The message this morning was an emphasis on self-reflection, which was "well taken" and the pastor had some good observations about what the world would say to the Church. But, the whole idea of the message was a stumbling block to me. Why?
The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.
Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.
The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.
I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.
I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.
But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.
The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!
Showing posts with label goals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goals. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Is God the End of All Moral "Oughts" (tToday's Sermon)
Today's sermon was a sermon defending suffering as a means to forming character. The sermon's three points were:
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Preaching this morning...
... from Romans 5:1-11. Simply outline:
1. God has been getting us ready for our sufferings.
2. God has been getting us ready for the end.
3. God is with us now, in suffering, leading to endurance, building our character, and confirming a hope that will not disappoint.
Assumptions to the sermon: WHATEVER "God requires", i.e., "Christian character", as defined in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), "He inspires". The foundation of such a belief is the "Divine Command Theory" in moral philosophy.
The Divine Command Theory does not question what God commands, as it is obedience to WHATEVER God requires. And such obedience is the "right response" to suffering, not questioning, but submitting. It is human passivity or resignation to "Fate", which the Christians call "God's Sovereignty" or "God's Providence".
The future is known by God, ( foreknowledge), as God stands "outside of history or time. He knows the beginning from the end, so whether "He predestines" or not, His concern is that one believe that "He has control" over human history, He "Knows all" and will "not disappoint in the end". This is the traditional view of God in scriptures, and in Greek philosophy of biblical times. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.
The "preacher" made a point about Japan's recent tsunami, and asserted that God did not cause the tsunami, and expressed his own concern, as a "Jesus model" of "care for the suffering". He pointed out that if any of us had known about the forthcast of the tsunami, would we not warn those that died, to prevent them from dying? He told a story about a man who had gone to pick up his son at the pre-school on the second floor. He looked out the window to watch a car being swept away when the tsunami hit, knowing also that those that had gone into the parking lot, his son's playmates, had died with their children. Yet, he had survived. Why?
Why would God not warn those that died, if He knew the tsunami was coming? It seems clear that either God didn't know the tsunami was coming, or did not have control of this natural occurrance, or He could not warn those that died. OR maybe he just didn't care about those that died, or maybe those that were meant to warn the ones who died didn't do their part? Maybe those that died "got their just desserts becasue they weren't listening to "God"? They needed to have an "inside connection" or "personal relationship", so God could have warned them!
Something seems wrong with the picture of such an untold tragedy. One cannot answer those that suffered with platitudes that God wanted to build character! How horrendously insenstive. How callous and presumptuous! Do Christians think they know the mind of "God", when they claim that "God's ways are higher and His thought past finding out"? Either Christian do know how God works, what He wants and what everyone should do and/or believe to be saved, or they can't understand the "mind of God". It can't be both! Or is God capricious? Does He destroy and then blame those that haven't done their "fair share"? Scriptures say that He creates light and darkness; good and evil. How are we to even understand that in a theological frame? except to use it when it is convienient for our own purposes, and claim "God" as the supporter to our own plans or wishes?
Are these who suffered such losses in the tsunami to "trust and obey", submitting their questions and reason to submission of scripture? They are to know that God knew beforehand what they would suffer and He is using it to form their character? He knows what we need, so we are to perservere, knowing that He will not disappoint???? But, scriptures also says that "hope deferred makes the heart sick". Just when is too much, too much? How are we to know and make the determination when another has "had it"?
God's Divine Command is not the only "moral" theory, but those that adhere to DCT, use scripture as the support of their belief system. That is, Christian character is gauged by scripture, which was written during Roman power, where Christians were mocked and despised. The Chrisitans had no power base, nor influence in society. Theirs was the lot of servitude to an overbearing government. Today, we do not have such a government. Our government is more just or tolerant. Our government allows for religious liberty and influence in the public square. So, today, a Christian is not to "trust and obey", submitting to tyranny. We are to appeal, petition, voice and protest because humans are not called to suffer under tyranny to form "Chrstian character". Leadership is accountable to "the people". Are good leadership principles applicable to "God"? It can't be under the Divine Command Theory. God is an authoritarian dictator in the DCT. Humans cannot be moral agents if they do not have choice and liberty about their lives..
Christian character can define itself differently, even within scripture. Christians, instead of the suffering servant model, can also hold government accountable, like Esther, or hold to principle or conscience, like Daniel. Character can be viewed as an absolute response, or a moral judgment within a value system. It's response is contextual historically and situationally. God's Divine Command theory believes that just because "God is God", He deserves obedience without rationale, principle, or question, which does not take into account any other possible scenario. It is a legalist perspective, instead of an ethical one.
