents - no more, no less. History doesn't know what if.
 
If there were a god, there would never have been any wars, so we can rule out "god" being on anyone's side.

Unless of course, he is an incompetent god, one who is all powerful and all seeing, yet lets man slaughter his fellow man (supposedly all god's children) I would suggest that if he were human the Government would take his children off of him and put them in foster care. Hardly the act of a "god"
 
Unless of course, he is an incompetent god, one who is all powerful and all seeing, yet lets man slaughter his fellow man (supposedly all god's children) I would suggest that if he were human the Government would take his children off of him and put them in foster care. Hardly the act of a "god"
Hah good one! :D
 
Sigh... all these narrow minded, short sighted people who refuse to believe anything they don't have answers for in order to believe in... things they have no answer for.

Well, whatever. Science sure has proven a lot to us, hasn't it? It couldn't possibly be that God created a structured set of blocks in which defined parameters operate outside of any plane of our current understanding, each little piece affecting another little piece.

Nope. It's all random chance. Every bit of it. Those algorithmic patterns we use to describe and define the very chemicals that we have faith in as the goo that binds life together, with zero proof of any of the such, is an act of pure chaos, two lifeless meteors slamming together.

It's always fun debating with those who believe the unbelievable to dismiss the unbelievable. Y'all fail in your very core beliefs; science itself has proven that there is nothing "random," yet you tout it as some victorious citation. Guess what? If "random" cannot exist, as science says, then "design" is the only other way. Or how about "planned?" We like to call those 'opposing terms' when we're talking about debates, but I am sure none of you will have any of that realistic, mature and educated logic.

That can't exist, because I am a product of quadrillions of atoms slamming together in random patterns, with a chance of life being 1.67 TRILLION to the TENTH power, and then again to the TENTH POWER.

The number is so large that, literally, this board wouldn't let me post it all in one post.

But that's more likely than some type of divinity, right? That one in whatever-billions-of-billions-of-billions chances is far more believable for 3.9 billion people living on the planet than admitting that you. Just. Don't. Know. It. All.

What arrogance from such simple minds...
 
Oh, to the OP:

I'll overlook the number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors lost in the gibberish of a point-not-reached just to say this:

If God has anything to do with war, then mankind has no free will, negating the very concept of God creating man with the insight to formulate and calculate his and her own decisions outside of His influence.

Like the anti-God extremists, the pro-God extremist "Divine Intervention" proponents are equally as laughable in their commonality of arrogance and, yes, narcissism.

Y'all are constantly trying to define divinity - you're putting a box around something you don't understand so you can understand it. Like the atheists, your very beliefs are a dichotomy, a slippery slope with no drop off.

Before I continue, may I recommend a piece of literature? Philip Yancy - Disappointment With God. He articulates MUCH more clearly (and with greater brevity, which I apologize for) the idea that God gave us our chance and, basically, has decided to move on. Every single time in recorded history He has acted on our behalf, we used it and became even more disobedient when our expectations overcame our sense of appreciation.

(senojekips: I know you'll enjoy that book VERY much, as you're a thinker. We disagree on this subject, you and I, but we have never once engaged each other in anything but the utmost respect and politeness to our individual right to belief. I understand that your mind will not be turned, so that is not the purpose of this recommendation - I just feel that your intellect will greatly appreciate the insight offered from that silent, third-party view. Yancy is a master at it, though he himself is a Christian).


OK, rant back on...

The very word 'divinity' suggests omnipotence, which is where humans get their understanding of "limitations" from. Without an unreachable standard, every effort reaches a point where it terminates. That's dangerous ground, a gross sense of ever-importance (not OVER-importance) that tempts those to grandstand their personal worth.

To believe in the concept of "God," one MUST accept the concept of free will. Otherwise, God created puppets and His son's death on the cross was an impromptu show of nothingness but sacrifice - a farce. Jesus Himself is a particular part of God no longer to be part of any free-will love offered. How can one sacrifice to a sacrifice? If you want a martyr, look at the churches. If you want divinity, forget you know, period.

