People of Faith, Arise (or why faith is dangerous in a real world)

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".

Don't Talk to Me About "Love"

I have been romantic most of my life. Dreaming of the day I'd marry and live happily ever after. I absolutely loved planning and being a part of our daughter's wedding. Decorating the reception hall and church was something I will never forget, as I love making things look beautiful! I loved talking to people in junior high and high school about their relationship problems. I used to be all about "relationships". I just knew that things could be worked out. I believed in "love" back then.

Cynicism is a transition phase until one can get over the realities of life. Life is not about hopeful dreams, but problems and difficulties. It is reality based, not escapist theology. Such transition means one doesn't look for narratives to woo one to sleep, but looks for the love in the 'neighbot's face". Friends and family is really all anyone has and these are to be cherished as one gets beyond cynicism of life.

Life hits everyone sometime with hard realities. And those of us who are more sensitized by nature or nurture are prone to react strongly to such realities. Some of us decide to think through their life differently. What they had believed is myth and unrealistic hopefulness of 'Utopian" ideals, not the conflicts, politics and harsh painful realities that are the true reality of life.

 I don't think there is any healing for "ideals". These are only to be fought for, they are not realities, but dreams of human hearts. And human hearts understand their dreams in different ways. I only want to now protect others from crushing blows about believing "hopeful dreams". It is improbable for most that dreams come true.  And this is what being an adult is about, fighting to live and make one's choices, and be who one desires to be, irregardless of what others think or believe. This is when one not only owns one's life, but starts to enjoy life in a new way, because one begins to love oneself . This is only the begining of happiness, to know oneself and not keep hoping for another reality, life or dream.

After one has grasped that life is not a romantic novel, where things are always completed and neatly tied up, one has to begin thier life in a new understanding of value driven goals, not ideally driven dreams. This is reality based thinking, not mythological dreams for hope in the "by and by".

So, don't talk to me about "love". Love is action, but the action must be driven from personal choices about values that are important. Otherwise, others impose thier "ideals" from the outside, as moral demands and that is not love, nor loving. All of 'us" have a right to "be", so if I am not allowed to "be", "Don't Talk to Me About Love".

For Those Who Presuppose Experience...

Destiny is but a phrase of the weak human heart, the dark apology for every error. The strong and virtuous admit no destiny.

On earth conscience guides; in heaven God watches. And destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one and dethrone the other.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell



These two quotes are relevant to those that are so cocksure about their destiny and knowledge! Those that think they understand and know everything, whether the believer or unbeliever know not what they speak! We are all ignorant in areas, and we are all in the 'dark" no matter how "enlightened", OR how much "revelation" we can understand!

Experience should teach us that none of us are immune to any of the vices of heart, that we try to "win" at another's costs! And for what, and why? For "God" or for "Man"? For the "Greater Good"? Do you suppose the costs to another when you plan your destiny?

Destiny means an "ultimate end". It can be understood by the religous to be predestination, and to the unbeliever as the "work" of "gods" (men). Oligarchies are what are made from small groups of elite that design such plans. Our Founders were not impressed by oligarchies, because they sought to defend the right of all under the "rule of law"!

Is there an "ulitmate end"? The religous believe so, as these believe in rewards and punishment in eternity, but not all religous believe such. Some believe that we are rewarded or punished in the here and now. The unbeliever believes that by his "wisdom" or "shrewdness" he earns his "keep" and people should applaud his ability to "control the situation".

Experience is a teacher, all right. A teacher that Man is just man. And that despite man's noble qualities, man can't help but flounder, faulter and fail if he has not been reflecting on his life long enough to evaluate its values as to ends. Are all 'ends" equal? Or there more noble ends, than others? Do others have a right to choose their end, or is your end the only one to be promoted? Why? Who are you?

Some presuppose that humans identify through experience! These like to promote human experiments so their "end" will be verified! Empirical evidence in human form! Others like to use sacred texts to evaluate human history! And what will the knowledge bring mankind? Of what use is it?

How do we frame our lives? How do we understand our values? What are our priorities? Why do we prioritize the way we do? What do we want to accomplish? What do we ultimately desire? and Why?

