This is to be Rapture Day! Is anyone really disappointed, or fearful that they have been "left behind"? Why would people or anyone believe that one could really "know" these things? Because they have faith! Faith sanctions MANY unreasonable, foolish, and unwise thoughts, actions, convictions, and opinions! But people of Faith cannot be torn away from their "personal experience" which affirms their context!
These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".
The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.
The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.
Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.
Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.
"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.
Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".
Showing posts with label equality under law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality under law. Show all posts
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
What Is the Use of "Christian"?
To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.
Charles de Montesquieu
This is the "means for Christian religion", as far as Montesquieu is concerned. The Christian religion upholds Jesus of Nazereth as a "moral example" and his was an example of compasssion for those that didn't "fit". America is great because it is a land of opportunity where all men have inalienable rights to pursue their goals.
Montesquieu was not a "Christian", but was a political philosopher that had a great impact on America's Founding.
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Christian education should not be about Scripture as an inerrant, infallible "Word of God", but as a philosophy of human nature. The law is the equalizer among men, as the law protects human nature from itself. Human nature is prone to err, as it is limited in scope, self-interested, and opinionated by one's "culture". Scientists understand "human nature" as "survival of the fittest".
Virtue is a defense for civility. Without virtue, civilization would be lost on war, revenge, and spitefulness. Self interest is not bad, it just is. This is why we need to acknowledge and identify what our self interest is about and negotiate our differences. This is where social contract can protect peace and uphold justice.
Without an understanding of human nature, which scientists still are investigating, the world cannot live in peace.
Charles de Montesquieu
This is the "means for Christian religion", as far as Montesquieu is concerned. The Christian religion upholds Jesus of Nazereth as a "moral example" and his was an example of compasssion for those that didn't "fit". America is great because it is a land of opportunity where all men have inalienable rights to pursue their goals.
Montesquieu was not a "Christian", but was a political philosopher that had a great impact on America's Founding.
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Christian education should not be about Scripture as an inerrant, infallible "Word of God", but as a philosophy of human nature. The law is the equalizer among men, as the law protects human nature from itself. Human nature is prone to err, as it is limited in scope, self-interested, and opinionated by one's "culture". Scientists understand "human nature" as "survival of the fittest".
Virtue is a defense for civility. Without virtue, civilization would be lost on war, revenge, and spitefulness. Self interest is not bad, it just is. This is why we need to acknowledge and identify what our self interest is about and negotiate our differences. This is where social contract can protect peace and uphold justice.
Without an understanding of human nature, which scientists still are investigating, the world cannot live in peace.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
"Do Unto Others"
"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you", is a universally acclaimed rule. But, do all people want the same things in life? That depends on one's needs desires, and values.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Is "Messed Up", Just Another Name for Liberty?
On a blog I follow "American Creation", there has been a discussion on whether America is a Christian nation, or not. There are various opinions, but one that most agree upon, is that our Founding Fathers were "theistic rationalists". They did not believe necessarily in the Trinity, as they were 'Unitarian".
Our Founders belief in "order" was what inspired them to "create" our form of government. They assumed by the witness of history that men were "self seeking", so they set up a balance and separation of powers. No person was uncorruptable, so no person should have absolute rule. We were not to be ruled by kings, dictators, or tyrants. We believe in liberty for religion and individual conscience.
Although we were a nation whose diversity was maintained under the "rule of law", we have become a people that has no value of the "collective". Because America allows such freedom, we have become a nation that is about freedom or liberty more than life.
Why would we loose what our nation fought and died for in the past? The right for the individual to live?
Today's medical miracles and scientific discoveries have made life what it could never be in the past. We live longer and more comfortable lives, and some of us think that this is the pursuit of life, quantity and quality.
Does an individual have the right to decide how, when and where he will die? The religious believe that all life is a gift from God and that to do damage to life is negating God, which is the ultimate unpardonable sin. Others seem to allow individuals to decide their conscience concerning these issues. If there are diverse views, then what is the damage to our culture? Religious freedom can still be upheld, even if there are some that believe in euthanasia, chosen by the individual.
Many are concerned with universal healthcare. Everyone is promised an entitlement to bring a healthier life, but what really does it do, but limit all of us in choice? We cannot have it both ways, either we will hold to individual liberty, or we will commit to collective "good". And "collective good" is a positive view of the law, not the limiting one.
While I agree that we have gotten overly independent as to our responsiblities and obligations in our families, and our communities, we must not give up our understanding of being a "free people", where no "elite" decides our liberties. We will cease to be a "free people", when the "elites" determine and decide for us, what we should believe, and how we are to behave.
Limited government was to be upheld so that government would not intrude upon the individual, his family and his possessions. (The supposed criminal has to have his rights "read" to him, before the police officier takes him into custody. He is innocent until proven guilty.) This is a right that is to be protected, otherwise, we will live by a tribal mentality that preys upon others for the 'common good", as determined by these "elites", whether religious or academic.
