Dave,
Many of us live in a false world of wrong assumptions and dance to the tunes of fear.
When we rate a living being based on his/her/its intention, why not question the fundamentals?
When an instrument created goes wrong, a sensible human will immediately try to rectify the same. Read the INTENTION.
If a mortal has sense to reverse his wrong doing, why not God (who has control over everything)? Why there has been a long wait? It raises various 'senseless' assumptions.
One such is: 'Remember the fights in the film Gladiator (the best of the species get the privilege to watch gory).'
I repeat, the above is only a SENSELESS assumption.
My question was simple and straight:
"Whether there was a REAL need for the creator? Is he not divine enough to predict the gory future and stop it in the beginning itself?"
Why did not God force love? Why was Lucifer/wicked-thinking allowed or even created? Read the INTENTION.
“LOVE IS GOD” is more relevant than “God is Love”.
- donkeySOUP
Msg posted by Dave in catholicquestions:
God is a Family. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the Trinity: three Persons in one divine nature. The Father and Son share love for each other and give each other so much love that the love they give eternally is the distinct divine Person of the Holy Spirit. God created the heavens out of love and He created His creatures to love and to be loved. True love is not forced, it is a choice and so God gave His creatures free-will so that they could choose to love Him or not to love Him. Lucifer filled with pride wanted to be greater than God and chose not to love God but rather took him and his followers to spite God. God created the world and animals then decided to make a creature in His own image "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" that mankind could then share in the love of the Trinity -so with similarities of the Trinity - husband and wife share a love so deep that when they become one the love they share becomes a distinct person; however Lucifer tempted Adam and Eve so that they would fall into sin and they did...
however God choose not to start all over or to wipe out the human race but rather used the fall of Adam and Eve to eventually give Lucifer the biggest blow of giving Mary the grace of being immaculately conceived to undue the knots of Eve so that she would be a worthy dwelling place for God the Father's Son who would become flesh and defeat Satan by offering His own Body and Blood to mankind so that they could participate in the family of God which is now being
lived out through the Church.
God is love.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Scope for Achievement
Got to read an article going rounds over the internet (pasted below). Though the intention (author not known) is good, felt some of the points does not reflect the true essence of contemporary approach. Hence i thought of sharing my views.
Anyone who spends reasonable time in the known territory will master the topography and can one day become the master of that territory (provided he is above average). That is also an achievement. But the scope of achievement is not limited to this small territory. For some, achievement is limited to a small area (refer my blog on happiness). But for few others, it goes beyond boundaries till they reach the self-actualisation stage of different kind. These are ‘high’ risk takers who dare to go beyond the normal and reach the destination (of course the 'materialistic' carrot compliments their effort). It is also an achievement of different kind.
Both the above processes compliment evolution. The first produces a master who is skillful in a core area and the second produces a master who uses his different skills/knowledge to trigger intersectional applications for progressive use. It is the people of second kind who are welcome in the emerging sectors as they work across verticals and a multi-disciplinary man at top will add more value.
Yes, it is a fact that too much of cross-over is happening. But as long as a person spends atleast 2-3 years and value-add, it is well within the limits. I suppose ROI is the mantra and will remain so - short or long.
Also with respect to past performances, one MNC (rather a desi-version) was once considered as the CEO Producer for the Corporate India. Under centralized structure, organisations cannot accommodate too many brilliant performers at top. ‘In and Out’ movements will balance the power structure/struggle at top. And many of the top-notch CEOs of present era are those who have soiled their hands at different verticals. And there are many latent talent lying under-used because of their long stint with one organisation and over-crowding at top later. When they realize and start looking at market, they are considered misfit as the candidates with same experience will be drawing double the salary in the market. In the process, industry may have lost an excellent candidate.
Achievement can be derived – from single or multiple platforms. Factors like environment, perception, etc plays convenience role.