Some questions I do not know how to answer. I cannot answer them until I study further as to my frame of reference, which is nature herself.  This is work that must be done. Otherwise, I will not know what I value and why? It is my life. I have only one to live and I don't believe in eternal life, heaven or hell.  "From dust we came, and from dust we will return". 

"Reality" in the Movie, "The Unknown"

I have recommended the movie, "The Unknown", because of its excellent direction. The movie keeps one spellbound. It captures the audience's attention and emotion, when "Martin"s memory is partially impaired.

Humans live from memory. We learn our language and remember the right words to even communicate with others when we grow up. What if we couldn't remember our words? This was not the case in "The Unknown", as his memory of important emotional facts was intact, but some of the other facts were forgotten due to an accident. Due to the "missing links", he is living in "limbo" land, not able to understand many things happening to him. How does he interpret them?

Whenever humans don't have a grasp on reality, such that they can find security, they find themselves anxious. Anxiety is the state of "not knowing", or fearing that which "might come". Why would this anxiety have any hold on a human being? When experiences continue to confound and there is no rationale for what is happening, humans become anxious about their futures. A "state of peace" or psychologial security is the result of learning about "cause and effects". Behaviors are conditioned by "causes and effects". But, "sometimes the "causes and effects" are not straightforward "laws of nature". These have damaging effects on the psyche. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder could be the result and might have a disorienting effect on the personality.

Humans must have some sense of control about thier life to maintain a sense of dignity and personal orientation about "reality" itself.  "The Unknown" brought to light what it is like to experience a dis-orienting experience where 'life doesn't make sense. The Unknown gave a sense of what life would be like if one lost partial memory and had to "live with it".

Memory or the brain's recording or experience is not the "whole story". Memories have to be itnerpreted to be meaningful, but when some information is "lost" and one is left to interpret without all the 'facts", then what? This made for a great movie.

Go see it. You won't be disappointed!

The Difference Between the Philosophical and the Religious?

I read an interesting analysis in a comment to Ayn Rand's point of view on her web-stie, that got me thinking. Martin Buber said that religion is an I-Thou relationship, while philosophy is an I-It relationship! I still pondering this, but my first thoughts are......

Religion is not idea oriented? No, this is what theology is, philosophy "annointed" by and in the institituion of the Church. It is for the purposes of the Church.

Philosophy proper is an I-It relationship, meaning that the idea/subject itself is of interest and value, not the institution of the Church, necessarily. Philosophy serves the interests of society and individuals and is understood within certain disciplines of interests.

Therefore, philosophy is of wider and broader value to society, if one values reason. But, religion is of value and interest if one values tradition/text. Human experience is much broader than text or tradition, this is why I would commit to philosophy above religion.

Words Have Diverse Meanings,

Words have meanings. That is understood, but humans don't always identify words to their dictionary meanings. Human experience is how children define words. And how these words are "felt" are the understood meaning. True communication means that one understands the individual's definitions, as well as the word itself.

Have you ever had a "reaction" or response to an event that went way beyond the actual event itself? Your emotions were "out of kilter"? Why do you suppose this happened? Memories that are recorded in the brain are "revived" by some "image" that parallels the present experience. One can have physical reactions to such experiences, whether good or bad. And such emotional responses have a lot to do with religious feeling.

How do you suppose that such "recordings" or "brain images" are transformed?

Children need nuture, not harsh discipline to grow to a fruitful maturity. Discipline should be age appropriate, and not demanding or overwhelming to the child. Childish fears should be respected, not by dismissing childish fears, but giving the child a means of self-responsibility. A flashlight that can be turned on if the "monster" invades his/her room, or a special "fairy wand" that makes a "magic space of protection, where the "monster" cannot see the child.

The religious child is trained to "pray to God" for protection and help. And the child's belief in "God's help" is really the parent's representation of "god" to the child. Good parenting should give the child a means to transferring his dependence on "god" (parental image) to "self".