That's what the entire sacrifice was all about: the reckoning of our decisions because God gave us a choice.

So if God is up there at the Heaven Slot Machine pulling the handle to decide who lives and dies, which nation wins, then what does that say about the patterns of free will? That we're allowed to have it but that He'll step in, anyway?

Do I believe America is blessed? Yes. But it is because of the hearts of the men and women who live here and fight for her of their own FREE WILL.

But lucky? We're back to random chance, which science has disproved as realistic or even possible.

Catch-22? Not to those who refuse to put things in boxes and consider them one way.
 
Y'all are constantly trying to define divinity - you're putting a box around something you don't understand so you can understand it.
And you do understand all of this. Despite the fact that in 2000+ years no one has ever been able to produce a single shred of evidence to support your point of view?

(senojekips: I know you'll enjoy that book VERY much, as you're a thinker. We disagree on this subject, you and I, but we have never once engaged each other in anything but the utmost respect and politeness to our individual right to belief. I understand that your mind will not be turned, so that is not the purpose of this recommendation - I just feel that your intellect will greatly appreciate the insight offered from that silent, third-party view. Yancy is a master at it, though he himself is a Christian).
I also enjoyed the writings of Tolkien, but regardless of his writings, I have never been tempted to think that they are any more than children's stories. Similarly I could never take seriously the thoughts of a person who honestly believes in "a man who lives in the sky", all seeing, all powerful, yet who for reasons known only to himself allows murder and all manner of cruelty among those he allegedly created.

If it were so I would despise him anyway, putting him into the category of those who organise and oversee dog fights and child molesters etc., because that would have to be the level of his morality. If this is your god, well,... you are welcome to him, just don't expect people with a brain or any sense of morality to believe you. I would seriously suggest that he only exists on the imaginations of those who do not have the backbone to stand up for what is right, they can use their god to excuse them from moral behaviour

So please, let's leave the creatures of some persons imagination out what is supposed to be an otherwise logical debate.
 
If there were a god, there would never have been any wars, so we can rule out "god" being on anyone's side.

Unless of course, he is an incompetent god, one who is all powerful and all seeing, yet lets man slaughter his fellow man (supposedly all god's children) I would suggest that if he were human the Government would take his children off of him and put them in foster care. Hardly the act of a "god"

god was certainly on his peoples' side in the bible when they massacred multiple nations
 
And you do understand all of this. Despite the fact that in 2000+ years no one has ever been able to produce a single shred of evidence to support your point of view?

No. My point is that we'll NEVER understand it. How can I understand anything except that I'll never understand everything? I expected better from you, hoss.

I also enjoyed the writings of Tolkien, but regardless of his writings, I have never been tempted to think that they are any more than children's stories. Similarly I could never take seriously the thoughts of a person who honestly believes in "a man who lives in the sky", all seeing, all powerful, yet who for reasons known only to himself allows murder and all manner of cruelty among those he allegedly created.

That's why I specially notated its possible enjoyment to you. You don't HAVE to believe in God for this. The book is, as a matter of fact, an argument AGAINST leaning on God. It purports your exact argument in the next paragraph: that man is responsible for his own morality. It does so with the predisposition of an Omnipotent God, the Christian God, in fact, but just as you can overlook the Christianity of Tolkien to enjoy his thoughts and patterns, so too should you in this case.

If God has given up on us, no wonder He doesn't give a crap if we war with each other.

If it were so I would despise him anyway, putting him into the category of those who organise and oversee dog fights and child molesters etc., because that would have to be the level of his morality. If this is your god, well,... you are welcome to him, just don't expect people with a brain or any sense of morality to believe you. I would seriously suggest that he only exists on the imaginations of those who do not have the backbone to stand up for what is right, they can use their god to excuse them from moral behaviour

So please, let's leave the creatures of some persons imagination out what is supposed to be an otherwise logical debate.