The "preacher" pointed out that Gadhafi would be considered universally as "evil". Why would one not have to be a "Christian" to make such a judgment? because Gadhfi does not respect the rights of others to act independently from his wishes. He is a dictator. Some Christians that hold to the Divine Command Theory believe God is to be "honored" as it is God's "right" above our "rights". Humans are necessary means to "God's ends" which are not the human, but "His Glory and Will". We should never make our plans, as God has His, God is granted ultimate right to rule over and humans are unvalued except for God's designs". And, yet, we understand that the Sermon on the Mount is to be the "human response" to God's Power, if we want to "be like Jesus". We must submit, walk the second mile for our enemies, turn the other cheek, because Christians aren't to have power? And yet, power can have a corrupting influence. But, it doesn't have to.
Our Founders did not desire for leaders to be overbearing tyrants. They desired for humans to be respected moral agents that could frame and form their lives by self-governance. Self-governance means that humans take responsibility for themselves to plan their ends. And the "ends" are what motivate humans to "form their character" to accomplish their own purposes. "God" should never be useful to control, and manipulate others.
Suffering comes from natural disasters, but should never come from the hands of men. Men have choice and responsibility about causing such pain. Stealing another's property, coveting a neighbor's wife, etc. are moral precepts that work, not just because God said it in the Ten Commandments. Many believed in such precepts in ordering society long before Christianity.
Therefore, formulating a Christian character building theology, or discipline is wrong headed. Character is innate natural tendencies, as well as self-reflection and value driven character development. Some people might want to strengthen a certain character trait, while others might want it to remain weak and focus on something else, depending on what one's goals are. Different goals require different character traits. So there is no "Chrisitan character". It is only defined as character within context of given situations and it does not have to do with Divine Commands or 'God", as a requirement, at all, unless the Church wants to formulate a conformity to Church rule that abdicates individual liberty, under the Divine Comman Theory of moral development.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Preaching this morning...
... from Romans 5:1-11. Simply outline:
1. God has been getting us ready for our sufferings.
2. God has been getting us ready for the end.
3. God is with us now, in suffering, leading to endurance, building our character, and confirming a hope that will not disappoint.
Assumptions to the sermon: WHATEVER "God requires", i.e., "Christian character", as defined in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), "He inspires". The foundation of such a belief is the "Divine Command Theory" in moral philosophy.
The Divine Command Theory does not question what God commands, as it is obedience to WHATEVER God requires. And such obedience is the "right response" to suffering, not questioning, but submitting. It is human passivity or resignation to "Fate", which the Christians call "God's Sovereignty" or "God's Providence".
The future is known by God, ( foreknowledge), as God stands "outside of history or time. He knows the beginning from the end, so whether "He predestines" or not, His concern is that one believe that "He has control" over human history, He "Knows all" and will "not disappoint in the end". This is the traditional view of God in scriptures, and in Greek philosophy of biblical times. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.
The "preacher" made a point about Japan's recent tsunami, and asserted that God did not cause the tsunami, and expressed his own concern, as a "Jesus model" of "care for the suffering". He pointed out that if any of us had known about the forthcast of the tsunami, would we not warn those that died, to prevent them from dying? He told a story about a man who had gone to pick up his son at the pre-school on the second floor. He looked out the window to watch a car being swept away when the tsunami hit, knowing also that those that had gone into the parking lot, his son's playmates, had died with their children. Yet, he had survived. Why?
Why would God not warn those that died, if He knew the tsunami was coming? It seems clear that either God didn't know the tsunami was coming, or did not have control of this natural occurrance, or He could not warn those that died. OR maybe he just didn't care about those that died, or maybe those that were meant to warn the ones who died didn't do their part? Maybe those that died "got their just desserts becasue they weren't listening to "God"? They needed to have an "inside connection" or "personal relationship", so God could have warned them!
Something seems wrong with the picture of such an untold tragedy. One cannot answer those that suffered with platitudes that God wanted to build character! How horrendously insenstive. How callous and presumptuous! Do Christians think they know the mind of "God", when they claim that "God's ways are higher and His thought past finding out"? Either Christian do know how God works, what He wants and what everyone should do and/or believe to be saved, or they can't understand the "mind of God". It can't be both! Or is God capricious? Does He destroy and then blame those that haven't done their "fair share"? Scriptures say that He creates light and darkness; good and evil. How are we to even understand that in a theological frame? except to use it when it is convienient for our own purposes, and claim "God" as the supporter to our own plans or wishes?
