The rule of human faithfulness

It’s never a question of whether a man, woman, or child can be trusted, but wherein and on pain of what. Faith is a heuristic, and no one is smart enough or rational enough not to rely on deeply held heuristics. Therefore, rather than asking whether someone will remain true, ask yourself to what and to whom they will remain true, and at what price.

The scale of faithfulness isn’t measured in opportunities deferred because it isn’t based in economical behavior. Deferring gain doesn’t produce a desire to re-examine one’s deeply held beliefs the way pain and loss do, so revealed preference isn’t an accurate yardstick. Are they able to give up a finger before reconsidering their deeply held belief that this loyalty is worth further personal cost? Freedom? A testicle? A career? A family member’s life? Their God-given mind and personality?

To express this again, faithfulness is measured in appendages removed before reaching an existential crisis about remaining true to something or someone in particular which was previously considered essential and unquestionable.

(This post sponsored by MTs Incorporated.)

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The rule of human faithfulness

  1. Pingback: Tyr and Fenrir (Punished Inuyasha) | Aeoli Pera

  2. fgth says:

    Do not rely on a friend;

    do not trust in a companion.

    Seal the doors of your mouth

    from her who lies in your arms.b

    6For a son dishonors his father,

    a daughter rises against her mother,

    and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

    a man’s enemies are the members

    of his own household.

    Just trust in Yah, men can’t be trusted.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      To clarify for others, this is not a single continuous quote. The first is from Micah, decrying the sinfulness of Israel, and the second is Jesus talking about how his existence will divide people at a level deeper than family bonds.

      It appears disingenuous to treat them as a single quote but I’ll assume it was a mistake.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Just trust in Yah, men can’t be trusted.

      Again, the question isn’t whether men can be trusted in a binary sense, but in what situations they can and can’t be trusted. You’re drawing the wrong lesson from those Bible passages. The difference is that God’s faithfulness is perfect and man’s is limited by weakness.

  3. Aeoli Pera says:

    >Just trust in Yah, men can’t be trusted.

    Again, the question isn’t whether men can be trusted in a binary sense, but in what situations they can and can’t be trusted. You’re drawing the wrong lesson from those Bible passages. The difference is that God’s faithfulness is perfect and man’s is limited by weakness.

    • fgth says:

      Scripture shows us constantly that men can’t be trusted. Not a single one. Hence, we are TOLD NOT to trust men.

      ‘Put no more trust in man,
      who has only the breath in his nostrils.
      Of what account is he?’

      ‘Trust not in princes — in a son of man, For he hath no deliverance’

      ‘Everyone has to be on guard against his friend.
      Don’t trust any brother,
      for every brother will certainly deceive, 
      and every friend spread slander. 
      5Each one betrays his friend;
      no one tells the truth.’

      It shows us that only Yah can be trusted. It is binary.

      ‘Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the voice of His Servant? Who among you walks in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of the LORD; let him lean on his God.’

      That’s the lesson, it’s a simple one, D’ONT trust your buddies, your family, your wives, as they will all let you down. Yah never will.

  4. Pingback: Re: RE: WHY DO ANYTHING? | Aeoli Pera

  5. Proud Homosexual Deviant Furry Alex Jones Fanatic And LGBT-Admiring Minority Who Smells Of Patchouli And Sandalwood says:

    A psychopath once said something like “Trust is a number between 0 and 1 representing the integrated probability that someone does what you want them to.”

    That seems accurate to me. Your description of trust does, too. But it seems his point of view focused on the significance of trust in a person on balance, while yours focuses more on the conditionality of trust. Combining the two views might yield something like this:

    If we consider the set of all situations that are subconsciously weighed when deciding whether someone is trustworthy, then trust is the measure of the subset of situations in which someone does what you want them to (with the measure of the entire situation space being normalized to 1).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s