The Authoritarian Relgious

I just realized when I re-read my last enty, that a religion that works like the miltary is what some deem "Christian discipleship". It is nothing more than abuse of power over individual lives, in the name of God.

Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.

Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.

The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.

Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.

But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?

Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.

I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?

I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.

The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.

So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.

In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?

I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.

I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.

Form and Symbol, as Ultimate Value

I have really come to appreciate the values that our Constitution upholds. Our Constitution is what protects our culture from anarchy and affirms individual values of expression in one's life; liberty being of primary importance.

A couple of years ago in reading about moral development, I discovered that democracy was of ultimate importance for the full development of the human. Democracy allows freedom of conscience when it comes to various ways of expressing the "symbolic" of religious tradition. This is true justice of individuality, opinion and conviction.

The symbolic is understood in faith traditions to manifest ultimate values. These values of life are universal rights to happiness, which our Founder's "formed" in our Constitution.

These values are not just represented by the myths of faith, but also social critics that "see" and understand where the culture is "missing" an element that is necessary. Cultural critics bring about the social and cultural changes that are needed in the particular society. Tradition nor materialists usually embrace such with "open arms".

The highest "ideal" our Founders understood were the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such values are framed in our FORM of government, where balance of power, equality under law, and our Bill of Rights gives value to each individual in making meaning of their life.

"Meaning" (symbol) many times means religion, but it does not always have to. Meaning can be made many times in free societies without religion, as one expresses what is internally important to that particular individual.

The real enemy to democracy and a free society in a Representative Republic is an exclusivity in outlook and attitude, whether it is bred on the heels of emotion-based religion, or hard-headed science.

Both science and religion speak of man, as man is a combination of intellect, emotion, and physicial being. These must all be affirmed in each individual "form", within the FORM of our government's Constitutional Republic.

The Sacred and Secular Faith

Religion exists because we define and distinguish between the sacred and secular. But, what if everything is seen as sacred, if used in the proper way? Isn't this view looking at life as graced?

Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?

Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?

I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.

I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.

This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.

This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.

Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.

As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".

Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.

Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.

I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.

Theology and Philosophy?

Theology assumes God exists. The question for the theologian is how to defend God in today's world of scientific exploration. Many have given an "apologetic" for the faith, as this is what the Church Fathers did throughout Church history. This is the stance of the theologian; faith in using philosophy to formulate thier particular theological "form". But, is faith in faith viable, really? How do you use reason? Do you depend on experience? I think this is a dangerous stance.

While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.

Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".

Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.

Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.

Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?

Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.

Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?

Identities, Faith and Such...

Identities are known to be "attached" to something. A fully developed and functioning "self" has come to understand itself within a framework of values that are of utmost importance. These values hold the "key" to understand what motivates the person to action and is what the personal identity is "attached to".

Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.

Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.

Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?

Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".

"Angels and Demons", Comments and Personal Opinion

My husband and I went to see " Angels and Demons" yesterday. We had heard the story a few years ago on CDs, while on our travels and he enjoyed it so much, he wanted to make sure we saw it before it left our local theatre.

We really enjoyed the movie and I would highly recommend it. It's theme is one that my husband has had interest in all his life, science and religion, but this movie does not ground its message in science fiction, so much as probable real life scenarios of "church history".

It was interesting not only for its content and acting, but because we just were in Rome and were at the very same locations as the film depicted. I think whenever real life experience intersects fiction, the fiction seems to present a "reality" that is confirmed by the person's ability to identify with the 'fiction". This is what is experienced in "conversion", as the stories of Scripture are translated by the person's experience. But conversion is not unlike any identification to other sources of literature that teach human tendencies, and moral dilemmas. Literature is a means of communicating and uniting us, as humans.

Reason is situated within a context of personal history itself and promotes the hermenuetic. On the other hand, those who adhere to a more ideological understanding of "truth", dismiss this aspect of personal experience/history, ignore "other realities", or behave in an irrational manner, because it "fits" within their particular hermeneutic of "truth". (Of course, in human relations, "irrational" is defined within its own context).

The priest in the movie, "Angels and Demons", was trying to protect the Church from science. His "ideological" commitment was not void of personal history in understanding the Church's nurturing influence in his own life. This was his "truth". In trying to protect God and the Church, he became a person who lacked integrity. He thought that science's discoveries had undermined the authority of the Church by undermining the Church's message. He wanted to continue to promote the diconnect between the sacred and the secular, so that the Church and God could continue to remain behind the "veil of faith", without engaging the real world in scientific endeavor.