Childish beliefs must be challenged, and children need to grow up to own their life, where fear doesn't inhibit healthy self-identity. Without self identity, the child will never grow to become and make a difference. He will be crippled and left to his childish imaginations where "monsters" (the Devil) invade his "world" and make bad things happen, or "God" invades his world and makes "good things happen".

Words have meanings and true communication means that individuals seek to understand the meanings, images, messages of the words that are used, so that understanding and true communication can happen.

Questions On the "Human"

I have many questions on the "human". And wonder if scientists 'see" or understand the "human" as more than...

Are "humans" more than the "sum of their parts"? Or are 'humans" just a product of their culmulative "memory"? Are they only geared toward "group think"?

Do "humans' have a "human nature", as a unique individual? Or do "humans" have a "Human Nature", a universal type of 'human nature"? How is this to be understood? How can scientists, who themselves are human, be objective about their own humanity when "observing" the "other human"? Does the very experiment, of objectifying or observing the 'human", create a distance that de-humanizes "the other", the one studied?

Are "humans" different from animals? Is so, how? And, how do we know? Are human only different because of their social structures? Or is the human "mind" something that makes the "human" distinct?

And what is the "human mind"? Can we understand how the brain and mind "connect" when various individuals will respond differently? And how can one have a "control group", when there are so many various memories and personalities that would inhibit creating a "Human Person"?

What is the "common denominator"? Our common denominator is our brain. But, the physical aspects of man are not the determining factor to the "human", only a part.

Now I Get IT (Kant Must Be Proved)

A long time ago when I was in undergraduate school, I had a professor who idealized Kant. He would uphold the value of the "habit of virtue" and "human flourishing". His ideal was acting according to a "standard" of habit, as "human flourishing " was the goal.

Another professor that I had also wanted to do a "study on Kant", just as another liked the idea of an Eastern Christology. These liked the idea of virtue in a world that is filled with dishonestly (The Noble Lie) and personal gain. So, what these aspired to was a behavioral experiment of sorts.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world," The language is theological, but the experiment was a human one. This is a belief in a divinized human being, a saint, if you will. But, can one "create" a saint from the outside, that is, "form" a person by manipulation, and control?

Yes, I think this can and does happen, but not to those who are attuned to such manipulation and controls. These are those who have "understood that language all their lives. And the greater offense is the betrayal of everything that was good, noble and kind in the world. What they thought was to be trusted has left a gaping hole in the heart and life.

What God wants is Personal Sacrifice, as this is True Faith. One is to die for a cause, alto one might not know what the cause is really for. And yet, one is to believe that "God loves them, personally"! No, it is not God loving the Sacrificed; it is God loving others through the sacrifice. This is the life to be embraced, as this is maturity.

 But, isn't this an object lesson to those that want to do such social engineering? and manipulation of the "facts" and the life or another human being? Faith has to be a peronsl choice of value, not an engineered social experiment.

Evil is not understood as an objective, but a personal experience. This justifies what science does to prove the validity of faith. It doesn't seem short of Facist.

Humans might not be equal in all their abilities, but that doesn't negate their individual value. This is why I've been blogging about individualism. Without intellectual humility, "social" or "collectivity" leads to genocide. This is proven by social psychologist. It is group behavior at its worst!

Our nation has gotten to the point of dividing over "the good" or "the right".  And it is collective thinking. And caught in the midst of these fights are those that have lost hope altogether, because of the life left to them.

My brother's suicide taught me that one cannot tell another what is "right", because the personal weight of what seems "the right" might be the "last straw". Was my brother's suicide a lack of faith? Would one judge his life as a life that lacked "character"? I just wonder how his life really matters to those that make such judgments!

An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias

Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?

Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.

Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.

Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.

Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.

Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.

In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.

Traditional and Progressive Tension

Progressive views are important to evaluate, as they are what is on the "cutting edge" of any given subject. This is the challenge of reason's embrace of discovery. But, just as important is tradition's "tried and true" values of experience. The traditional view is verified through experience, while the progressive seeks to experiment.

I learned that my family had wanted to try the "progressive", radical, or experimental approach in addressing "the back issue" of one of our family members. But, was this appropriate to all of the needs of this family member? That is one of debate for the family and is ultimately one of personal decision and choice by the patient.

