It has been understood that the human always looks for causes to explain the world he lives in. Early in human history, humans understood the "cause" as "God" or Providence. Nowadays, science sneers at such beliefs, because science has understood itself as the tool to understand physical laws, not superstitious belief. But, what of human needs, as to the brain/mind?
The human not just needs to understand and explain the causes of the universe, which can be explained by the facts of science, understanding natural laws. But, humans need the ability to trust that certain results will come from their "world". That is, humans need consistance in some way to be predictable, so that humans can organize their life and "feel they are free" and not pawns of some natural force that is unpredictable.
Predictability begins to be understood by the child, as he grows to understand the world at his parent's knee. The parent is "god" in the sense that the parent trains the child to predict what will happen if certain behaviors are done or left undone. This breeds a sense of security in the child as the child understands himself and the world as a predictable place.
Humans do not fare well in natural disasters, human tragedy, or other types of "irregularity" in their "world". It traumatizes the human to experience such disruptions to the regularities fo life. It breeds anxiety and some experience the effects of Post Traumatic Stress.
When the child grows to be a teen, he begins to understand that the law, which guards the socety, which he is a part of, also is predictable. If you transgress, then there are costs. The law maintains social order, so the teen can understand what is expected from him in his society.
The adult comes to understand that though the law protects the social order, life isn't nice and neat, like reaping and sowing, but results , sometimes, in human tragedy that is unpredictable, and sometimes disorienting. Such tragedies should never be judged as getting what one deserves, but understanding that life isn't as predictable as one once thought.
Humans do need predictability, and this is when those that are prone to authoritarianism are prone to believe judgment is always the best way to treat such offenses. Otherwise, "the community" and soceity would go to "pot". These are anxious about protecting and defending what they deem as "absolute", and sometimes these people use 'God" to enforce their positions.
Others think that compassion is a better way to express solidarity in life. No longer is it necessary to protect oneself from unpredictability, by control, nor to defend "God's order", nor is it necessary to affirm oneself in comparison to another. One has come to a point of understanding that life, and living are much more than a certain choice, that causes certain consequences. But, that life has parallel universes that produce different realities, this is true, but that life can be embraced, no matter which "world" one has chosen.
Showing posts with label authoritarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authoritarianism. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Christianity Is Dead
Christianity is dead, at least my husband read something this morning that made him question me. I told him about the discussions going on in the blogospehere and how many books were out about the "death of Christianity". Why is Christianity or religion dying? And does it matter?
Some have suggested that the death of Christianity has come about because the social needs of our population has gotten met through the social media. People have contact at anytime and anywhere these days. So, why go to church to find a place to be affirmed?This is the challenge of "belonging".
Others have suggested that the theology of the Church just doesn't measure up to our scientific knowledge these days. How can one believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that people can do miracles? These are fairy tales, or myths that make life more bearable, when life is hard. This is the challenge of belief.
Still, some have sought to re-frame theology so that the Church is more "up to date". These have reframed "God" himself, as a process, a becoming, or our experience itself is "god in the making". God is the Present, "I Am" and incorporates all of reality (panentheism). These are not orthodox views. This is the challenge of behavior.
Some have seen this challenge to Christian faith as a challenge to know what/where Christian faith began. These go into scholarly debates about Judean roots and what happened to the Arab. How did ethicities get defined? And what protects their identities. These are questions that serve the work of "peace". Because ethnic identities are what make for 'war'. This is an attempt to re-create a new political belief structure, so Man can understand himself as "human" and not by religous identifications or ethnic identities.
The Christian "end" has also been challenged. It used to be that Christianity understood itself historically. History was "God's history". The teleos of all history was the advent of "Christ" or the second coming. Traditional Christians still believe in a coming judgment, and heaven and hell. But, these also believe in a separate reality/realm, the spritual realm.
Christianity is dead for all practical reasons. But, maybe this is not so bad, as Christianity is about how one sees oneself and others, and rightly or wrongly, Christians see themselves as superior beings, because of their promised eternal life. They are prone to think that those without faith are to be pitied, as they are reprobate.