Are these who suffered such losses in the tsunami to "trust and obey", submitting their questions and reason to submission of scripture? They are to know that God knew beforehand what they would suffer and He is using it to form their character? He knows what we need, so we are to perservere, knowing that He will not disappoint???? But, scriptures also says that "hope deferred makes the heart sick". Just when is too much, too much? How are we to know and make the determination when another has "had it"?
God's Divine Command is not the only "moral" theory, but those that adhere to DCT, use scripture as the support of their belief system. That is, Christian character is gauged by scripture, which was written during Roman power, where Christians were mocked and despised. The Chrisitans had no power base, nor influence in society. Theirs was the lot of servitude to an overbearing government. Today, we do not have such a government. Our government is more just or tolerant. Our government allows for religious liberty and influence in the public square. So, today, a Christian is not to "trust and obey", submitting to tyranny. We are to appeal, petition, voice and protest because humans are not called to suffer under tyranny to form "Chrstian character". Leadership is accountable to "the people". Are good leadership principles applicable to "God"? It can't be under the Divine Command Theory. God is an authoritarian dictator in the DCT. Humans cannot be moral agents if they do not have choice and liberty about their lives..
Christian character can define itself differently, even within scripture. Christians, instead of the suffering servant model, can also hold government accountable, like Esther, or hold to principle or conscience, like Daniel. Character can be viewed as an absolute response, or a moral judgment within a value system. It's response is contextual historically and situationally. God's Divine Command theory believes that just because "God is God", He deserves obedience without rationale, principle, or question, which does not take into account any other possible scenario. It is a legalist perspective, instead of an ethical one.
The "preacher" pointed out that Gadhafi would be considered universally as "evil". Why would one not have to be a "Christian" to make such a judgment? because Gadhfi does not respect the rights of others to act independently from his wishes. He is a dictator. Some Christians that hold to the Divine Command Theory believe God is to be "honored" as it is God's "right" above our "rights". Humans are necessary means to "God's ends" which are not the human, but "His Glory and Will". We should never make our plans, as God has His, God is granted ultimate right to rule over and humans are unvalued except for God's designs". And, yet, we understand that the Sermon on the Mount is to be the "human response" to God's Power, if we want to "be like Jesus". We must submit, walk the second mile for our enemies, turn the other cheek, because Christians aren't to have power? And yet, power can have a corrupting influence. But, it doesn't have to.
Our Founders did not desire for leaders to be overbearing tyrants. They desired for humans to be respected moral agents that could frame and form their lives by self-governance. Self-governance means that humans take responsibility for themselves to plan their ends. And the "ends" are what motivate humans to "form their character" to accomplish their own purposes. "God" should never be useful to control, and manipulate others.
Suffering comes from natural disasters, but should never come from the hands of men. Men have choice and responsibility about causing such pain. Stealing another's property, coveting a neighbor's wife, etc. are moral precepts that work, not just because God said it in the Ten Commandments. Many believed in such precepts in ordering society long before Christianity.
Therefore, formulating a Christian character building theology, or discipline is wrong headed. Character is innate natural tendencies, as well as self-reflection and value driven character development. Some people might want to strengthen a certain character trait, while others might want it to remain weak and focus on something else, depending on what one's goals are. Different goals require different character traits. So there is no "Chrisitan character". It is only defined as character within context of given situations and it does not have to do with Divine Commands or 'God", as a requirement, at all, unless the Church wants to formulate a conformity to Church rule that abdicates individual liberty, under the Divine Comman Theory of moral development.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Do Feelings Make Any Significance to Moral Judgments?
I have been thinking about "moral values" and what determines how we judge moral values. How are our feelings directive of morality, or are they?
The reason I bring this up is that I have a repulsion over "do-gooders". I know that my repulsion is not reasonable, but it is rational. Why? I think that my repulsion over "do-gooders" has a lot to do with my needs as a child. These needs were not met, and yet, I saw those around me "doing good", baking the cake to take to the sick, visiting the nursing home, etc. What message did it send to me as a child? I wasn't important or valued enough to commend anyone's attention. My value was diminished, and my needs were secondary to what was gauged as important. Others needs came first. (Many Christians think that family responsibility isn't of value because of the command that one should "love God first". Family can stand in the way of loyalty to one's first priority. One's family is only "natural love", therefore, what one does outside of family, in fact, for one's enemy, is deemed of more value in the Christian community. It is a sign of "Christian discipleship!)