Thus carrot based ‘materialistic’ or ‘dynamic’ approach is a kind of blessing in disguise. It paves way for advancement in intersectional approach. It is a competitive world out there and this dynamic world rewards the competitive one more. It is up to the individual to choose the one which fits aptly. It is very difficult to reverse this new found ‘dynamism’ as mentioned in my blog on ‘culture degradation’. One has to get adjusted to it.
“Ships are safer in harbour, but they are not made for that purpose”
- donkeySOUP
The grass isn't always greener on the other side!! (author unknown)
Move from one job to another, but only for the right reasons. It's yet another day at office. As I logged on to the marketing and advertising sites for the latest updates, as usual, I found the headlines dominated by 'who's' moving from one company to another after a short stint', and I wondered, why are so many people leaving one job for another? Is it passé now to work with just one company for a sufficiently long period?
Whenever I ask this question to people who leave a company, the answers I get are: "Oh, I am getting a 200% hike in salary"; "Well I am jumping three levels in my designation"; "Well they are going to send me abroad in six months".
Then, I look around at all the people who are considered successful today and who have reached the top - be it a media agency, an advertising agency or a company. I find that most of these people are the ones who stuck to the company, ground their heels and worked their way to the top. And, as I look around for people who change their jobs constantly, I find they have stagnated at some level, in obscurity.
In this absolute ruthless, dynamic and competitive environment, there are still no - short cuts to success or to making money. The only thing that continues to pay, as earlier is loyalty and hard work. Yes, it pays!
Sometimes, immediately, sometimes after a lot of time. But, it does pay. Does this mean that one should stick to an organization and wait for the golden moment? Of course not. After, a long stint, there always comes a time for moving in most organisations, but it is important to move for the right reasons, rather than the superficial ones, like money, designation or oversees trip.
Remember, no company recruits for charity. More often than not, when you are offered an unseemly hike in salary or designation that is disproportionate to what the company offers it current employees, there is always an unseemly bait attached. The result? You will, in the long term have reached the same level or may be lower levels than what you would have in your current company.
A lot of people leave their organisations because they are 'unhappy'. What is this so called unhappiness? I have been working for donkey years and there has never been a day when I am not unhappy about something in my work environment - boss, rude colleagues, fussy clients etc.
Unhappiness in a work place, to a large extent, is transient. If you look hard enough, there is always something to be unhappy about. But, more importantly, do I come to work to be "happy" in the truest sense?
If I think hard, the answer is "No".
Happiness is something you find with family, friends, may be a close circle of colleagues who have become friends. What you come to work for is to earn, build a reputation, satisfy your ambitions, be appreciated for your work ethics, face challenges and get the job done.
So, the next time you are tempered to move on, as yourself why are you moving and what are you moving into?
Some questions are:
* Am I ready and capable of handling the new responsibility? If yes, what could be the possible reasons my current company has not offered me the same responsibility?
* Who are the people who currently handle this responsibility in the current and new company? Am I good as the best among them?
* As the new job offer has a different profile, why have I not given the current company the option to offer me this profile?
* Why is the new company offering the new job? Do they want me for my skills, or is that ulterior motive?
An honest answer to these will eventually decide where you go in your career - to the top of the pile in the long term (at the cost of short - term blips) or to become another average employee who gets lost with the time in wilderness?
Anyone who spends reasonable time in the known territory will master the topography and can one day become the master of that territory (provided he is above average). That is also an achievement. But the scope of achievement is not limited to this small territory. For some, achievement is limited to a small area (refer my blog on happiness). But for few others, it goes beyond boundaries till they reach the self-actualisation stage of different kind. These are ‘high’ risk takers who dare to go beyond the normal and reach the destination (of course the 'materialistic' carrot compliments their effort). It is also an achievement of different kind.
Both the above processes compliment evolution. The first produces a master who is skillful in a core area and the second produces a master who uses his different skills/knowledge to trigger intersectional applications for progressive use. It is the people of second kind who are welcome in the emerging sectors as they work across verticals and a multi-disciplinary man at top will add more value.
Yes, it is a fact that too much of cross-over is happening. But as long as a person spends atleast 2-3 years and value-add, it is well within the limits. I suppose ROI is the mantra and will remain so - short or long.