Joe, how can you possibly justify the nonsense above?

First of all, the entire precept of this thread is decidedly arguing for or against a concept that requires divinity. You replied to this thread long before I did with your thoughts of negating a god. How can I possibly comment on the thread or your comments if I "leave the creatures of some persons imagination out what is supposed to be an otherwise logical debate."

What's logical about a debate centered on God that doesn't include the concept of... God?

You're going to pull something if'n you keep stretching that far, bro! Careful! :neutral:

But you're also suggesting that a God ignore all human free will and step in and stop every bad thing that we could ever do to one another.

You're a soldier, Joe! You, like me, value freedom above everything else. Yet we expect God to jump in and control our actions? That's logical? A brain? A sense of morality? You believe I lack these things? You cannot accept that I am intelligent, that I have very high morals, and yet I attribute those qualities to God, whereas you attribute them to...

Oh, right. Randomness. That cannot exist. Like your argument against it in that reply. Never debate that which you cannot, even if you stood yourself in the corner, right?

So you believe in what is IMPOSSIBLE, lecturing me on my belief in the improbable...

And I have no brain. Genius!

Man, you've lost your edge since I have been gone. It usually takes me 8 to 10 posts before I pick apart everything you've said. Embarrassing your argument (not YOU, your argument) was too easy this time.

So, um, tell me where your feelings come from in this - you know, those things that have zero physical plane existence, that cannot even exist, that completely go 180 degrees of what we know about how everything exists. That science has done such a wonderful job explaining. You know, like the difference between loving your wife and your daughter - it's not morality, it is unexplainable except to say that it is there, that it came from... nothing, and yet here it is, something. A difference in the way you feel, but the same in so many regards. Evolution? Of a FEELING? of something that has no existence except in your heart and mind?

You believe in your feelings well enough, and you accept them as there in you for a reason, important to you, a natural thing in any human. But they cannot exist, brother. There are no atoms to bind, no chemical composition to mix, no mathematical formula that ambiguously explains some of it, no nothing. They simply do not exist. But they DO exist.

I see God with that same level of understanding and explanation. I don't need to know to know that I don't know - I already don't know enough to know that I don't know...

:jump:

LOL!

I'm not trying to convince you of anything except your own, flawed logic that we introduce logic into a conversation about things that cannot exist in the logical world.
 
god was certainly on his peoples' side in the bible when they massacred multiple nations

If the bible is a conglomeration of fairy tales, what point are you attempting to make here? That fables of children are your insurmountable proof of the NON-existence of a higher power?

So, quoting the bible is laughed at as "fictions" when it purports the existence of God. But that same source is perfectly credible when it denies the same?

Man, y'all seriously need some practice!

I am here to please! :) <tips hat>
 
No. My point is that we'll NEVER understand it. How can I understand anything except that I'll never understand everything? I expected better from you, hoss.
Like "real" magic?... C'monnnnn, No body is talking about understanding everything, we are just talking about understanding one mind blowingly simple thing. The fact that there is no man in the sky.

That's why I specially notated its possible enjoyment to you. You don't HAVE to believe in God for this. The book is, as a matter of fact, an argument AGAINST leaning on God. It purports your exact argument in the next paragraph: that man is responsible for his own morality. It does so with the predisposition of an Omnipotent God, the Christian God, in fact, but just as you can overlook the Christianity of Tolkien to enjoy his thoughts and patterns, so too should you in this case.
You seriously underestimate me, I have no need of the support of others to justify my case, I stand on my own two feet and don't need others to explain to me why my deductions are correct, so, No,... I don't know that I would enjoy the book.

If God has given up on us, no wonder He doesn't give a crap if we war with each other.
You mean to say that although he allegedly has he power to arrange any outcome he desires, he has elected to just let us squabble like the children of a irresponsible parent? That's hardly "godlike" behaviour is it? It wouldn't even be socially acceptable here on earth.

