Eternal LIFE OR a "Socialized Theology"? and Political Realities

Christians were a Jewish sect. These did not have political power, as they were from marginal professions, such as fishermen and prostitutes. The Jews weren't all in agreement as to "eternal life" or the resurrection.
Could it be that the political reality of life, as to political power was what drove their "theologizing"? I believe so.

The Sadducees did not believe in eternal life or the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. Could it be that the Sadducees who were the more "empowered class", as to money and political power didn't need the "promise" of eternal life, because they had more choices as to their life? I believe this is key to how we "psychologically frame" reality.

Christians and the institution of the Church has used Jesus life as their example of Chrsitian faith.  Jesus condemned the "white-washed tombs" of the Pharisees because they weren't living their life like he was, as a humanitarian. But, "Christian" was only a term that was useful after the assembling of "like-minded" individuals, a society. It was a way for these to find a "Place of Belonging". They didn't have that choice in the political realities in Rome.

Fortunately, for Americans, our nation values the right of conscience as to choice. This is what supports our diverse climate as to values in life. But, unfortunately, "Christians" don't know their roots, and why the developed theology had "power" over Chruch doctrine. It was a way to make a "better life" without the practical realities of messy politics.

The Question of Faith and the Political

Faith has been the focus of our recent elections. Those who believed that our country values religious liberty are those that understood themselves as the faithful in protesting a "government take-over". But, how faith and politics interacts is a sticky situation.

Many have sought to define faith based soley on scripture. Their is a fundamentalist view of life and knowledge that is stringently defined by "holy scripture". The academic disciplines are suspect in this view.

Others have understood their faith based on the institution of the Church. And the Church has created a rationalization of faith claims which becomes doctrine. Those that do not adhere to these definitions are ex-communicated.

Still others have sought to use their reason to defend faith by theology. But, theology is still the Church's defense or rationale to believe without "grounding".

Some have sought to "ground" and live out their faith by a "logos' understanding. These have brought about an idealization of faith (Christ of faith) through Jesus, as a life example. These are piestic/behavioral oriented believers.

Those that have given up on definitions and are prone to a negative theology, where God ceases to be defined, because he is beyond definition, are pluralists. These are universalists in their understanding of faith. And they attempt to unify faith along the lines of human need.

Those that want to understand faith in regards to a particular tradition study the historical, political, and social structuring of such a faith. These are apt to be useful to political goals for peace.

Because I have doubts about the practicality of ideals when it comes to faith claims, I am in "limbo" and will not commit. Political goals and purposes seem to be the most realistic value to and for me. Therefore, our country's value of individuality/diversity and liberty are important values to me. These can only be protected if those in power understand that we are all created equal, without imposing thier ideological understanding of the way the world works or how the individual "should be" in the world.

I am afraid that religion has been useful to further political ends without considering that indivdual liberties will be undermined by such  social engineering.  And our American ideals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will be a distant memory unless we defend such liberty, as the most important value for American identity.

Hearing Voices Is Not Rational

"Hearing God's voice" is a major emphasis in revelational faith. These people believe that God is really alive and speaks to the "chosen". Others believe that God's revelation is totally revealed in the written text of "Scripture". These believe that "God speaks" to "His chosen" through "His Word".

Recently, a radio program that "preaches" the latter, has become of concern to my husband. He has listened to this program on and off for years. But, lately, this "Bible-believing" Christian has become convinced that he knows the date of Christ's return, May 21st, 2011!

Why has this become of concern? First, this person's ministry was the "dot and tittle" of the written "Word", but has now become a "rhema Word". What changed this person and how did he become so convinced that he would suggest that those who don't adhere to the May 21st date are not "saved"?!? Has this person become deluded? demented? What caused the change and how does he "know" what he "knows"?

This is why revelational religious claims are not dependable ways of "doing business" in the "real world", where rationality is needed, so that "contracts" can be negotiated and the terms met. Contracts, whether social, or business are based on laws that define the terms and conditions of such relationships. This is why personal words, such as "love" is not the way to term such "real world" problems.

"Hearing voices" is how spiritual leaders many times lead those that have belief in such ways of 'knowing". These do not accept the naturalistic way of understanding such voices, and this is dangerous, as it leads to emphatic demands and fearful reactions about "God's will", which limits others in their understandings. And it damages diversity, and creates religious wars.

Outrage!

Today's world has left little to imagine when it comes to the evil that man is capable of, but the outrage I felt when I heard that a 13 story mosque was to be built upon the soil that captured American blood, was incommensurable! The mosque will not only be built upon the soil where American lost their lives, but also the mark of the 10 year anniversary, September 11, 2011!

How can any Muslim, no matter their stripe, think that building a sacred shrine to Allah on top of an American symbol of tragedy, be tolerable, much less acceptable? Is this the point? Is building such a shrine dedicated to Islam's God in the very place that symbolized to their society horrendous idolatry; the American capitalistic system? I just wonder.

How is it that those calling for humane treatment and tolerance can make excuses for such abuse and insensitivity toward our losses? Imagine if you had lost a loved one in a towering inferno that day, and all because of love for God!

I heard the analogy of Germans building a shrine at the site of Auschwitz, or the Japanese at the sit of Pearl Harbor. Neither the Germans or the Japanese would have considered such an action.

Toleration cannot be the medicine for such intolerant attitudes, ideology, and action. Anyone that thinks that there can be negotiation with those that have such beliefs is deluded.