As an "outsider", Christians like to define themselves by their cateogories where they are the prime arbitrator of truth and values. They are confident that what they believe is absolute for everyone, everywhere. And this is where they miss the mark of finding themselves free from defining themselves by faith alone. What do they personally value apart from any religious claims, do they even know? Why do they value it?
This is my concern. Those that are religous are prone to judge without thinking. And they are prone to throw verses around as if life serves people "black and white" situations and circumstances". Everything is "nice and neatly" organized in their frame of reference and if others don't have themselves organized in such a way, they are a threat to society. While I do not doubt at ALL that organization and order is very important, humans are not commodities to be put in boxes or compartments that frame their lives apart from human contingencies.
Political parties organize their platforms simply. But reality gives politicians complex situations to face. These situations challenge their political promises, because politics serves out contingencies too. We can't control what another country does or doesn't do, ultimately. We can co-operate, negotiate, or sanction, bomb or bring out the troops. But, are we different from those that also seek to have a life?
Government itself is a form of order/structure that seeks to circumvent what is of value. Free societies allow liberty where it concerns human life. Dictators, authoritarian power structures are those that believe that "order" should not be horozonally controlled, but hierarchally. These claim power for themselves, and some do it in the "name of God". This is why those that believe that "God" is not just an idea in one's mind, but a real reality are dangerous to our liberties. But, then, the religious are also Americans, and it is important that they also have a voice.
One thing for sure, humans are a diverse species. We are not clones of one another, though there are similarities in what we desire, how we define that in our lives is vastly different in a free society! And certainly, government is made to prevent desires from running over another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Some have suggested that the death of Christianity has come about because the social needs of our population has gotten met through the social media. People have contact at anytime and anywhere these days. So, why go to church to find a place to be affirmed?This is the challenge of "belonging".
Others have suggested that the theology of the Church just doesn't measure up to our scientific knowledge these days. How can one believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that people can do miracles? These are fairy tales, or myths that make life more bearable, when life is hard. This is the challenge of belief.
Still, some have sought to re-frame theology so that the Church is more "up to date". These have reframed "God" himself, as a process, a becoming, or our experience itself is "god in the making". God is the Present, "I Am" and incorporates all of reality (panentheism). These are not orthodox views. This is the challenge of behavior.
Some have seen this challenge to Christian faith as a challenge to know what/where Christian faith began. These go into scholarly debates about Judean roots and what happened to the Arab. How did ethicities get defined? And what protects their identities. These are questions that serve the work of "peace". Because ethnic identities are what make for 'war'. This is an attempt to re-create a new political belief structure, so Man can understand himself as "human" and not by religous identifications or ethnic identities.
The Christian "end" has also been challenged. It used to be that Christianity understood itself historically. History was "God's history". The teleos of all history was the advent of "Christ" or the second coming. Traditional Christians still believe in a coming judgment, and heaven and hell. But, these also believe in a separate reality/realm, the spritual realm.
Christianity is dead for all practical reasons. But, maybe this is not so bad, as Christianity is about how one sees oneself and others, and rightly or wrongly, Christians see themselves as superior beings, because of their promised eternal life. They are prone to think that those without faith are to be pitied, as they are reprobate.
As an "outsider", Christians like to define themselves by their cateogories where they are the prime arbitrator of truth and values. They are confident that what they believe is absolute for everyone, everywhere. And this is where they miss the mark of finding themselves free from defining themselves by faith alone. What do they personally value apart from any religious claims, do they even know? Why do they value it?
This is my concern. Those that are religous are prone to judge without thinking. And they are prone to throw verses around as if life serves people "black and white" situations and circumstances". Everything is "nice and neatly" organized in their frame of reference and if others don't have themselves organized in such a way, they are a threat to society. While I do not doubt at ALL that organization and order is very important, humans are not commodities to be put in boxes or compartments that frame their lives apart from human contingencies.