Joe, how can you possibly justify the nonsense above?
Simple,... I use facts and my moral judgement. A morality that would appear to be far and away better than that displayed by your "god".

First of all, the entire precept of this thread is decidedly arguing for or against a concept that requires divinity. You replied to this thread long before I did with your thoughts of negating a god. How can I possibly comment on the thread or your comments if I "leave the creatures of some persons imagination out what is supposed to be an otherwise logical debate."
Use your powers of morality and deduction to come to conclusions of your own based on your morality not those of some mythical being. After all we want facts, and we can't even start if people are going to introduce points based on a theory that is totally without proof or beneficial prior example.

What's logical about a debate centered on God that doesn't include the concept of... God?
Nothing can be "centred" on an non existent being other than a theory. Any points raised in a logical debate must have a basis in truth, and that precludes things based on unproven theories.

You're going to pull something if'n you keep stretching that far, bro! Careful! :neutral:
Please explain what you are on about, as I have absolutely no idea.

But you're also suggesting that a God ignore all human free will and step in and stop every bad thing that we could ever do to one another.
I am not suggesting anything,... as there is no god, all I have done is to point our the ridiculousness of the belief that there is a man in the sky who has the power to fix all yet like some lazy or delinquent brat elects to do nothing. Weird!,... that's all I can say.

You're a soldier, Joe! You, like me, value freedom above everything else. Yet we expect God to jump in and control our actions? That's logical? A brain? A sense of morality? You believe I lack these things? You cannot accept that I am intelligent, that I have very high morals, and yet I attribute those qualities to God, whereas you attribute them to...
WRONG,... I am not a Soldier, I am firstly a human being,... my days of being a Serviceman are long gone, other than that what connection has this to do with my morals or a mythical being who elects not to control anything that he has allegedly created.

Oh, right. Randomness. That cannot exist. Like your argument against it in that reply. Never debate that which you cannot, even if you stood yourself in the corner, right?
I am totally mystified as to what point you have tried to make here or even if you read my answer , as your answer seems to have nothing to do with it.??

So you believe in what is IMPOSSIBLE, lecturing me on my belief in the improbable...

And I have no brain. Genius!

Man, you've lost your edge since I have been gone. It usually takes me 8 to 10 posts before I pick apart everything you've said. Embarrassing your argument (not YOU, your argument) was too easy this time.
I am totally mystified as to what point you are trying to make here, or even if there is a point, as your answer seems to have nothing to do anything that I have said??

So, um, tell me where your feelings come from in this -
Answer: Knowledge, that is, learning based upon known facts,... not some mythical belief.
It would appear that you entirely misunderstand logic you have it all @rse about face. I do not believe in my feelings, as you purport, but,.... my feelings are shaped by that which I know (knowledge).

I'm not trying to convince you of anything except your own, flawed logic that we introduce logic into a conversation about things that cannot exist in the logical world.
Well, first you will have to start with some truth and logical thoughts based on that truth, until then, you may as well bark at the moon.

Now how about we get back on to the subject keeping to Facts rather than supposition based on belief.
 
Last edited:
I do believe we have been blessed. the bible is one of the oldest books in print, and the whole thing is in perfect unity, something which writers of today that weren't thousands of miles and centuries apart fail to do. how do you explain that?
 
I do believe we have been blessed. the bible is one of the oldest books in print, and the whole thing is in perfect unity, something which writers of today that weren't thousands of miles and centuries apart fail to do. how do you explain that?
No one mentioned the "bobble" as i think I have seen this go far enough off topic, but while we're here, there are plenty of fables that are at least as old. The fears and insecurities of ancient man are not the type of thing 21st century man wants to shape his life and moral values upon. It has been the cause of too much brutality already.

