The Promised Land?

Who paints a portrait of reality and does not seek to gain from it?

The preacher during the sermon said that "If we abide by the word we will be delivered to the promised land. " The following morning at the rally, the politician said, "By the political mandate and power you will give to me through the ballot paper I will deliver all of us to the promised land."

So I asked myself what promised land are these two individuals talking about? Yet different characters and different contexts promise the same thing. So whose promised land were we being delivered into?

When all of this propaganda about the Promised Land was being communicated to us I was sitting next to three different individuals whom I knew well. Paul, Phil and Patience. I was sure they had their vision of the promised land they wanted to be delivered to. Different from mine, the preacher, the politician and any other individual or sect out there.

On the aspect of sects, these sects were formed by different individuals to form it. But was the ideology of the promised land so blind to an extent that it could not see that these individuals were different but became so ignorant just to achieve its ideology or propaganda of this promised land against the individual liberty or freedom of thoughts of these individuals?

Here is where the whole situation turned out to be fishy and did not make sense, we were to be delivered to the same promised land where all individuals had different views and expectations of this promised land. Wait! What? We had different views of this promised land yet we were to be delivered into the same promised land and live together with our different characters and different versions of it.

This was one situation I was not willing to adapt to or even tolerate. After living in this current land and its status quo, I had to abide by someone else's status quo in that promised land. What type of promises was being sold here? Something was telling me this promised land if it was going to be for " we" someone was going to clamp down on our liberties.

Let's put it this way, the preacher's promised land was one with milk and honey according to his Biblical context. That is where the preacher wanted us delivered. Whereby we were all equal, with no one superior and holy life before deity or God. This was in contrast and conflict with Phil's' promised land. Which he was told he would be delivered into, but as a people and not an individual.

Phil's promised land was one with alcohol, weed, women and a lifestyle of partying. Completely different from the preachers. What type of psychological warfare was this?

Then we had the Politician's promised land versus Paul's versus Patience's. All three different versions of visions and expectations all to be in one land. All conflicting at the same time, how was that going to be a promised land? Unless each had his own promised land.

Patience's promised land was a land of goths, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender society. With their norms completely in conflict with the preacher's promised land. You see the different views of this promised land now. But it was the preacher indoctrinating Biblical views of the promised land into Patience's mind but her liberty to think away from the preacher's doctrine and view of the promised land was just significant.

Paul's vision of the promised land was one without religion and stereotypical norms or beliefs. He just felt how religion was enslaving him psychologically and he was dying slowly in the mind. How he wanted to express certain thoughts but he couldn't because of his religion and he wanted them removed from his promised land. Not only religion but the politics too that were way too communistic, socialist and far left.

Then my promised land, YOU ARE GOING TO KNOW IT HAS THE STORY UNFOLDS.

The politicians promised land was one with wealth, power and better lives for the " people".

But one aspect you have to understand was that all these individuals in their promised land were to be the authority, and the superiors and everyone else would follow. Yet we were to be in the same promised land.

This message of the Promised Land was targeted to an audience to have the same meaning and vision but the audience received it at an individual level to suit their personal and psychological idea.

So whose promised land were we going to be delivered into, ours as individuals or the opinion leader's promised land, the politician and the preacher? Since they were the ones who offered us this package of the promised land but not in our desired capacity or vision.

What if they had just told us there is a promised land and not packaged it for us, for seemingly they were indoctrinating their vision of the promised land into us but somehow I admired our liberties of having our view of this promised land different from the views we were being given.

Surely one size does not fit all. The preacher would not want to be in the politicians' promised land neither would the politician want to be in the preacher's promised land.

The questions that stood unanswered were, one, who had given them this vision of the promised land and why did the source of this promised land know what was best for us yet what we needed was being saved at an individual or personal level? 

The second set of questions was, why these politicians and the preachers received this message of the promised land and were given the mandate to disseminate it? Why not the common folk like me, Phil, Patience or Paul? What made them so special? What if they had altered the message to suit their gains? Could we know?

The final set of questions was what about those who had not received this message of the promised land, were they less inferior to us and did not deserve to be saved? What made us so special and them to be outcasts? Aren't we all human and share the same human rights? Because surely we knew of different sects of people who did not believe in the preachers' ideology and had their ideologies but was there a promised land for them? Or it was for selected individuals only or for those who selected themselves to align with the ideology which made the whole ideology seem to be propaganda or it was propaganda.

Well, I accepted that there is a promised land but denied the conclusion of it painted by the politician, the preacher and its source. Was life going to be that cheap and free? Well, it could not be life, would it?

So there I sat, with no vision of my own promised land but very good at critiquing the vision of other people's promised land. How hypocritical or critical was it for me? I just questioned the mandate of the source of this promised land idea and those disseminating the information. What was in it for them, surely they would benefit much more from this than us who did not know.

Who paints a portrait of a "reality " and does not seek to gain from it?

My promised land was just 7 VIEWS ABOVE.