Political parties organize their platforms simply. But reality gives politicians complex situations to face. These situations challenge their political promises, because politics serves out contingencies too. We can't control what another country does or doesn't do, ultimately. We can co-operate, negotiate, or sanction, bomb or bring out the troops. But, are we different from those that also seek to have a life?
Government itself is a form of order/structure that seeks to circumvent what is of value. Free societies allow liberty where it concerns human life. Dictators, authoritarian power structures are those that believe that "order" should not be horozonally controlled, but hierarchally. These claim power for themselves, and some do it in the "name of God". This is why those that believe that "God" is not just an idea in one's mind, but a real reality are dangerous to our liberties. But, then, the religious are also Americans, and it is important that they also have a voice.
One thing for sure, humans are a diverse species. We are not clones of one another, though there are similarities in what we desire, how we define that in our lives is vastly different in a free society! And certainly, government is made to prevent desires from running over another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Is the Necessary Element to Good Government Applicable to "God" and Parenting?
In ethics there is a question that is posed about whether something is moral just because God commands it, or because it is objectively moral, irrespective of "God". This is called the "Euthyphro dilemma". Those that believe that "God" is somehow "above the law" are subverting "good judgment. These believe that whatever God demands is a necessary "evil" for his ultimate purposes.
The Divine Command Theory is nothing less than authoritarian governance. It is a demand to obey, without question, because "faith" sanctions such obedience and piety demands it. But is authoritarian government the best form of government? Not unless, one believes that a dictator is the best leader.
Christians will argue that humans cannot see or know the best because they are limited. God is interested in "holiness" or "character", which means, in effect, that one isn't to take ownership of thier own life, but submit in their actions and attitude to whatever "life has divied out", without question, as this is "God's will in Christ Jesus concerning you". Suffering is a means to get the "dross" out of one's life. It is a means to alleviate our lives of our "idols".
Scripture teaches that God is a Father. Does a good father dictate and demand? Or does a father seek to understand, encourage, support, and help the child?
Human rights suggests that individuals are deemed significant and of value in America. We are not a collective society. We believe that good government is limited, and does not intrude into the private lives of its citizens. Americans believe in private property. As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
Good government applies to "God" as well as parenting. Therefore, what is moral is objective, not subject to arbitrary dictates of a "god", parent or dictator.
The Divine Command Theory is nothing less than authoritarian governance. It is a demand to obey, without question, because "faith" sanctions such obedience and piety demands it. But is authoritarian government the best form of government? Not unless, one believes that a dictator is the best leader.
Christians will argue that humans cannot see or know the best because they are limited. God is interested in "holiness" or "character", which means, in effect, that one isn't to take ownership of thier own life, but submit in their actions and attitude to whatever "life has divied out", without question, as this is "God's will in Christ Jesus concerning you". Suffering is a means to get the "dross" out of one's life. It is a means to alleviate our lives of our "idols".
Scripture teaches that God is a Father. Does a good father dictate and demand? Or does a father seek to understand, encourage, support, and help the child?
Human rights suggests that individuals are deemed significant and of value in America. We are not a collective society. We believe that good government is limited, and does not intrude into the private lives of its citizens. Americans believe in private property. As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
Good government applies to "God" as well as parenting. Therefore, what is moral is objective, not subject to arbitrary dictates of a "god", parent or dictator.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Jazz Correlates to American "Faith"
Jazz in its free expression, is also how Americans and the Founders have viewed "faith". We believe in liberty of conscience, and value diverse interests. We won't be defined by a "one size fits all" faith. Faith remains undefined according to the First Amendment. Government is not to define "faith", or interfere with "faith". Liberty of conscience defines "faith". And that is, "free association" of value, in individual choice.
America is basically a Protestant nation, so we aren't defined by Roman Catholicism, nor are we to be defined by fundmentalism, because Americans basically are independent from authoritarian understandings in regards to faith. But, the fundamentalists, or those that think "faith" has lost its value, have begun to try to re-define our liberty of conscience along their lines of their particular understanding. This is nothing less than limiting another in their understanding and value, in regards to "faith" and its claims.Therefore, we have the "culture war" we have today, in regards to "faith" and American government. We must not define another's faith, unless we want to promote a militaristic "faith" that terrorizes others that might have different convictions.