The conservative or traditional approach is to manage pain through physical therapy, continued exercise, pain pills and cortisone shots. We will have to "wait and see" if this is enough to get the patient back on his feet. Otherwise, he must face the possibility of back surgury, which could be a radical step for his age of 93.

There is presently available a non-invasive type of surgury that fuses the spine with "super-glue" to strengthen it. The family has wished that this type of progressive treatment would be embraced by his family physician. But, family physicians have differences in philosophy or approaches to medicine. And the family should not have been surprised to find that this particular physician was not particularly pre-disposed to a progressive medical philosophy.

Traditional and progressive views are both important to hold in tension in free societies, for each holds a value to free societies. Traditional views are based on the wisdom from experience, while progressive views are open to the creative elements of innovation and experiment.

The progressive and "conservative" or traditional view was evident when my family member and I watched two Supreme Court judges discuss their differences on the Constituion, while he was in the hospital. It was fascinating to see how the two differed in their analysis, concerns and approaches to one document that defines our "American way of life".

Wisdom sees, but is bound within the contexts of time, while experimentation is based on reason's genius or creativity or the needs of society for change. Roots and innovation are necessary fodder for society to flourish. And the Founders used both to create "a more perfect union". We cannot err on either side if we desire to further the cause of democracy in America.

The Question Is...

THE QUESTION IS:

Do human societies work like the latest scientific discovery, say in genetics/biology? That is what some think, and the human experiment may or may not work. And all of us will be prone to the outcome of such experiments...

How Do You Understand?

Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.

Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?

Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".

But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.

The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.

The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.

The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).

So, how do you understand the world?

Philosophy is Not Palatable to the Fundamentalist

Philosophy is how we understand or our ability to know what we know. Some think that one aspect of understanding is "all there is". But, there are many aspects of understanding and knowing about the world.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.

Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.

Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.

Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.

"The Island", a Good Commentary on the Dangers in Science and Religion

Tonight my husband and I watched "The Island". It is a realistic sci-fi picture about clones. The main plot is to"control" the clones in their human characteristics, limiting their choice, questions and experiences and controlling the information to the outside world about their humanity. I found the movie spoke to both sides of the religion/science debate.

Science's danger in de-humaninzing the individual clones was seen in the way that the clones were treated and "named". The clones were termed "products" and named according to their "lot in life". Science determined their purpose and limited the clones in questioning or observing their environment, or experiencing the joys of human "connection"; the joy of parenthood, or joy of "love". These clones were made for specific purposes and could not be allowed to "become" other than their determined purpose, which was a fulfillment of another's purpose and plan. The clone was not unique, but was told they were "special", which was another way of deceiving the real intent of their "controllers".

While the scientific aspect of the movie was obvious, the religious implications were no less clear to me. These clones were not allowed to experience the "outside world". The clones had a standardized environment, which limited their choices and understanding of the world, while telling them that they were 'special". The religious aspect was the de-humanizing element of being called out and promised a visit to "the Island", when in reality, the promise was only a fabrication to give hope in a sterile and controlled environment. What the "promise" represented was the fulfillment of the 'controller's purposes, not the hopes of the clones. The clones were not allowed to hope or experience the common joys of bacon, or the touch of a hand.The clones were sub-human as their ultimate purpose was more important than their speicific desire.

Two clones escape and "fall in love". They are desparate to "live" and experience the "real world", have choices, and come to terms with themselves, not their "pre-determined purpose". I found the movie stimulating but, perplexing emotionally.

Humans are never to be treated with such disrespect and disregard. Psychologically the movie intensified my anxiety over such life situations. All humans want to think that they are self-determining agents, and not pre-determined "robots". Humans rebel against such treatment and they should.

Science, as the New Religion

Science has been a "blessing" to man, but just as much a curse. Science has blessed many with technological developments and medical 'miracles" that have brought convenience, and health. But, science today is really a religion.

Religion requires "worship". And worship is a form of submitting one's rationale to an "uncritical" mind-set. I think this is what had happened with the elite scientists that "fudged" on the data concerning global warming.

