Redemption .......

[archive_Bjaarki]

Brothers:

There’s something that has been on my mind that I wanted to bring up with you for quite awhile. It will make you uncomfortable. At least, I hope it will. But don’t quit reading after the first few lines and dismiss this ... Don’t jump to conclusions about where I’m going with this, or what I think we must do. You know me by now, brothers. You know I work slow. I’m going to lead you into the forest, but ... I will lead you back out again. I’ll show you that what we do everyday with anabolic steroids involves the commission of a moral wrong – breaking the law – but I’ll show you, too, how we can tune our hearts to accommodate that, and how we can live our lives in the face of our moral choices to find what would otherwise elude us:

Redemption .......

It is axiomatic that without law there can be no justice, and that justice is one of the foundations of a moral society. Therefore, to the extent that one respects and values justice and a moral society, one must also respect and value law.

In every case? No. There is some law that I am not bound to respect. Law promulgated by tyrants, for example. The Nuremberg Codes of Nazi Germany, stripping the Jews of their civil rights and ultimately of their lives, no civilized man was bound to respect. But law developed within the structures of a democratic society like ours? ... Well? ... We just have to face this, that it is only at some moral cost that we disregard such law, because disregarding it weakens, however slightly, the fabric of a moral society because it weakens the structure that upholds justice. Even disregarding unjust law weakens the structure that upholds justice, because law is primarily a process of constraint and constraint is loved by no one, and so
the transfer of an attitude of disrespect from the unjust law to the just law, thus reducing constraint, is inevitable. Understand this: The disregard of unjust law, unchecked, breeds anarchy, the antithesis of civil society. And that is a significant moral wrong. So, I don’t believe for a minute that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime" in a democratic society. To break a law, even a law we consider unjust but which others don’t, like the laws that scheduled anabolic steroids in the early 90’s, is, inescapably, a moral wrong. It puts us athwart the wisdom of the ancients: "The foundations of justice are that one shall suffer wrong, that the public good be promoted," Cicero, De Officiis (I, 10)).

Some laws are like that. To break them is a moral wrong, even though they are unjust. And to obey them is also a moral wrong, because they are unjust. Either course of action – to obey, or to offend – involves a moral harm. Yeah, now. Ain’t that a bitch! You’d better get used to it, though, either that or remain a boy, because it is the struggle with moral ambiguities like this that, at last, raises us from the beast and makes us men ... M-E-N ... not too far below the gods and fashioned in their image. Sometimes the harm of obeying the unjust law – the Jim Crow laws of the Post-Reconstruction South, for example – greatly exceeds the moral harm of violating that law, but ... violating even that law, precisely because we are a civilization of law, some good law, some bad law, but a civilization that depends urgently on respect for the whole corpus of law as consensually developed and ratified by the people it affects ... yes, violating even that law has a moral cost, too. Survey this from an elevated place, a place of disinterest, not from a close-in view of the exigencies of your own personal, selfish concerns, and you will agree with me. So, no, I don’t believe that possession and use of anabolics is a "victimless crime." Like any other violation of the law it involves a moral harm and, for that reason, cannot be victimless. It exacts a moral cost and – this is very important, listen to me now - it imposes a moral obligation. Rationalize it however you will, we - as participants in a moral, democratic society and beneficiaries of its goods – we are not entitled to commit acts of lawbreaking. We are not entitled to pick and choose which laws we obey anymore than is some right-wing lunatic in Idaho. We simply seize the course of lawbreaking with our ruthlessness, with no other moral right or entitlement to it than our brute ruthlessness equips us with.

Well ... that’s alright ... men do that sometimes, don’t they? Yes, we do it. With our ruthlessness, we ... DO ... it. More to the point, I do it. Just this morning, as I was polishing a draft of this statement, I loaded a dart and shot 250mg of test enanthate and 75mg of trenbolone into my right delt. WTF, Bjaarki? How can you do that, admitting what you have just admitted?