Also with respect to past performances, one MNC (rather a desi-version) was once considered as the CEO Producer for the Corporate India. Under centralized structure, organisations cannot accommodate too many brilliant performers at top. ‘In and Out’ movements will balance the power structure/struggle at top. And many of the top-notch CEOs of present era are those who have soiled their hands at different verticals. And there are many latent talent lying under-used because of their long stint with one organisation and over-crowding at top later. When they realize and start looking at market, they are considered misfit as the candidates with same experience will be drawing double the salary in the market. In the process, industry may have lost an excellent candidate.
Achievement can be derived – from single or multiple platforms. Factors like environment, perception, etc plays convenience role.
Thus carrot based ‘materialistic’ or ‘dynamic’ approach is a kind of blessing in disguise. It paves way for advancement in intersectional approach. It is a competitive world out there and this dynamic world rewards the competitive one more. It is up to the individual to choose the one which fits aptly. It is very difficult to reverse this new found ‘dynamism’ as mentioned in my blog on ‘culture degradation’. One has to get adjusted to it.
“Ships are safer in harbour, but they are not made for that purpose”
- donkeySOUP
The grass isn't always greener on the other side!! (author unknown)
Move from one job to another, but only for the right reasons. It's yet another day at office. As I logged on to the marketing and advertising sites for the latest updates, as usual, I found the headlines dominated by 'who's' moving from one company to another after a short stint', and I wondered, why are so many people leaving one job for another? Is it passé now to work with just one company for a sufficiently long period?
Whenever I ask this question to people who leave a company, the answers I get are: "Oh, I am getting a 200% hike in salary"; "Well I am jumping three levels in my designation"; "Well they are going to send me abroad in six months".
Then, I look around at all the people who are considered successful today and who have reached the top - be it a media agency, an advertising agency or a company. I find that most of these people are the ones who stuck to the company, ground their heels and worked their way to the top. And, as I look around for people who change their jobs constantly, I find they have stagnated at some level, in obscurity.
In this absolute ruthless, dynamic and competitive environment, there are still no - short cuts to success or to making money. The only thing that continues to pay, as earlier is loyalty and hard work. Yes, it pays!
Sometimes, immediately, sometimes after a lot of time. But, it does pay. Does this mean that one should stick to an organization and wait for the golden moment? Of course not. After, a long stint, there always comes a time for moving in most organisations, but it is important to move for the right reasons, rather than the superficial ones, like money, designation or oversees trip.
Remember, no company recruits for charity. More often than not, when you are offered an unseemly hike in salary or designation that is disproportionate to what the company offers it current employees, there is always an unseemly bait attached. The result? You will, in the long term have reached the same level or may be lower levels than what you would have in your current company.
A lot of people leave their organisations because they are 'unhappy'. What is this so called unhappiness? I have been working for donkey years and there has never been a day when I am not unhappy about something in my work environment - boss, rude colleagues, fussy clients etc.
Unhappiness in a work place, to a large extent, is transient. If you look hard enough, there is always something to be unhappy about. But, more importantly, do I come to work to be "happy" in the truest sense?
If I think hard, the answer is "No".
Happiness is something you find with family, friends, may be a close circle of colleagues who have become friends. What you come to work for is to earn, build a reputation, satisfy your ambitions, be appreciated for your work ethics, face challenges and get the job done.
So, the next time you are tempered to move on, as yourself why are you moving and what are you moving into?
Some questions are:
* Am I ready and capable of handling the new responsibility? If yes, what could be the possible reasons my current company has not offered me the same responsibility?
* Who are the people who currently handle this responsibility in the current and new company? Am I good as the best among them?
* As the new job offer has a different profile, why have I not given the current company the option to offer me this profile?
* Why is the new company offering the new job? Do they want me for my skills, or is that ulterior motive?
An honest answer to these will eventually decide where you go in your career - to the top of the pile in the long term (at the cost of short - term blips) or to become another average employee who gets lost with the time in wilderness?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