Many "elites" make fun of those who like to have the right to their guns, a right granted in the Constitution. But, while I may not value that right in the city, is it something that should be decided for the average "joe" in the Midwest? This is why we have a representative Republic, because we believe that our representatives will represent our values when they meet to defend our liberties and what that means in legislation. We must not give up that diversity, otherwise we will be doomed to be a "totaltalarian Religious Regime, or a Secularized State".
This battle becomes a fine balance between religious freedom and moral order. Moeal order is established by the "powers that be" in the laws of our land. We cannot give up the value of our country's "rule of law' without giving up one of the basic values that protect all of us, and that included the individuals own right to protect and defend himself from tyranny (whether religious or political).
Our Founders belief in "order" was what inspired them to "create" our form of government. They assumed by the witness of history that men were "self seeking", so they set up a balance and separation of powers. No person was uncorruptable, so no person should have absolute rule. We were not to be ruled by kings, dictators, or tyrants. We believe in liberty for religion and individual conscience.
Although we were a nation whose diversity was maintained under the "rule of law", we have become a people that has no value of the "collective". Because America allows such freedom, we have become a nation that is about freedom or liberty more than life.
Why would we loose what our nation fought and died for in the past? The right for the individual to live?
Today's medical miracles and scientific discoveries have made life what it could never be in the past. We live longer and more comfortable lives, and some of us think that this is the pursuit of life, quantity and quality.
Does an individual have the right to decide how, when and where he will die? The religious believe that all life is a gift from God and that to do damage to life is negating God, which is the ultimate unpardonable sin. Others seem to allow individuals to decide their conscience concerning these issues. If there are diverse views, then what is the damage to our culture? Religious freedom can still be upheld, even if there are some that believe in euthanasia, chosen by the individual.
Many are concerned with universal healthcare. Everyone is promised an entitlement to bring a healthier life, but what really does it do, but limit all of us in choice? We cannot have it both ways, either we will hold to individual liberty, or we will commit to collective "good". And "collective good" is a positive view of the law, not the limiting one.
While I agree that we have gotten overly independent as to our responsiblities and obligations in our families, and our communities, we must not give up our understanding of being a "free people", where no "elite" decides our liberties. We will cease to be a "free people", when the "elites" determine and decide for us, what we should believe, and how we are to behave.
Limited government was to be upheld so that government would not intrude upon the individual, his family and his possessions. (The supposed criminal has to have his rights "read" to him, before the police officier takes him into custody. He is innocent until proven guilty.) This is a right that is to be protected, otherwise, we will live by a tribal mentality that preys upon others for the 'common good", as determined by these "elites", whether religious or academic.
Many "elites" make fun of those who like to have the right to their guns, a right granted in the Constitution. But, while I may not value that right in the city, is it something that should be decided for the average "joe" in the Midwest? This is why we have a representative Republic, because we believe that our representatives will represent our values when they meet to defend our liberties and what that means in legislation. We must not give up that diversity, otherwise we will be doomed to be a "totaltalarian Religious Regime, or a Secularized State".
This battle becomes a fine balance between religious freedom and moral order. Moeal order is established by the "powers that be" in the laws of our land. We cannot give up the value of our country's "rule of law' without giving up one of the basic values that protect all of us, and that included the individuals own right to protect and defend himself from tyranny (whether religious or political).
Monday, July 27, 2009
"Specialialness" and Divine Revelation
All fundamentalists and many evangelicas believe that they have "special revelation". These believe that Scripture reveals "God's plan" and "God's way". These people remain within the "system" of biblical revelation to "defend" their positions. They, for the most part, fear other areas of knowledge, because "special revelation" has to be "above" average, everyday knowledge. Their reading of Scripture and "revelations" are sanctioned due to their belief in the Holy Spirit. No one can convince these believers otherwise, as they have "an in-road to God".
There is something highly wrong and dangerous with such a view. While the Church has maintained it's narrative of Jesus, Christ and Church, those that adhere to this narrative must also submit to Church authority.
Church authority nor is any authority immune to "use" their sense of "entitlement" to further their own agenda and goals. And this is why no organization or people should be above our nation's laws.
Special priviledge is not the "American Way", no matter what Scripture may deem "right"! Slavery was outlawed and patronage is dubious when it comes to our American ideals, as all are equal under the law.
There is something highly wrong and dangerous with such a view. While the Church has maintained it's narrative of Jesus, Christ and Church, those that adhere to this narrative must also submit to Church authority.
Church authority nor is any authority immune to "use" their sense of "entitlement" to further their own agenda and goals. And this is why no organization or people should be above our nation's laws.
Special priviledge is not the "American Way", no matter what Scripture may deem "right"! Slavery was outlawed and patronage is dubious when it comes to our American ideals, as all are equal under the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