I can do that because breaking the law does not compel me, as it might you, to rationalize or justify my law-breaking, "It’s okay. It’s a shitty law, anyway. Hell, it wasn’t even a crime until 10 or 12 years ago." All that is beside the point, the mouthings of a moral weakling, much worse than a physical weakling. I know that breaking the law, even steroid law, is a moral wrong. You should, too. So, let breaking it compel me, not to pursue rationalization or justification, but to seek ... Redemption.

What does that mean, exactly? What is this ... redemption ... that this strange man keeps talking about? I cannot name it for you, brothers. You have to seek it, name it, and wrest it from the angels yourselves. For me it means ... charity, mostly. I seek redemption through charity. By "charity" I don’t mean writing a check to United Way and then going blithely about my business, shooting tren and gobbling dbol to my heart’s content. It is a minute-by-minute thing. By "charity" I mean ... being more attentive to and compliant with my family’s demands, more forbearing of my children’s misdemeanors and my wife’s unexplained moodiness than I might otherwise be. I mean ... taking extra care to be as effective a professional as I can be in the service of those who need my assistance. I mean ... being helpful to those who ask for it, on the street, at the library, in the gym. Where you are concerned, by "charity" I mean ... returning emails even when it’s late or I’m harried or I don’t have the time to. I mean ... giving out my phone numbers and being available by telephone or in person to younger guys who want my counsel. I mean ... working here, on this board, writing things or organizing things to make it a better and more meaningful home for all here who come to visit or to stay. I mean ... bearing always in mind my ethical incumbency, as an older lifter and as an educator, to everyone of you whose experience is less rich, whose options are less varied, or whose voice is less firm than my own, to help you seek, parse and articulate your own solutions to your problems. By "charity" I mean ... accepting without complaint burdens that are not my own and fighting fights I have not chosen ... simply because my brothers need me to. Many, very many of you, do all these things, too. You have done them for me. Many times. "Bros help bros." That’s how it all works. I have simply put it into words for you.

You know, guys write to me all the time – "Say, I wanted to discuss something with you, Bjaarki, you don’t mind, do you?" - or they’ll post things to my threads, and they’ll give me props for the things I say or write or do. Now I have told you why I say and write and do them. It is a private calculus of mine, a silent bargain I make with my conscience every time I commit the felony of popping the sheath off the spike of a 3cc Terumo and flick those tiny bubbles up into the Luer-Lok. I do these things because I am never unaware that, as a habitual user of anabolic steroids that are forbidden me by laws enacted by my peers, I stand in a place of moral compromise, where the winds blow chill and unpredictable. And, more, I know that the only avenues leading from such a place are the broad and welcoming path of increased hedonism, selfishness and eventual isolation and despair, or the narrower and more shadowed trail of the mendicant. Those of us here - and you know who they are and who you are - our feet are set upon one trail or the other. Make sure it is the right trail, brothers. Yeah. Make sure it is the right trail. It is hard, very hard, to slip from one to the other .......

And the next time you answer that unlooked-for email, or pick up your phone to call at your own expense that brother a time zone or two away who is scared and hurting right now, or shell out the $11 to FedEx overnight 20 tabs of Nolva to a bro you hardly know whose nips are starting to itch, or listen to your girlfriend bitch when you’re sure she has no damn right to ... the next time that happens, don’t pat yourself on the back too long or too hard. You’re not doing for them, no, the person who has asked for your help or your forbearance is doing you a favor, man, oh yeah they are! ... for you, like me, stand in a place of moral compromise, and the person who has asked for your help permits you now to do what you have to do, they’ve laid the narrow path again at your feet.

Think about it. And thanks for your patience. Be well, brothers. Be happy, lift heavy, and journey safely.

Bjaarki

... Then, do what you have to do.

[archive_Ulter]

That's a great post, once again, Bjaarki. Thanks.