We all have "commitments". Some of these are not consciously acknowledged, until they are challenged. We should not be upset by challenges, for anyone that seeks after truth, continues to do so, as it is a lifelong endeavor, that has many avenues. We will never come to the end of it.

Quandries, Questions and Qualifications About the Church

Today, our pastor had a sermon about "the spirit" and the scripture. His thrust was that by believing that god speaks through human words, we can be spiritually formed. He said that this formation was more important than the news in the newpaper, as the "old wisdom" is a higher form of "wisdom" than the "Hip" one. This is the spritualized "gospel" separated from reason that supposedly appeals to those "in need". If this spiritualized gospel is rejected, then it is asserted that those who reject it are reprobate, doomed to destruction in eternal hell fire. This attitude is not very becoming of the Church.

Tradition, reason and faith intersect in the person's experience. It is a hard row to maintain a relevant message when one's belief in a personal god, becomes impossible to believe, yet, tradition demands the obedience "of faith". Those who have sought to literalize the text, so that they can demand obedience of some standard of behavior that is socially convenient and create destruction to others in their struggles of life. If ones is struggling and does not obey these "demands" according to Scripture, then they are disobeying god, are rebellious, and need discipline and correction. Correction, inevitably means conformity to the shape of the "standard" and however that standard is understood. This is horrendously oppressive to the individual as an individual.

Yet, my pastor said that we first must learn to obey, and then seek to understand. This is the irrational faith of a leap into the dark.....because of a belief in a personal interventional god...it is the same that Job's comforters tried to have him do. While Job did not do anything wrong, as he was blameless, the comforters sought to give the reason for his suffering which pinned the guilt upon him. Job did need to learn that mystery is not found within "right behavior" and recieving "just desserts", but in life itself. As life is given and gifted.

Today's sermon left me cold, just as spirituality does. I don't want spirituality, but I do want to be human. That is what life should be about, seeking the good, as defined and lived by one's own conscience and allowing freedom of conscience to others, while allowing open doors in relationship.

I don't believe in imposing "bibilical reconstruction", or "dominion theology", as that becomes a way for the Church to dominate the discoursein the public square , and not listening to other opinions and viewpoints. Academic freedom should be what the church is about, because who should be afraid of any truth seeking endeavor? And truth should be applauded wherever it is found. The Church has not been known for this attitude historically. They have wanted to maintain the social order and control, so that society would "not fall apart". Much has to do with how one views "what god's plan is" and IF god has a plan, which is doubtful. Christians have pinned their hope on an ancient text, church tradition, and dogma. That does not bring about constructive change, if it is not relativized.

Those who adhere to this mentality do so because they feel that the Church should have power and control over others, instead of living in such a way that they are alluring. All the Church has to do is "preach the cross" and people flee, why? Because what was used in Scripture pertained to persecuted times, is used today to justify a "sectarian attitude" that ultimately does bring about persecution. And then, the Church acts smugly as if Scripture has been fulfilled and "proven" and those who have fled are deserving of the "just punishment' that God will give them in the afterlife. This is apocalyptic thinking and it is not appealing to civilized people. I don't see where the Church has done anything to add to her appeal in a free and open society and this is her demise.

There Is No More Christian Experience

Human experience is the universal affirmation of all beings. Human experience does not have to define things in religious ways, although, it can. Experience is about life and all that makes life in this world. It has little to do with life in the here after, as we just don't know about that kind of life.

In reading today, one blog site that I subscribe to, talked about the Founding Fathers and their faith. Their faith had a range between orthodoxy and Deism. The middle ground was called theistic rationalism, or Unitarian. It was a middle way between the naturalism of Deism and the supernaturalism of orthodoxy. This is palatable for me personally, at least, at first glance.

What is a theistic rationalist? A rationalist believes in reason as a guiding force for one's life, while theism affirms a "god" beyond natural forces, and causal influences. The part that I struggle with is the personability of "god". I just don't see that this is the case in reality.

Circumstances are interpreted from a certain veiwpoint. Bias, or faith, is what predisposes one to the interpretation. Reason seems to be more plausible in discerning how one will understand reality, not faith alone.

