Terms are rules, conditions and such.
Disobey or violate the terms and the deal is off.
To agree with and abide by terms, one must understand them. If one does not understand the terms—or even that “the terms” are terms—what good does it do?
It is reasonable that to violate the rules one must know the rules, acknowledging their understanding and abiding accordingly—but this reasonable condition is not always so.
Sometimes one is accused, even convicted, of breaking rules when if truth they did not know about them if the first place.
Can or should one be accountable for terms they do not know about because the terms are (or were) not made available?
Could it be that terms (critical details) are knowingly and purposely withheld from that one as a measure to dis-empower the one or take advantage? The answer is, “Of course.”
It, this tactic, happens all the time; the one purposely misled or ill-formed…dis-empowered.
On this word, terms, and subject, Voltaire said,
If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.
Paradoxically, one must have some level of power to make and maintain such a stated demand; else, like “the one” described, they simply do not know to know....
Principles are important here; that one thinks enough of themselves and basic fairness to demand the terms, the rules of engagement and any other details of relevance.
But without power what use are principles? Without a force to meet force how might one overcome forces? Consider these words by Charles Spurgeon:
When you see no present advantage, walk by faith and not by sight. Do the honor to trust Him when it comes to mattes of loss for the sake of principle.
It seems that in one’s weakness is the opportunity to see God’s strength, that the one may find peace aside the humility of his powerlessness.
For the powerless, to include those dis-empowered by injustice and cruelty, faith is there, the terms to trust and obey.
Post a Comment