I don't agree, of course, with your position on the morality of ignoring the law, but that's the problem with morality, we all have a different opinion on what it is. In the law morality is defined differently from state to state and even neighborhood to neighborhood. To say that laws are to be blindly obeyed simply because they are the law is both idealistic and unrealistic. Being gay is illegal in Texas, should we lock them all up so we’re moral? Unfortunately there are a lot people who would say yes. And since laws are only as good as the people who enforce them morality becomes even more deluded when the authorities, i.e. law enforcement and prosecutors, pick and choose who is prosecuted and who isn't. When they say, "we'll prosecute this one to make an example of him", where is the morality you speak of? If there was no history of civil and even uncivil disobedience in this country we would all be subjects of the Queen of England.

I don't feel guilty about what I do to live a longer, happier, healthier life. I will not take years off of my life to be moral in a morally corrupt society.

[This message was edited by Ulter on 08-04-2003 at 11:34 AM.]

[archive_PDOGGY]

So help me to understand what you're saying here, Bjaarki, for I do think that you've drawn out this equation quite far.

Charity is the penance for our use of Anabolic Steroids?

Interesting. Well you know that I am a teacher of Biblical Law and have dealt rather strongly on this very subject with Evangelicals (Christians) and am very aware of how FREE WILL dictates the actions and non-actions of mankind, even in the secular and/or religious confines of morality.

Let's look:

16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of Yahweh men depart from evil

I think your sentiments are aligned to some degree with this section of Proverbs and not just regarding charity.

However, I don't care what anyone says, especially Evangelicals, who have yet to reconcile their consumption of pork, shellfish, catfish, and other things that Yahweh considers to be unclean but who could condemn others for their use of Anabolic Steroids. On the surface, they actually could cancel each other out in the realm of human moral judgment.

My question to you is "from where did you derive this desire for penance Bjaarki, and who are you to say which methods another man are to employ for his own?" (I'm not flaming you, that is a legitimate question, out of respect, of course)

Look again:

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but Yahweh pondereth the hearts.

I can only take your word for it why yourself or anyone else does what you do, and my initial response would be that as long as your actions do not violate the tenets of Justice, Mercy, and Faith, then I usually mind my own business.

Previously not having known you, we dealt with one another on TDelks post - regarding Jury Duty - where it seemed that many of the true colors of the posters shone through, to which I responded (with great restraint, I might add) because I don't play that - period!

That was a Justice, Mercy, and Faith issue, Bjaarki. The use of AAS, in my opinion, is not, and that is where I draw the line.

Now the other issues, are quite clear, and I could site many examples from the oral tradition to make my point, but I will only list a few of which we could stand accused by the Almighty for our use of these substances.

If you believe in the same Creator that I do, then you know that WE, Bjaarki are his highest creation, in fact we are categorically the bomb of all of His creation..

Genesis 1:27 So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

He did that and declared..

Genesis 1:31 And Elohim saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, IT WAS VERY GOOD..

In fact, the Psalmist says here:

Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Knowing that not only were we created and that is was GOOD, and to top it off, we are FEARFULLY and WONDERFULLY made, then who, really is to say what we should do with our bodies?

We were fearfully and wonderfully made. This means that there is a great deal of value to use, right?

So what are WE doing, or what have WE done to devalue what HE has created?

I'm going to stop here, before it gets too complicated, but I will say this..

Ephesians
5:15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
5:16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Walk upright and don't be stupid, and don't waste a lot of time being tempted by things that could give the appearance of evil.

This is why these Consensus Statements, researched and authored by the Vets on this Forum are the singlehandedly most important thing to ever be posted on a Bodybuilding Forum, period.

But that's just my opinion. If we do anything for anyone, we shed light to the dim, and encourage the brilliant.

So, we agree, Bjaark.. for now.

But I'm not finished yet.

**************************
Don't laugh at me, laugh with me. I'll go first...

[archive_Ulter]

Thank you for your great post PDoggy but as I have said in the past we don't want to have theology discussed here.

[archive_PDOGGY]

No problem and I understand.