Science gives man answers that makes men feel comfortable and safe, as if they control their environment. And science has been "useful" in "controlling" society, just as religion was in the past. Anyone who quotes a scientific expert has the ear of the populace. But, what the populace doesn't know, for the most part, is the science itself is diverse, just as religion is.

There are certain formulas that a scientists uses to understand the physical world. But, there are many formulas, or ways of approaching the physical world. And this is what the university does in thier "discussions" about the world in all its aspects.

Man, though is more than his physical being, and this is what scientists seek to understand today. There is much that is left in question, now with the discoveries in neuroscience. How are we to understand man, when neuroscience says that the brain determines many aspects of a person's behavior? Is there to be a "committee" to determine what is to be "proper behavior", so that those that "don't fit" will be "fixed" by medicine? These are very pressing and pertinent questions concerning mankind's future.

What and how do we understand the social science that believed in the past that man was influenced by his enviornment? How much is the brain affected by experience, and how much is experience interpreted by the "form" of the brain? Is mental illness just a brain "dislocation" like an arm that is broken?

The ethical questions are many and profound in their implications. What does religion mean in such a context? Is religion just a "coping mechanism" of the brain to its environment? And how are we to know? Is it ethical to "test" on human subjects by forcing them into environments that would "force" the issue of how the brain adjusts to such "trauma"? Scientists that think such experiements are appropriate think that the benefit far outweighs the "costs" to the "guinea pig".

I fear for our future if scientists have such a view of man, where he is only a "frog" to be dissected. Men are more than "frogs", if one believes in any form of "God". And we know that experiements such as this would be against what the West has always stood for in human rights.

We have much to fear if science becomes a religion!

I Would Do It the Same Way Again..

Time is curious, as it seems to have no consitency in our perception. Sometimes time seems to fly and other times, time stands still. But, nevertheless, time moves one whether we percieve it to or not. Time makes many of us wiser and this is the topic of discussion today.

Wisdom comes with age, they say, because life has a way of teaching you about "life". Many of us learn and grow as we are stretched or enlarged by our formal or informal educational opprotunities. But, when I look back over my life, I cannot regret. Why?

If I went back, I would be the person I was, not the person I am, now. And because I would've been that same person, I would've responded in the same way I did back then. We can never go back. But, we can learn to grow through our mistakes and learn from them. This is wisdom.

So, today, grace is about forgiving oneself, even more so, because we must be understanding of the other as well. Otherwise, we become hardened and narrow and bent on correcting another's wrong, without understanding that we ahve make mistakes, too.

Intellectual Equality or the Political Gap?

Today, on Facebook, a very good and old friend had a test on "what kind of libertarian are you"...I took the test and had a few questions after taking it, mainly due to two answers to one of the questions that baffled me on which was of more importance.

The two categories that I find important are intellectual equality and fixing the political gap. Why are these two important? My innate desire to relate to people on an intellectual plane, which is "who I am", and yet, my experience has taught me that "political gaps" where people treat another as an unequal is also damaging. One errs on the side of snobbery and the other errs on the side of snubbery.

Leaders do make determinations about where others will fit into their plan for their own personal and larger political goals. And this is the political gap, where a determination is made about another that is prejuidiced and deterministic. I am revulsed over any type of pre-determination.

The point where my innate desire is to be treated as an equal intellectually is important. I resent people patronizing me, in whatever realm. I have a mind of my own and though you may disagree with me, I must be respected enough to be "engaged" and considered, without others determining my "outcome" or purpose. I also want to engage others on the same basis, in respecting their ability to reason and live their life rationally.

This is the main reason for my commitment to the libertarian party. Each person must determine their own destiny. That does not mean that an individual needs no one as far as guidance, or education, or suggestion, or encouragement. But, I will die for the right to be treated with respect and dignity in living my life on my own terms and for others to also have the right to live their life on their own terms. We will disagree and this is to be considered a healthy sign of difference where we can learn about another that thinks, believes and sees things differently.

This is where our freedoms become realities in our lives, as we live out the commitment to our diversity, but also our commitment to the unity of our freedoms. God Bless America.