I wonder if my reaction today to such "do-good" projects and my evaluation of them as being self-interested is judged in a universal way. What I mean is: given my situation and circumstances would others judge "do gooders" in a similar fashion? Or would there be another response to the same conditions? Does personality have anything to do with how we "cope" with unmet needs?
This is the problem with "social justice" claims, I believe. Because whenever we set out to "do good", there is someone left inevitably behind. It is much better to leave the individual to be the "cause" of his own choices, and goals, otherwise, we might set up "projects", though well-meaning that have unintentional, but devastating consequences.
Reality based therapy means that the individual takes responsibility and owns his own life, as to choices of value. There is no "ideal" to be pursued, but goals that are desired outcomes of personal values. This is the only rational way to live, otherwise, rationality and reasonablness is left "outside" to die in the night of another's oppressive shadow, whether it be Man or God's!
The reason I bring this up is that I have a repulsion over "do-gooders". I know that my repulsion is not reasonable, but it is rational. Why? I think that my repulsion over "do-gooders" has a lot to do with my needs as a child. These needs were not met, and yet, I saw those around me "doing good", baking the cake to take to the sick, visiting the nursing home, etc. What message did it send to me as a child? I wasn't important or valued enough to commend anyone's attention. My value was diminished, and my needs were secondary to what was gauged as important. Others needs came first. (Many Christians think that family responsibility isn't of value because of the command that one should "love God first". Family can stand in the way of loyalty to one's first priority. One's family is only "natural love", therefore, what one does outside of family, in fact, for one's enemy, is deemed of more value in the Christian community. It is a sign of "Christian discipleship!)
I wonder if my reaction today to such "do-good" projects and my evaluation of them as being self-interested is judged in a universal way. What I mean is: given my situation and circumstances would others judge "do gooders" in a similar fashion? Or would there be another response to the same conditions? Does personality have anything to do with how we "cope" with unmet needs?
This is the problem with "social justice" claims, I believe. Because whenever we set out to "do good", there is someone left inevitably behind. It is much better to leave the individual to be the "cause" of his own choices, and goals, otherwise, we might set up "projects", though well-meaning that have unintentional, but devastating consequences.
Reality based therapy means that the individual takes responsibility and owns his own life, as to choices of value. There is no "ideal" to be pursued, but goals that are desired outcomes of personal values. This is the only rational way to live, otherwise, rationality and reasonablness is left "outside" to die in the night of another's oppressive shadow, whether it be Man or God's!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
When We Get to Write Our Own Story
Children are known to love fairy tales. But fairy tales are not "fairy tales" to them. "Fairy tales" are real. Little girls envision the day that they will become a Princess. But, then, their little hearts are broken on the 'hard facts" of life. Life is not a "fairy tale", unless you believe in liberty.
My grand-daughter is just such a little girl. She dresses up and loves to watch for the "happily ever after". Just recently, she was the flower girl in my son's wedding. I couldn't help but notice how she was looking up at the bride. She was mesmerized. Her eyes were glowing and her little mouth was slightly smiling. I realized she was envisioning the bride as a "Princess". I wondered what she was thinking. Then, I learned that my daughter had told her that this would be a "Princess Day"! She readily accepted that rhe reality in her head, was the reality standing before her. They corresponded and confirmed to her little heart that "fairy tales" do come true.
Humans have a need and capacity to imagine, dream, hope and envision. They long for "a better tomorrow". This tendency can be a good incentive for future goals, or a passive longing and hoping for a "fairy godmother" to show up, always longing for "the grass on the other side".
America is known for making dreams possible, because we believe in individual liberty. Walt Disney took human nature and enlarged its dreams with color,. image and myth-making to make billions as this is the "stuff dreams are made of".
Self-interest is not a vice, but a virtue, because the individual is "the king of his own ship". Liberty is the ultimate value for human flourishing, otherwise overlords or rulers destroy the making of individual dreams and take away human desire to initiate. Liberty means one can write thier own story. And most of the time they succeed with a "happily ever after".