America is basically a Protestant nation, so we aren't defined by Roman Catholicism, nor are we to be defined by fundmentalism, because Americans basically are independent from authoritarian understandings in regards to faith. But, the fundamentalists, or those that think "faith" has lost its value, have begun to try to re-define our liberty of conscience along their lines of their particular understanding. This is nothing less than limiting another in their understanding and value, in regards to "faith" and its claims.Therefore, we have the "culture war" we have today, in regards to "faith" and American government. We must not define another's faith, unless we want to promote a militaristic "faith" that terrorizes others that might have different convictions.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Why I Love the Quote by Heinlein
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -- Robert A. Heinlein
I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.
I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.
The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".
I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.
I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.
The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Existential Angst and Authoritarianism
I had the opportunity to have the grandkids here with me this week. I am always amused and "enlightentened" whenever my grandaughter says something with such conviction and authority, without having the slightest insight into how simple her understanding is.
The learning process has been studied by educators, so that physicians and developmental 'specialists of all kinds' can diagnose whether a particular child is "on course" or developing appropriately. The judgment is not to learn about another individual child, so much as to encourage the parent or give resources or tests to the children who seem to be developing at a different rate than "the average".
But, every stage of learning is a stage of growth, but also "existential angst", because whatever has been believed before is enlarged, or undermined and re-vamped altogether, then there is a cognitive dissonance that needs to be "solved". And the solution is coming to terms with a "new world order".
Children believe in "make-believe", such as fairy tales that paint a world filled with "happily ever afters", or "God" who is personally interested in the particularity of the child's every whim. "God" is representative to the child of security, stability, and hopeful promise of a "future". But, as the child matures, these images and hopes are challenged by encountering the 'real world' and an enlarged view of understanding, which counters their simple and trusting "ideals". The "real world" becomes an enemy to 'peace'.
"Existensial Angst" is what should be expected in Christian colleges, because there is no "special revelation" or special truth in an abstract form, but only in personal form. The student themself is a "revelation" of indivdiuality. And their hopeful future is not protected by "God", but by their ability to function within their specialty of discipline.
Authoritarianism does not allow or understand the need for individuality in personal values or of personal commitment. Authoritarianism hinders growth because of the 'fear of difference". Difference is a challenge to those who hold to authoritarianism, whether ecclesiastical, bibilical, governmental, or organizational.
The individual in his own "right" has a right to exist apart from the collective "whole", and for his own personal values, not society, itself, which de-mean and de-moralize the indivdidual in his/her development and "promise".
The learning process has been studied by educators, so that physicians and developmental 'specialists of all kinds' can diagnose whether a particular child is "on course" or developing appropriately. The judgment is not to learn about another individual child, so much as to encourage the parent or give resources or tests to the children who seem to be developing at a different rate than "the average".
But, every stage of learning is a stage of growth, but also "existential angst", because whatever has been believed before is enlarged, or undermined and re-vamped altogether, then there is a cognitive dissonance that needs to be "solved". And the solution is coming to terms with a "new world order".
Children believe in "make-believe", such as fairy tales that paint a world filled with "happily ever afters", or "God" who is personally interested in the particularity of the child's every whim. "God" is representative to the child of security, stability, and hopeful promise of a "future". But, as the child matures, these images and hopes are challenged by encountering the 'real world' and an enlarged view of understanding, which counters their simple and trusting "ideals". The "real world" becomes an enemy to 'peace'.
"Existensial Angst" is what should be expected in Christian colleges, because there is no "special revelation" or special truth in an abstract form, but only in personal form. The student themself is a "revelation" of indivdiuality. And their hopeful future is not protected by "God", but by their ability to function within their specialty of discipline.