If Faith supplements reason, then, how do we know if this is our posture, that our faith is just a "trust" about the "mystery", which may or may not be "god"? Providence is not something that I find reasonable. There are too many questions about evil and suffering to forego them for "faith" in the providence of "god". So, I don't think that commitment to a "god" that is to be believed in spite of rationale is not a promising prospect of "hope".

Is There Such a Thing as Historical Christianity?

I have alluded to the fact that some of the things I have been learning have led me to question whether there is a real beginning to Christianity. This is what many in the scholarly world seek to prove.

In fact, it seems that even the roots of Christianity, the Jewish tradition, is also of various opinions and theories. This leaves little room for rational faith. And this is the point of the radical. Radicalism is the 'leap" where reason leaves off. But, what if one is not willing to trust the dark as "God's hand"? Does that person "die in their sins"?

I find it hard to believe or think that any God worth serving is "bound to anyone's service" , "duty", or understanding. Service must come from the person's desire to do "good" and their voluntary giving of themselves in their personal value system and not from any outside source or authorial demand. This is why I wonder and question about people of radical faith.

As faith has been based on many things, what is truly "real faith"? Faith in a rationale for life is no less faith. Why does anyone suppose that faith has to look "the same" or believe the same things about life in this world, as faith is living out one's life based upon one's understanding of life. Everyone has faith, just not in the type of 'god" you might suppose, by faith.

A Continued Thinking on Individualism and Collectivism

Collectivism and Individualism does not just "run" our understanding of government, or policy, but also theology.

How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.

Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?

Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?

All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".

Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.

I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?

Scripture as Open or Closed?

The natural world has been understood in different ways, according to scientists and philosophers. Some consider the world as a closed system, where the world, as it is, whether made, evolved or designed, is not impacted by supernatural realities. Others, choose to believe that the world is open and influenced directly by the supernatural.

The Scriptures are also viewed in this way. As literature, the scholar approaches the text, with an understanding that what is written is written, as it is. It is not influenced by any other etraneous influences, because it is considered an ancient text. Ancient texts are considered within their ancient context, where ancient culture is understood more fully. These scholars, whether historians, seeking for "facts", or literary critics, seeking for "universal truth", as understood with the ancient context, are interested in the text as an observation.

Scholars, who still agree that the text is a literary device of ancient culture to inform its audience of important ancient cultural values, can also believe there is some value in understanding ancient cultural values, as they contain humanitie's values, or truths that are universally applicable to the modern world. These scholars would be considered Christians in some realms, where other realm of the Christian world would not understand these scholars as falling short of being " biblical Chrisitans".

Biblical Christians understand the text as an open or closed text. Some affirm the openness because of what they believe as "inspiration" of the believer in encountering the text, while others, believe that the text is totally revelational in written form. The former are "neo-orthodox" and can understand man's inspiration as "spirit", or psychological response to stimuli. Beleivers who believe that the text is a written revelation, as is, are fundamentalist.

While the text is considered by all Christians as important to or in their faith. Some are minimalistic in their commitment to the text as "truth for today". Others range the gambit from every "dot and tittle" to an overarching message to and overarching value system, etc.

What the text means is important to address because one's understanding of the diversity within the Christian church is necesarry for tolerance of difference, which brings about a unity in the faith. And the Scriptures are clear that we should work for unity of the faith.

A Follow-up on the Cross

In conventional conservative terms of discipleship, a life "well lived" would be modeled on Jesus of Nazareth. Christians can have no other way of living, thinking or being, if they are "committed believers". What would this mean to a life based on Jesus as "moral model"?

On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....

If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....

I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.

The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.

Without Faith....

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Many evangelicals believe that faith becomes possible through the revelation of Scripture alone. But, what about other literary works? Are they significant and can they impart "revelation that is just as important? Fundamentalists would not believe so. I disagree.

Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....

Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.

What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.

There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.

While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.

Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.

The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...

I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....

A Contextualized Universalism; Faith Within Context

I have been raised in a country, which has traditionally been understood as Christian. Christian faith has been defined in many ways in our culture of diversity, as the United States was founded on the principle of the "freedom of religion". Not only has my own culture affirmed many types of faith within its borders, but postmodernity has also dissolved the understanding of a universal faith. Of course, fundamentalists/conservatives in many religous traiditons have understood their universalization in two ways; contextualizing the text by translation and/or converting others by proselytzing. I don't believe either of these ways affirms what should or ought to be true according to the "law of Christ", which is love.