I'm not done with Bjaarki yet.

**************************
Don't laugh at me, laugh with me. I'll go first...

[Badatta2d]

Hmmm, Obviously it is your board Ulter, and you can run it as you see fit. But, to heap praise on one Brother for his view and then tell another, his view is not welcome, is indeed censorship. If these "thinking" type posts are allowed to continue, so we all may, grow or find our inner-self then all views must be recognized. I enjoy seeing these posts. It shows how others tick it also helps explain why some explode.

[archive_Mr. Nobody]

Spirituality is what drives my morality and I have no problem reconciling all of my "personal" activities with my morals. Laws are/were made to form a certain idea of a society and reflect the values of that time only. As ulter pointed out, civil and even uncivil disobedience separates the civilized world from herds of sheeps and helps shape a more complex society through evolution (as the pendelum of law is swinging towards the early warning sign of a police state).

Disclaimer:
Mr. Nobody is presenting fictitious opinions and does in no way, shape or form encourage, use nor condone the use of any illegal substances or the use of legal substances in an illegal manner.
The information discussed is strictly for entertainment purposes only and shall not take the place of qualified medical advice.

[archive_Ulter]

My heaping was mutally divided. I thanked PDoggy for his post. I enjoyed reading it. You may have noticed I didn't delete it. But it opens a can of worms when you let Theology or Religion become a topic or part of a topic on a discussion board like this one. I allowed him to state an opinion but not to engage in provoking a discussion involving Religious beliefs.

[archive_Bjaarki]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> ... who are you to say which methods another man are to employ for his own?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PDoggy, I never said "charity" is what you need to do to find redemption. I quite explicitly stated that you have to find your own way for yourself. For me, redemption is sought through charity. You might follow a completely different path. That's cool. BTW, the word "penance" was yours, not mine. I deliberately avoided that word, because "penance" conotes "regret," and I don't regret what I'm doing. I know that breaking steroid control laws involves the commission of a moral harm (for all the reasons I adduced above, I won't go over them again, if you don't "get it" I don't think I can explain it any better, sorry!), yet I do that without regret ...

... Because my point had nothing to do with drugtaking per se or biblical proscriptions against stuff. It's not a matter of "being in trouble with God." It's a matter of causing trouble in society. It had to do with lawbreaking. That's a different matter altogether. I won't repeat myself except to say that I think you walk onto shakey ground, ethically, when you start giving yourself the right to pick and choose which laws - out of a body of laws that were all developed by your elected representatives - you will obey, and which you will disregard. It's hard for me to believe that a reasonable man would have an objection to that statement. Left by yourself to decide which laws you'll respect, you can see how that line could shift, all the way from being a superconformist goody twoshoes, to being some whacked out Posse Comitatus character out in the woods hunting down ATF agents. It's shakey ground.

For that reason, I don't think democracy in a civil society grants us the right to decide which laws we'll obey and which we'll disregard. This has nothing to do with the bible, bro, it's pure political ethics (Sorry, Ulter, if I opened a can of worms with this; I didn't think it would go this way). But the fact is that we all do break laws all the time. Our ruthlessness drives us to it. Is Ulter willing to wait 20 years until society catches up to what Life Extension Medicine can do for us right now? No. Neither am I. I don't have that time to waste. So I choose to break laws to do what I feel compelled to do. But do I have the right to do that, as Ulter seems to feel? No. No more than the Unabomber had the right to send out mailbombs. I'll still do it, though, I'll still break these laws, but I recognize that when I break a law my act confers on me a moral obligation to ... make up for it, somehow. That's what I mean by "redemption."

I really think that is one of the reasons why the guys on this board are so decent to one another. I think we all sense what I'm saying, though you may not be conscious of that awareness. We all know we're "outlaws," don't we?

BTW, PDoggy, I don't worship the same god or read the same scripture as you. That's cool, too. It's wonderful to see that you're a man of faith, and pretty conversant with your faith's articles. Whether or not that's something to admit into an anabolics discussion board, it's still a good thing.