Authoritarianism does not allow or understand the need for individuality in personal values or of personal commitment. Authoritarianism hinders growth because of the 'fear of difference". Difference is a challenge to those who hold to authoritarianism, whether ecclesiastical, bibilical, governmental, or organizational.
The individual in his own "right" has a right to exist apart from the collective "whole", and for his own personal values, not society, itself, which de-mean and de-moralize the indivdidual in his/her development and "promise".
Friday, December 4, 2009
Using Religion
If religious truths are true, then they should be followed by all. But, if religious truths are relative in human devleopment, then they should remain 'in their place". I am no expert, but it seems to me that since there has been research that does not appeal to the religious realm for human developemnt, then religon is an apendage, a periforal, but unnecceary "extra", as there is "no truth but God's truth". There is no "special revelation, only general revelation. And general revelation is not defined necessarily within the relgious "confines" of church and religious community.
Religion gives meaning, defines values and give man an outside source of authority. But, modern man knows that humans develop apart from religion and traditon can be understood in many different ways, as cultural or familial identification factors.
I got an e-mail from a friend today that told me of her struggle ot overcome an abusive religous environment. She talked of moving away and thinking she would never recover. She revealed how protective she and her husband were toward religious environments and religious "purposes". She encouraged me to walk carefully in regard to "belonging to a religious community", or looking for affirmation within that sort of environment. She said that her healing came from outside of religion and the community of faith, from a friend that wasn't connnected to religion. I think she has fully recovered, as she sees things clearly, now.
In her book, "Twisted Scriptures", Mary Alice Chrnalogar, a international recovery counselor of abusive discipleship programs and abusive churches, has many "signposts" that signify an abusive spiritual environment. She develops the history of the discipleship/spiritual mentoring program and shows the ill effects upon the naive and trusting.
I find that most evangelical and all fundamentalist teaching that I have been exposed to, is prone to this sort of abuse. Many do not recover their individual identity and some have break-downs because of authoritarianism, and distorted views of spritiuality. I know many who have experienced such abuse and wonder how many suffer under thei ill-effects of such environments.
This friend's husband also compromised his career because of such "commitments". Commitments that are useful for leadership and their goals, use terms such as: "covenant", "total surrender", "consecration", "full commitment", "wholehearted", "sanctified", and many other such terms. The definitions of these terms, of course, are "understood" best by leadership. And one that wants to be so commited will do whatever the leader requires to be "approved" to have passed the test to recieve the "sanction' of the "special intiation" into the religous community of faith. This is a CULT! GET OUT!
Cults breed undue dependence, and demand obedience, as their authority is derived from God, not man, or so they assert. Cults do not allow independent thinking, critical analysis, or academic development. Such "outside sources" might challenge the 'status quo" that would change the very authoritarian structure, undermining the leaders power and control over others.
Individuals need to find thier unique gifts and interests and follow these. This will be a defense against those that wish to prey upon those who seek outside approval. Everyone should come to a place where they will be settled in 'who they are', as innately gifted and created. And say with me:
"I will be, who I will be, not who some else thinks I should be and I will do what I will do, not what someone else determines for me to do. I will be free."
Religion gives meaning, defines values and give man an outside source of authority. But, modern man knows that humans develop apart from religion and traditon can be understood in many different ways, as cultural or familial identification factors.
I got an e-mail from a friend today that told me of her struggle ot overcome an abusive religous environment. She talked of moving away and thinking she would never recover. She revealed how protective she and her husband were toward religious environments and religious "purposes". She encouraged me to walk carefully in regard to "belonging to a religious community", or looking for affirmation within that sort of environment. She said that her healing came from outside of religion and the community of faith, from a friend that wasn't connnected to religion. I think she has fully recovered, as she sees things clearly, now.
In her book, "Twisted Scriptures", Mary Alice Chrnalogar, a international recovery counselor of abusive discipleship programs and abusive churches, has many "signposts" that signify an abusive spiritual environment. She develops the history of the discipleship/spiritual mentoring program and shows the ill effects upon the naive and trusting.