Sundry Thoughts On Experience, Psychology and Theology

Does experience have to "form" our understanding or thinking? Some believe that it does, as we are bound within cultural contexts that define or determine meaning. This view does not allow for development of reason, or individual uniqueness in personality or gifting. Cultural contexts are "group" forming "groupthink".

Although experience does influence our understanding, it cannot determine what or how we understand life, unless we allow it to. This view takes into account another way of "seeing" or coming to terms with reality. Those who have experienced trauma are helped by counselors to see or understand reality differently and not allow their experience to "interpret" the present.

Science does give us clues as how experience affects us. Mental disorders such as Post Traumatic Stress, neurosis or anxiety disorders have been understood to have begun through a "conditioning experience". These disorders can be overcome through means of medication, behavior modification, and coping mechanisms.

"How do we paint reality"? Many paint their reality through their experiences of childhood. Bad parents breed bad behavior and bad thinking. The child's self-concept is damaged to such an extent that the child cannot grow emotionally, or finds it difficult to attian their potential. These ways of "painting reality" must be rectified, so that these young adults will become and accomplish.

Today's sermon was given by a youth leader. His message was about "conviction" and power of the Holy Spirit and how we live "Christian" lives. What do people outside our church say about our church. Do we only say what we feel or do we live what we feel, as a testimony to our faith?

It seemed he was basing faith on feeling. That was interesting, as feeling is a common "identifier" in man. But, this "feeling of conviction" was also the identifier of the radical Islamic that killed our soldiers last week. And then, when he said that we don't "feel the power of conviction" because we are affluent or prosperous, he lost me. He said, we cannot understand (or feel) the "power of conviction" because of our experience of prosperity!?

Although I do agree that we cannot enter into another's pain of "poverty" in the same way when we have no experience to identify with, does this mean that one MUST experience pain to have "compassion"? And is compassion only toward "the poor"? That is ridiculous.

Some experiences cannot be "formative" for another, as was Job's experiences. Job did not need anyone to analyze his situation, but to "be there". Theological dogmatics do not lend themselves to compassionate understanding, but "demanding" obedience, or repentance, or justification of "God". Was Job more compassionate after his experience with the religious? Was Job more compassionate after his rebuke from Elihu? No, but he was more humble in understanding that there are some questions that are unanswerable. So, is compassion the only necessary ingredient to faith?

I find that those who have "agendas" that are unacknowledged, or deceptive are prime culprits of using persuasion to influence others. And theology is a useful "tool" for those who are unreflective and disregarding of another's situational "contexts" to manipulate or control. Influence and agendas are not the problem, but deception is, whether that be one's own personal unreflectiveness, or attitudes toward another.

Fortunately, our government is based on "the rule of law", where the "real world" trumps the "transcentdental one".

Literalistic Bible Thumping "Models of Reality"

As I mentioned in my last post, my husband gave a lecture on his "Faith and Society" course.

Another important dimension to his course is the teaching of "models of reality". A model of reality is a type of "worldview", but is not a cultural worldview, but a naturalistic/supernaturalistic view of reality. This view is based in one's understanding of God, cosmos, and personability of God, as well as man, man's understanding of God and man's response to God. Is God the intiator, as Calvin supposed? Or is man the reasoned being, that presupposes "God"?

"Models of God" must be understood within these paradigms as they drive how we understand "theology", the "world", "culture", human beings and history.

The traditional view is a salvation history view. Jesus is God's ultimate purpose and focus in history, as Jesus is the "way of salvation". This view believes that a personal God directs the events of history using a specific nation, Israel, to perform his purpose and plan for the world.
It is an objective, hisorical, realist, and literalist view of Scripture.

A more subjective view would view God as the "divine influence" in a person's innate nature. This view views the individual as a possiblity/potentiality that needs development and direction. Determination is not the focus, as God is not personally involved, but has imprinted his image upon man. The person must respond to what God has gifted within. Salvation is viewed as fulfilling one's life purpose or plan. God's plan is more subjectively understood.