Whenever there is belief that one has a "higher understanding" or "higher call", etc. then, one is bent toward destroying or "converting" those who are "lesser". These will not stop their behavior because of reason. In fact, the very fact of persecution can be a sanction to their "election". Their understanding of life is built upon faith. This is why faith is so dangerous.

The Personal Can Never Be the Universal....

The personal can never be the universal, because of man's unique "giftedness". Some would disagree and think that, as Maslow thought, that man's "needs" are based on a scale of hierarchy. But, anyone that has seen a mother give up her "last morsel of bread", or a stranger act to defend the defenseless, has not known or experienced man's ability to rise above his hierarchal needs.

On the other hand, one cannot presume that a particular individual should act in any particular way, as this would undermine what is needed for altruistic action, which is liberty of choice and value. Man is not made for another man's purposes, but is his own end. The libertarian would defend the right of men to their own personal convictions. Actions come from values, convictions, and most choices are made on a scale of higher or greater values, etc. And these are all individually understood and defined within our society. There is no "one Purpose" .

Today, the pastor admonished his parishnors to embrace the life of faith, in the resurrection and the purposes of God. Faith is a personal choice and decision, once one comes to understand that the "real world" does not function on any other course of action than "real world action", real world solutions, and real world politics. The real world is the political, social, physical, historical, experiential, and cultural one. And free socities do not tend to dictate what or which is of ultimate value, nor define these for the individual, except within the boundaries of law. And the law protects the citizen in their liberty of conscience.

Though the personal can never be the universal, neither can there be a universal understanding of life, as it concerns the individual.

Albert Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.

The Super-Ego and the Id

Scientists today are interested in "altruism". How do humans who are made to "survive" based on their personal interests to take interests in others? Religion and tribal/cultural understandings of formation of the Super-Ego have been understood to help along the "ultimate good", "pubic good", or "moral imperative". But, is societal "good", the "collective" the greatest value one is to value? This is the question posed to moral philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, diplomats, and theologians.

Freud made popular the terms Id and Super-Ego. These terms are used to identify how individuals naturally are pre-disposed and how they become due to societal/cultural impact. Whenever there is a coflict between the Id and Super-Ego, the Ego uses defense mechanisms to "cope" with anxiety.

The child needs a nuturing environment to survive. And as Western society has lost its sense of responsiblity and obligation to its young, Western culture has suffered the dire consequences. The family is the first formative community that the child encounters to teach and train. As the child grows and experiences his teachers, and others that impact the child, the child learns to trust or mistrust "life". Is life to be embraced, explored and trusted, or is life to be a challenge to life itself due to impoverishment, whether physical or social? These are the social problems that face the West. And it becomes the question of the developing Id and Super-Ego.

I think that whenever the individual, whether a child or adult, is undermined through subversive means, then it is an undermining of the stability that will bring about "altruistic concern". How can one who has not recieved the proper nourishment from society, be or become what society needs to further the goals of human flourishing?

Human flourishing has to begin at the individual level for the individual to "give back" and bring about human flourishing for another. The "super-ego" can be a gift or a curse depending on how that has been formed in early childhood. Has the environment been nurturing or punitive? And how has the parent handled the child's innate desires? Have they been affirmed as far as possible, without subverting the child's "good"?

Parenting the child's "Id', his innate desires is an important part of developing the child's gifts. If the parent is too afraid of the desires of the child because of some punitive understanding of religious doctrine, then the child becomes malformed and may sabatoge his own happiness later in life.

I think that religion can be prohibitive to healthy development due to a "fear of God". If one has certain natural desires, then one is "doomed to be punished". Happiness is not to be sought in the development of what one desires, because one must sacrifice for 'God. This is seen as the ultimate in service to God. But, sacrifice and subservience is an unhealthy understanding of faith. The fundamentalist appraoch to faith demeans the "human".

For Those Who Choose to Believe...

Humans are created in the "image of God", or so the believing community affirms. Therefore, humans are special, or distinct from other forms of life. Human life is to be respected. Therefore, those who choose to believe must affirm that humans cannot be manipulated, controlled, oppressed, or "trained" as animals.

In the Old Testament, there is a story about a man who attempted to "steady the ark of the covenant". His intentions were well-meaning, as he didn't want the ark of the covenant to "fall to the ground" and defile it. But, what happened to him struck fear in the heart of others as to the seriousness of "touching the ark of the covenant" for any reason, well intentioned or not.

The Ark of the Covenant was symbolic of the Presence and Law of God. In the New Testament, it is understood to be "the human being" who is created in God's image that is the "ark of the Covenant".

Other communal understandings is "the Church", as the "Ark of the Covenant". The problem with this view is the problem of any group type form. But, in this sense, the Church is a cult. A cult or sectarian faiths have certain irrational beliefs that defend their practices. These are symbolized in communion, marriage, baptism and other sacraments. These symbolize "the community" as ancient cultures understood themselves in "communal ways".

Enlightenment via the Reformation has understood the importance of the individual, not the communal. Some have thought that this is what has undermined America's civil responsibilities. But, I believe that what the individual child is taught and becomes is based in the family. Family is understood by both pyschological and sociological science and faith communities as a formative community. Therefore, the individual is formed in the framework of care, concern and commitment.

Those who choose to believe will not presume or assume upon the community nor the individuals within those communities.

On Character....

Character is described by one's attitudes, as well as one's actions, as character reflects conviction and commitment. This is a simplistic view that doesn't take into account any dimension of psychological science. It is as if humans are two demensional beings, while the world is know to be multi-deminsional. It could be termed the "human" "flat-landers.

This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.

Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.

Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".

Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".

A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.

Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.

Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.

The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.

Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.

Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.

Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.

Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?