Bjaarki

... Then, do what you have to do.

[archive_PDOGGY]

Bjaarki,

You're correct. "Charity" and "penance" were my terms.

And I do "get it". You're just so damned brilliant, (AND I LOVE IT, BTW) that you confuse the hell of out me sometimes.

I will be honest with you, I get mixed feelings from many of your musings. Not that you are double-minded in any fashion, but sometimes I expect one day you'll come and say that you're going to go "natural" on us. And that would be okay, too bro.

So no, you're correct, we shouldn't pick and choose, but we do.

The only reason I stopped breaking the speed limit was because I have better things to do with my hard-earned cash than give it to the local municipality, not because they told me I can't do it, ya know?

So the only reason I'm ever gonna stop using AAS is if one of my darts turn into a freaking rattlesnake or if my lockbox of Tren and Ox suddenly become a burning bush.

I'm wise and responsible and know exactly what I'm doing as it pertains to this lifestyle.

BTW, I don't object to much you're stating, because, like you, I do not believe my use of AAS to be a "victimless" crime.

Nonethess, we, as well, are victims. Victims of ignorance and complacency, perpetuated by generations of dullards and sheep.

When I turn 90, I'm going to look like I'm 50, and when that happens, I won't be quoting any of the Oracles of Yahweh, I'll simply say, in the words of Kool Moe Dee:

HowYaLikeMeNow??!

**************************
Don't laugh at me, laugh with me. I'll go first...

[archive_Ulter]

"No more than the Unabomber had the right to send out mailbombs."

Have you physically injured anyone by using AS? No. In order for someone to do that they'd have to break another law that we're not refering to here wouldn't they?

There are different types of lawbreakers and you know that.
The Unabomber's lawlessness resulted in his incarceration.
Those that broke the law in 1776 have their pictures on that money in your pocket.

Survival is more important than moral obligations to those that write the laws.

RECENT EXAMPLE: The law says I can't have GH. I used GH this last month before and after my surgery. The result is that I am healing twice as fast as any other patient the doctor has ever seen.
Should I feel morally corrupt or a sense of guilt for using something to improve my quality of life by helping me recover simply because some politician without a clue says not to use it? Those politicians aren't living my life, I am. And I will decide if I am allowed to live longer and healthier unless I am physically restrained from doing so.

[archive_PDOGGY]

Ulter is right, Bjaarki, and you know it.

In the realm of "victimless", my equation might end with the broken hearts of friends and family, who didn't know what was going on, if something tragic were to befall me.

Uh, and that's about it.

**************************
Don't laugh at me, laugh with me. I'll go first...

[archive_Bjaarki]

No, Ulter is not "right," PDoggy. Ulter is functional, he always goes to arguments based on practicality and functionality when problems of ethics are raised. That's okay as far as it goes. But that is not as far as one can go in these matters.

Two things about your 1776 metaphor, Ulter. First, the patriots of 1776 were in rebellion against a tyrany. I said in my threadstarter that one is not obliged to respect the laws of tyrants. But even so, these men did not just blow stuff up and walk away. They all felt, poignantly (in the cases of the Virginians among them, less so among the BayStaters) the moral ambiguity into which they stepped when they cast off the rule of England. Many of them were tortured with the thought that anarchy would follow, and felt pressed, deeply pressed, to make sure that their rebellion, even against a tyrant, was "made up for" by their creation of a superior replacement system. That's one of the reasons they labored so hard and became such moral giants. They grasped fully the moral implications of what they were doing. So long as you're bringing them into the argument, I would say that we should do so, too.

I'm glad the HGH is helping you, bro. I've used it too. You've done the functional, practical, and I would even say "proper" thing to do. But you do not have a "right" to do it. "Rights" are constructs based in justice, and justice must be applicable equally to all. You have many many contacts in the anabolic underground, and so can exercise your "right" to take HGH. Most other people do not have those contacts, and cannot exercise their "rights" in the same way as you. There is no justice in that. Only accident of person, place and time. And that is why you do not have the "right" to use HGH. I know it's practical and functional and all, but it's not your right, and it confers a moral obligation - perhaps the obligation to work for greater availability of HGH to post-op patients like you.