Explain to me, what is in perfect unity? If you wish to make this a pissing contest, start a separate thread elsewhere so we don't get ticked off by the Moderators and I will list plenty of inaccuracies, and double standards in "the bobble". From "god" sanctioned mass killings of women and children; from murder and mayhem beyond belief, to the outright ludicrous. If you care to read back over the myriad threads on this subject here on the Forum I'm sure that you will find that you don't want to go there in any way, shape or form.

Was 9/11 one of your many "blessings"? If so why are you going to war over it.
 
Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that their religion and their god is the only valid source of morality. Why? Because they believe that their god is the author of morality and whatever their god tells them is, necessarily, moral - disobedience, in contrast, is by definition sinful and immoral. But what if their god commands them to kill?

This really isn’t a hypothetical question. Believers might object that their god would never demand such a thing, but that’s a flimsy excuse for ignoring a difficult issue. The Bible is full of stories about god commanding believers to go out and kill their enemies. The slaughter the occurs in the Old Testament is extensive and gruesome.

If the believer doesn’t accept this as literal and doesn’t accept such tales as exercising any authority over them (not an unreasonable position), there is still the story of Abraham who was ordered to kill his first-born son. A person might reject the historicity of this story as well, but what can’t so readily be rejected is his position as the “father of faith” for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. He is an example of absolute obedience to God and this is not something which can readily re-interpreted.

The above question opens a huge can of worms for believers, which is why I think many simply try to avoid dealing with it. If you think that you have received such an order but believe that it’s from Satan rather from God, or merely a delusion, then how can you believe that anyone else who has claimed to received communication from God also wasn’t deluded or tricked? If you accept that such an order is genuine, how can you dismiss anyone else as being deluded?

If God really is the author and source of morality, then disobedience would be immoral — but I think that few believers would actually obey orders to kill. This suggests that they don’t really believe that their god is the source of morality and that it’s possible to exercise moral evaluation and judgment without reference to theism and religion. Those who would obey, however, are demonstrating that strict adherence to one’s religion is actually detrimental to moral reasoning and behavior.
 
I think you both are making excellent points. I'm no Theistic Relativist, so I have zero problems questioning the very God I, in turn, have faith in. While that may sound like the ultimate in dichotomy, even outright refusal to deal with topics questioning God, I do not share any such inhibition.

I will sit here and objectively listen to and actually ponder upon anyone who brings a contention to light that addresses the goodness of a God Who sits upstairs and allows bad things to happen.

Indeed, Christians haven't needed Moral Relativists to make them aware that God, the creator of love, who supposedly loves us all equally, sits up there and lets bad thing after bad thing happen when all He has to do is POOF! appear and say, "Hellllooooooo - I'm right here, and I am very real. Now quit it." In fact, you can take ANY story in the bible--any one at all--and see where God did just that and mankind didn't listen, anyway.

The topic here MUST touch on the belief IN God, lest no one here can possibly discuss the topic itself: Is America Blessed?

I see absolutely, zero reason why the three of us would stoop down to any level of childishness and require the intervention of a moderator. No one here has been disrespectful or impolite or in any way acting in a manner that violate the TOS. We're adults. We can sit around and discuss what we disagree upon. If others cannot, do what I do and ignore them. I'm 39 and don't need daddy to slap my wrist to have mutual respect for differing opinions.



If you want me to provide insurmountable, credible proof that God even exists, I cannot. If you want me to even attempt to explain why I believe in a God who, seemingly, pokes His head in the sand at evil things, then I cannot. If you wish me to address how wars are "blessed" or "not blessed" by a deity, then I'm going to fail at that, too.

All I can say with confidence is this:

True love (Agape love) does not control. It cannot control. It can provide every reason NOT to do something, but in the end love ends where freedom does.

The truest measure of love is to want to be loved in return, but never to force it.

To create something and control it, to MAKE it love you, to interfere with its good and bad decisions, is not Agape love; it is not freedom of choice, freedom of will, or freedom to use talents and power.

