Healthy Relationships

It irritates me when others take advantage of others. It doesn't matter if I am personally involved or not, because in principle, I believe that the individual is not to be presumed upon. Presumption depends on others without their input, or knowledge. While my husband trusts me, it would be disrepectful and unkind for me to not ask his opinion, advice, or permission, if I were to take on certain responsibilities that affected his life.

Just today I encountered a discussion with a believer, who adheres to "orthodox Christianity". He was raised a Pentecostal, but thinks that Pentecostals do not understand or believe in "real righteousness". While I agree that theological explaination cannot be separated from "real reality", neither can "real reality" in creating "real righteousness" be separated from one's personal history. I further questioned him on why he thought there was anything "special" about religious training, as training for character is done in secular environments and not just religious ones.

Relationship is built on trust, from the cradle to the grave. Trust is learned in the cradle when the infant's needs are met and the toddler's questions are patiently answered. Trust is built as the teen learns to expand their horizons and explore the world a little further from home. But, adults understand trust to be about living life within a context of social contract.

Social contract is an understanding that although we are individuals, we do not live alone and separated from the greater world. We live our lives within many contexts that underline "who we are". Our identities are written in the contexts we commit to. Adults do not have to be defined by the contexts of their upbringing.

This particular person is a highly educated and personable who believes in supernaturalism. I felt frustrated over his seeming inability to understand where I was coming from. He had stated that we all have dogmatics that we "live by". And he proceeded to talk about postmodernity and narrative.,the Church being the ultimate universal. He spoke of "community", that sounded uptopian to me. When I tried to point out that all social organizations "run" in similar ways, he kept holding to a "higher spiritual view". Definitions of boundary are what identifies the groups "form" and structures the organization's values. These are not universal, but specified and are committed to by individuals who want association with the group. This commitment is a commitment of choice and value. It is a commitment of faith, which is the "social contract". And the social contract must be built upon the foundation of 'good will" and "good intention".

But, what if there has been a history of "ill will" or a breaking of trust? What then? Is one called to just "take a leap" without understanding or reasonableness? I think this would be the height of naivete'. One must trust what one commits to, otherwise, it is an unhealthy relationship.

Atheist, Agnostic or What?

Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.

In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".

Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.

I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.

I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!

So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...

Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.