This has all been fun. My only regret is that it may appear to some readers that we're having a spat here, and we know one another well enough to know that this is all for the good, affection and respect will always abide.

Be well. Heal up quickly, bro.

Bjaarki

... Then, do what you have to do.

[blu]

Bjaarki,

So, not justification or rationalization, but redemption. Def: Redeem- to save from sin and its consequences, to make up for, to receive something in return (among other definitions). Very intereresting and well written idea.

Who among us can truly redeem ourselves. We can attempt to "stay" the selfish nature, by attempting to help others, but we are at heart generally out for ourselves, even when it appears we are in it for you. Even if it is simply to make us feel better about our situation. God, or god, or whatever you chooe to believe sure has made an interesting group of people, that we would feel compelled to up our level of living due to a sense, albeit sometimes slight, of guilt that we are breking laws imposed by or peers. Justified vs. unjustified, either way, it is law.

What does our conscience tell us? Depends upon how sensitive you are. Are you blessed with plenty of conscience and thus need to make reparations for your transgressions, or are you hardened to your activities and easily ignore the fact that you are breaking the law? Do you, as Bjaarki suggests, simply justify and rationalize your behavior, or do you struggle with whether you should continue...and if you are to continue, how do you make it OK on the inside. Isn't that what we really want, to be OK (whatever that means...we can sure get off track here, as there will never be enough $, sex, drugs whatever to satisfy...most of us are looking in the wrong direction for true satisfaction) Off the pulpit as I have made and continue to make plenty of decision that are less than what I am capable of. (I have managed to stay OFF for 1 year, but continue to be intrigued with the nature of bodybuilding as I have been since my youth.)

I agree wholeheartedly that we must be very careful not to paint ourseves into a corner with our breaking of the law. That is the crux,isn't it, (right or wrong) breaking an imposed law.

Am I slowly begining to isolate myself as the stakes rise due to increasing use/frequency. Have close personal friends begun to question my behavior/activities? Have I accepted their council/concern and changed my behavior, or do I want to drop them as friends and find those people who "do" understand? Will losing someone who is willing to ask the tough questions because they truly care really the best decision in the long run? My decision was to be sensitive to what was being said to my heart. No action by itself will redeem...it will make me feel better about my decisions...but it will not save, make up, replace or otherwise suffice (for me- the road seems to be getting narrower as the stakes grow higher)

What is real here...I want to have lived in such a manner as to truly deserve to hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Great write Bjaarki!

blu

[archive_Ulter]

"That's one of the reasons they labored so hard and became such moral giants. They grasped fully the moral implications of what they were doing"

Most of your moral giants were adulterers, criminals, tax evaders, and slave owners. Nice morals.


"But you do not have a "right" to do it. "Rights" are constructs based in justice, and justice must be applicable equally to all."

That's true, but the guy driving 56 MPH in a 55 zone has no right to do that either so I don't feel so bad.

And you've completely side stepped the fact that the laws are not enforced in a moral way.
Do you think you or I would have skated by after being busted for cocaine like George Bush did? Phuck no. We'd be in jail. So where's the morality? Why is it that WE are morally obligated to obey the laws when the people enforcing them aren't morally obligated to enforce them evenly.

[archive_macrophage69alpha]

redemption is a concept related to the relative righting an inherent wrong... actions violating imposed moral restrictions are rarely inherently wrong.

btw- the flow of your logic is flawlessly reflective of the sociological view of "crime" and "society"... a view that is inherently flawed within a modern society where imposed morality and restrictions are rarely in the public interest(it may some sense be less flawed when applied to primitive societies... though even there power, mysticism and greed still skew)

MP