A developmental view would understand God as irrelavant, except for human development. Scripture is only useful for the purpose of 'helping" the individual to "respond" to their innate "God consciousness". Through their interaction with scripture and others in community, "God conscieousness" is re-inforced and the person responds uniquely to "meaning" within the context of community.

As I have shared, the meaning of Scripture and community has collapsed into the "normal" for me. There is no distinction for me between the sacred and secular and it irritates me when I think others "enforce" their "model of reality" upon me or anyone else. Faith is the "model of reality" that "reads" everything that "happens". In this case, Job's "model" had collapsed, and he was struggling to understand, while "Job's comforters" "read" Job's life in another way, a theologized one.

On another blog, I sometimes read, it was mentioned that there is disagreement as to how to understand "Paul's Gospel". Some believe in a "Justification by Faith"(Calvin/Lutheran), while others believe in a "moral model" approach (Catholic/Methodist/Wesleyan). But, what about an approach that leaves the individual, as the cogent interpreter? All could be understood as "models" of understanding. Faith is the primary means of grasping meaning. But, is faith necessary in supernaturalistic 'models"? That is the question that cannot be answered.

Since meaning is understood as a personal message of faith. This is only experienced when people are open or are "needy". Whenever a person outgrows a meaning of the "Gospel", or the "meaning" becomes insignificant for "other reasons", "faith in the Gospel" dies.

Scriptures then cease to have any authoriatative power, as it is viewed from a more "objective perspective". I think this view leaves room for individual development, group response to meaning, and interpretive influences.

Nihlism does not have to be the result of "loosing faith". Naive faith is just that, a childish understanding, a need-based interpretation, or a social signification.

Today's Talk on "Experience"

Today's talk at our honors forum was made by one of our religion professors. He admitted that his conviction had been based on reason, but recently had been "converted" to experience.

As he was talking, all I could think of was how anyone in this type of climate could survive such "supernaturalism". There would be no way to gauge how one "heard from God". I think this is the epitome of cultish mentality and could lead to abuse of power, as well as "self-delusion".

A interpretive "community of faith" was the answer given to my concerns. This suggests that faith trumps reason altogether. Quakers, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, as well as Holiness traditions hold to this type of "mentality".

The Holiness tradition, which is the tradition of this professor and the university, believes in a second work of grace, called "entire sanctification", where sin is eradicated out of the believer. When this experience happens, then there is "new insight" and understanding of Scripture that is not dependent on academic training. I started to shiver.

When I questioned how one could gauge self-deception and pride, the professor admitted that pride was indeed a problem! Pride is not a "little problem", it is a great problem, because pride is not open to another's opinion, and especially when they feel "spritiually superior" and have "heard from God". These are the things of which great cult leaders are made.

Another gauge was the rule of faith and the rule of love. But, actively loving someone takes personal knowledge, and even with personal knowledge, sometimes, even with my husband, I miss it. So, how is one to gauge if one is motivated with a right-directed "love"?

For instance, if these believe that Abraham's sacrifice was the epitome of faith and must be demanded of another as proof of entire sanctification, then they might bring immense pain and heart-ache in the "Name of God". This is nothing short of cruel, mis-guided and mis-informed fanaticism. Or what if these believed that one must "cut off his hand, or pluch out his eye" because of it possibly leading to "sin". I have been in these environments and have "submitted" to such superstition. I threw away a silver bracelet that my husband gave me for an anniversary because of an "authority" telling me it was an amulet".

I cannot agree or defend such "faith", as it is undefendable. It is based on personal/communal experience combined. This is nothing short of what soldiers experience in their bonding with others in their squad/platoon/brigade. There is nothing significantly "spiritual" happening here, as humans are social animals, that will experience persecuting situations as a bonding experience.

The Quadralateral allows for more than experience. It is based on reason, as well as experience, tradition and scripture. I find that tradition is culture and scripture is context specific, while experience can be unifying. Reason, on the other hand, can be unifying but most often can bring great division as we interpret within our own specific frames and express ourselves in unique ways.

Those that believe in such understandings and experiences, are seeking after a unifying experience and believe it is God. But it is really interpreted as God, because of the context. In another context, it would be called a "country club", or any other kind of social group.