The human being is made in God's image and has be gifted with reason and talents, which are innate. These gifts have to be trained and encouraged to develop, but always develop within a "context". Because man is bound within his religious/political/social context, man assumes that his reality of experience is "true". As men are educated about the larger or greater world, they learn that their way of understanding is only one among many.

Yesterday's post was about my grand-daughter's desire to become a princess. Her desire is an innate desire to become, which is a desire to develop and represents her desire to express transcendence! In Christian terms, the "incarnation" was the Christ child, God within flesh. The "sons of God' are those who develp and express their giftings. The human heart should be affirmed in its desires, and not oppressed or suppressed, as the fundamentalists do.

Fundameantlism absolutizes reason, text, tradition, and "self"! Their understanding is the absolute truth and is mainifested in their zeal to convert (at the point of sword/death). Their understanding is a culture of death to other "selves", the physical life of others, and the culture of others. Culture is neutral and should be a place of affirming worship of a transcendent BEING. There is no ONE culture that epitomizes "truth", but is only one form.

Cultural diversity should be affirmed, as long as it allows freedom of expression, without limiting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Culture expresses itself not only in the religious realm of worship, but also the political realm of interantional relations. Globalization has opened our experiential "eyes" to recognize the 'other's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These diverse ways of being in the world are all limited understandings of the 'Universal", but are a necessary part, just the same.

Diversity humbles all of us in understanding our limited "worlds" of reference and helps us to become more understanding of difference. This affirms the "way of love". Love is not defined except in affirming of the other. Of course, that does not mean that we will not question other about certain beliefs or ways of understanding, and hopefully, it will help to educate ourselves and others about the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The universal is worshipped in many forms, recognizing the human limitations to "truth" claims, which makes for humility and self-examination, which breeds a good cultural climate for dialogue and change. And this is the "way of love" and unity in diversity.

Dogs, Training, and Incarnation

Evolutionary biologists, psychologists, and moral philosophers all concur that humans are animals. Animal behavior, such as dogs, must be trained. Without training, dogs are not socialized and may have destructive behavior toward others.

I have been thinking about this, as we just got a new puppy this week-end. Top dog (alpha) behavior must be trained out of the animal, so that the human can control the environment according to ends that meet the humans needs and desires.

In organizational structures, unless "top dogs" have learned to curtail their behavior, then, there are disastarous consequences for the person, organization and others within the organization. Many of the religious traditions have a meditative "arm" that lends itself to self-examination. These meditative "ways' are called various things by the different religious traditions. These "ways" where the tendencies to "run over" others, or to lack self-reflection are recognized and re-directed, re-focused or limited.

On the other hand, those whose tendency is reticence, will find that these self-reflective "ways" will help them to recognize their own limitations and seek help. Dogs who haven't been socialized, as humans that have not had the proper training, also need socialization and someone who knows how to handle them so that resistance, attack or self-defeating behavior can subside.

I do not think that affirming evolutionary thinking in the disciplines is "wrong headed" unless one uses it as ultimate truth. Science does reduce man, but does not affirm man's giftedness, potentialities, etc. That is the re-direction that must happen when one takes evolutionary thinking seriously. In reductionistic thinking, materialist, or physicalist do not give leeway for man's difference from the animal kingdom. Behaviorists who treat man as an animal in "training" wil be implementing a form of legalistic uniformity that ultimately destroys the personability of the person.

The Jesus Seminar Meets the Atheist's Inquiry

I was glad to see that the Center for Inquiry Transnational was hosting the Jesus Seminar and Jesus Project for a conference (of types)....

The inter-disciplinary approach to religious claims is an important discussion topic in today's religiously impacted culture. What one believes becomes an identification factor and identification factors, while not "wrong" in and of themselves, can lead to horrendous inhumane crimes. A culture of cruelty is cultivated in climates of identification, whether they are ethnic, religious or political. Religious identification can be extremely dangerous as God sanctioned prejuidice and is above reason's reasonableness! We cannot live in a globalized culture without addressing the "claims of truth", especially exclusivistic understandings.

I applaud these religious scholars and their hosts, the scientists. There must be an addressing of how humans come to understand themselves within their cultural, national and religious boundaries before a real unification of diversity can transpire. How important an issue is it? All of our future depends on it!