Does God trust us? Are we really free?

I put a comment in a friend's blog (http://blog.stevelowe.org) that God trusts us. He doesn't show up and give to-do lists, send emails, write on walls, etc. I guess some say they talk to God conversationally, which of course I cannot judge. But for the most part, I think collectively we can agree there is no direct memos from God.

Yet, some will say that God eiher doesn't exist or does control it all. If you choose either of these you do not believe you are free. You have to decide for yourself in order to be free. And even if God is absent or pulling strings, death camp survivors have taught us that you always have the choice of what you will do and believe. You can never claim to continually be someone's victim.

The fact is that God chooses to trust us, not control us. Even though we are bound to mess up, flounder along, waste time, resources and tons of energy being really busy. Yet he waits, in moments, trusting us to a fault, that we will realize that we want to choose to trust God.

Does Hillary Clinton really believe in democracy?

Perhaps I will again show my Canadian ignorance, or worse my bad form,
but I'm shocked that Hillary Clinton is fighting to change the
Democratic National Conventions rules.

She's a fighter, that is good, and she is even better as an underdog.
And as a fighter you never say 'uncle'. So I expect politicians to be
nasty and cut throat if required.

So it is par for the course that Hillary wants to change the rules, she
agreed to at the start of this process to gain an advantage, since she's down.

What is surprising, is that there is no out pour of disgust at Hillary
trying to change a democratic system. She might say she is fighting
for the democratic votes of FL and MI, but they, failed to follow
the rules. They freely self selected themselves out by not following the rules! It is suspect
that she is anything other than a neutral observer.

How is it that anyone could agree that Hillary can choose to take away
trust in a system to serve her needs? Is someone out there alarmed by
this? Is this what presidents should do?

It is hard to choose when to trust and when to control, but something
here is somehow entitled above the system. Which seems frightening to
me, and even more so when it's understandable to many or not ringing
alarm bells in a country built on democracy and freedom to choose your
representatives.

Http://news.bbc.co.uk/mobile/bbc_news/top_stories/742/74289/story7428909.shtml?

Abundance Model, versus the proprietary one

We are trying to build and launch donor.com with the abundance model. But what is it, and how does it apply?

For us, it's simple. Let's provide non-profits with the best fund raising software and services anywhere, and let's do that at the lowest cost possible so they save their money for their mission.

How is that different from a proprietary model? One could still meet the goal above by hiding the source code, get some MBA's in to look at cash centers and make exclusive agreements to make the software widely available and the best for non-profits everywhere and still make a lot of money that you can then put into the marketing and other 'good works' that one would deem worthy.

Yes that could work. But it includes exclusive deals, controlling source code, building a traditional software and service organization that seeks to make the profit first, and then relies on 'good intentions' to push it out farther. That is good capitalism, but is it really the best model?

What happens if we choose to be inclusive, not exclusive. What happens if we use a foundation as an owner so all the profits go into something that has as it's purpose to push prices down while it improves the product.

Christ didn't make strategic deals, start a denomination, and make an exclusive club that only the approved could belong to. In short, Christ didn't make anything subject to rules, proprietary information or otherwise. For salvation to work, all that is required is trust, expressed as faith in Christ.

We provide a product and service, which we need to charge for in order to make a profit. I think that is good business. But when the profits are used to control our future, secure our position, evaluate who we include and exclude we are in danger of serving ourselves: not our clients.

So is the abundance model workable in business? I think Google says yes. Are we idealistic and headed for trouble? I'd love to hear an argument that says we are. I can't imagine what argument can show how we are entitled to large profits off the donations of non profits. I think anyone in non profit work should be putting the non profits first.

The proprietary model is all about incremental change. Abundance is all about transformation. For transformation to occur, something has to die. For donor.com, the thing that has to die is our control of the profit.