I find that most evangelical and all fundamentalist teaching that I have been exposed to, is prone to this sort of abuse. Many do not recover their individual identity and some have break-downs because of authoritarianism, and distorted views of spritiuality. I know many who have experienced such abuse and wonder how many suffer under thei ill-effects of such environments.
This friend's husband also compromised his career because of such "commitments". Commitments that are useful for leadership and their goals, use terms such as: "covenant", "total surrender", "consecration", "full commitment", "wholehearted", "sanctified", and many other such terms. The definitions of these terms, of course, are "understood" best by leadership. And one that wants to be so commited will do whatever the leader requires to be "approved" to have passed the test to recieve the "sanction' of the "special intiation" into the religous community of faith. This is a CULT! GET OUT!
Cults breed undue dependence, and demand obedience, as their authority is derived from God, not man, or so they assert. Cults do not allow independent thinking, critical analysis, or academic development. Such "outside sources" might challenge the 'status quo" that would change the very authoritarian structure, undermining the leaders power and control over others.
Individuals need to find thier unique gifts and interests and follow these. This will be a defense against those that wish to prey upon those who seek outside approval. Everyone should come to a place where they will be settled in 'who they are', as innately gifted and created. And say with me:
"I will be, who I will be, not who some else thinks I should be and I will do what I will do, not what someone else determines for me to do. I will be free."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Rape in the Name of Religion
Those of us in the West believe that rape is wrong. Why do we believe it is wrong?
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity.
2.)We believe that humans are not property.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities.
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity because we believe that there is no difference between male and female, as to "rights" of personal boundaries.
2.)We believe that humans are not to be considered another's property. We believe that humans in relationship do not give up their human rights. Relationship serves the humans involved in mutuality, not in hierarchy.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities. Humans have value in and of themselves, therefore, they must not be a means to an end.
Religion has sometimes dismissed these values in the name of "god". God sanctions authoritarianism and the use of humiliation to "break the will" of those who resist "His Will'. This is "proper discipline" and teaches or trains those resistant the "costs" of rebellion.
Discipleship means that one does not use reason, but submits to authority without question as this demonstrates a "heart focused on loving God" above "self". This behavior shows that one is surrendered to do "His Will" no matter the costs, and give up everything for the cause of "god" and "his Kingdom".
Denying self means that one does not seek one's own interest, in fact, one must annihlate "self". Self must die, so that others may live. Your life is not your own. You are a slave to "god" and are to serve "him" alone.
Virtue is required in the midst of horrendous abuse of power, as this illustrates one's trust in God, as well as affirming one's commitment "unto death" for the "cause of Christ".
This is "God rape" of the human heart and spirit. And it leaves a damaging view of "god and religion" impressed upon the brain.
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity.
2.)We believe that humans are not property.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities.
1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity because we believe that there is no difference between male and female, as to "rights" of personal boundaries.
2.)We believe that humans are not to be considered another's property. We believe that humans in relationship do not give up their human rights. Relationship serves the humans involved in mutuality, not in hierarchy.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities. Humans have value in and of themselves, therefore, they must not be a means to an end.
Religion has sometimes dismissed these values in the name of "god". God sanctions authoritarianism and the use of humiliation to "break the will" of those who resist "His Will'. This is "proper discipline" and teaches or trains those resistant the "costs" of rebellion.
Discipleship means that one does not use reason, but submits to authority without question as this demonstrates a "heart focused on loving God" above "self". This behavior shows that one is surrendered to do "His Will" no matter the costs, and give up everything for the cause of "god" and "his Kingdom".
Denying self means that one does not seek one's own interest, in fact, one must annihlate "self". Self must die, so that others may live. Your life is not your own. You are a slave to "god" and are to serve "him" alone.
Virtue is required in the midst of horrendous abuse of power, as this illustrates one's trust in God, as well as affirming one's commitment "unto death" for the "cause of Christ".
This is "God rape" of the human heart and spirit. And it leaves a damaging view of "god and religion" impressed upon the brain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