In that regard, I do not blame God for one second for throwing His hands up at our outright lack of obedience and refusal to adhere to the moral code of right and wrong that everyone is born with. He's tried it a number of times, and we failed to comply. As a result, the omnipotent God failed. Love sometimes does fail. It's not perfect by any means, as it, once again, cannot control.

In the end, however, I think we can all agree on this:

The Freedom we enjoy isn't a matter of being blessed or being lucky. Like your respective countries, that freedom is bought through the sacrifice of men and women who put themselves in harm's way for the people of their nation - their self-preservation becomes second to those who cannot defend themselves.

Of those men and women, some believe in a god, and others do not. But they are all out there doing what their moral code says is the right thing: duty before self.

Being blessed or lucky has nothing to do with it.
 
Being blessed or lucky has nothing to do with it.
That's about as close as I could get also. But like others I have noticed that those who use their brain to think logically and are not afraid to work hard at their given goal seem to be the "luckiest" if that is how you judge things.
 
No one mentioned the "bobble" as i think I have seen this go far enough off topic, but while we're here, there are plenty of fables that are at least as old. The fears and insecurities of ancient man are not the type of thing 21st century man wants to shape his life and moral values upon. It has been the cause of too much brutality already.

Explain to me, what is in perfect unity? If you wish to make this a pissing contest, start a separate thread elsewhere so we don't get ticked off by the Moderators and I will list plenty of inaccuracies, and double standards in "the bobble". From "god" sanctioned mass killings of women and children; from murder and mayhem beyond belief, to the outright ludicrous. If you care to read back over the myriad threads on this subject here on the Forum I'm sure that you will find that you don't want to go there in any way, shape or form.

Was 9/11 one of your many "blessings"? If so why are you going to war over it.
1: mass killings: are you talking of the crusades or something else? 2: 9/11 is not a blessing, it is a curse. but it is not gods fault. god respects free will, and will not just puppet us all. we can choose to be psychopaths if we want and god will respect that decision. I mean, you will still god to hell, but he will respect the decision.
 
That's about as close as I could get also. But like others I have noticed that those who use their brain to think logically and are not afraid to work hard at their given goal seem to be the "luckiest" if that is how you judge things.

I call that intelligence, diligence and tenacity. I see nothing lucky or godly about it.

When one is incapable of understanding fate, one shouldn't tempt it. :salute2:
 
When one is incapable of understanding fate, one shouldn't tempt it.

Fate is such an easy doorway to escape from our tales of woes and sufferings. But, who should we blame for all this make-believe. Who is responsible for this bogus hypothesis? Does fate have an entity of its own? Has anyone seen fate lurking around our window? No, yet the whole psychology of fate has been so deeply embedded in our mind that whenever something wrong occurs in our lives, we tend to believe it as a result of our fate. Things were meant to be such because it was already written by some fellow in our fate book.

Fabricating the idea of “fate or destiny,” priests and so called moralists, protectors or preservers of the society have found a way to defend themselves when their statement, “Truth always wins” fails. And, yes, when the falsehood or lie emerges victorious, which we regularly witness in the real world, then there is always fate, to blame upon. And, hence all your failures, miseries, misfortunes, and woes are determined by what had been written in your fate.

Here are my suggestions:

Accept whatever comes in life in its totality. That means having the courage to accept sorrows, jealousy, anger, pain and your failures as they are. Failures are also part of life just as is happiness, so accept them, don’t run away from them. Without failures, what is the joy of being successful? Hence, do not comfort yourself by holding your fate responsible for your failures. Be willing to accept them with utmost joy and grace. The prime reason for failures is inability to accept things as they are. It’s not your fate or destiny.

Simply have trust in yourself. It’s your point of view that determines failure or success. It’s your feeling of inner contentment that makes a big impact in your life. If you are perfectly happy with what you have or what’s been given to you by the existence then you are the most successful person in the world.
 
Back
Top