My grand-daughter is just such a little girl. She dresses up and loves to watch for the "happily ever after". Just recently, she was the flower girl in my son's wedding. I couldn't help but notice how she was looking up at the bride. She was mesmerized. Her eyes were glowing and her little mouth was slightly smiling. I realized she was envisioning the bride as a "Princess". I wondered what she was thinking. Then, I learned that my daughter had told her that this would be a "Princess Day"! She readily accepted that rhe reality in her head, was the reality standing before her. They corresponded and confirmed to her little heart that "fairy tales" do come true.
Humans have a need and capacity to imagine, dream, hope and envision. They long for "a better tomorrow". This tendency can be a good incentive for future goals, or a passive longing and hoping for a "fairy godmother" to show up, always longing for "the grass on the other side".
America is known for making dreams possible, because we believe in individual liberty. Walt Disney took human nature and enlarged its dreams with color,. image and myth-making to make billions as this is the "stuff dreams are made of".
Self-interest is not a vice, but a virtue, because the individual is "the king of his own ship". Liberty is the ultimate value for human flourishing, otherwise overlords or rulers destroy the making of individual dreams and take away human desire to initiate. Liberty means one can write thier own story. And most of the time they succeed with a "happily ever after".
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Church Justifies the Moral Ought
Groups must be identified by their collective goals, or purposes. This is how groups function, otherwise, their is no reason for groups to exist.
Individuals, on the other hand, don't have to have a reason to exist, as the individual is to be the "end" in himself. The individual must have the right to life and liberty, otherwise, his life is not his own. He becomes the slave to a "moral oughtness".
Therefore, while groups, such as the Church may demand "moral oughts", they must give room for individual choice, otherwise the "moral ought" has lost any values to it's "moral oughtness". Choice is the determinitive "end" of moral value. The individual must make the choice about moral value, not the Church.
A few posts ago, I wrote on the issue of abortion. I challenged my friend's post about "pro-life" on the basis of evolution. Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life. Will he obey the laws of his land, as a abiding and peaceful citizen, or will he become a criminal, a renagade? The "pro life" movement says that a person who chooses abortion has "sinned" against God, irregardless of what has been considered lawful according to the Constitution. So, the "Pro-Life Movement" has a "moral demand" over and above the legal requirements of Constitutional government.
Laws are what define moral behavior in a given society. Not every group will adhere to the same standards. But, in a liberal society, choice must be free association of chosen groups that uphold the individuals chosen values. Churches understand "the law" in their doctrines and their standards of behavior that supercede Constitutional government. This helps define the Church over against the Constiutional government..
The conservative church holds to a morality based on deontological ethics, meaning that "God's law" is to be upheld because it is "God's law". What is considered "good" is what God wills, not good in itself. Humans, then, are ends to "God's will". "Good" is not defined by universal consensus, but by "sacred texts". It is an ethics based "outside of" the individual. It is a moral demand or "oughtness".
On the other hand, virtue and consequential ethics have different values regarding what is good. Virtue ethics, is determined by the individual's character. What is "good" is not an outside form, but an inside agreement as to what is "the good". The virtue ethicist would play out the "inside character" based on whether one believed that there was an objective standard whereby "morality" or "the good" could be judged.
The Church would judge man's character again on an "outside text" or an organizational goal. The individual himself would not be granted moral choice, but demanded to behave according to an approved "standard"! Obedience to that standard of behavior or goal becomes the judgemnt of the individual's character, as to "Christian character". The atheist/agnostic would agree that virtue is within the individual, but would not agree that the standard is determined by "the Church", but on social contract. The individual, himself, must choose his values within a free society, and be allowed to play these out in his life. Character then, is defined by what is "natural" to that particular person.
The social contract forms a society by agreement. The Constitution is the 'standard that the West holds to be of value in maintaining a free society. Constitutional standards are created to protect the society from anarchy or from abuses of power. These are not hierarchal in nature, but are to be "democratic" in intent. Our government is "not sent from above", but granted from below. It is the political sphere where men adhere to the same standards of behavior because this is our cultural value, civilized behavior. Civilized behavior is expected to be ethical, or moral because it regards another's boundary.
Consequentialism would value the end as an ultimate, by whatever means. This position is utilitarian and does not value the human as an ultimate value, but the goal. There are no standards for behavior in this ethical frame. So, while the deontological sees the "moral ought" as ultimate value, isn't this really consequentialist in the Church's view of "ends"? The secular humanist would value the human, not the ends as ultimate value.
God cannot be the ultimate end, because "God" cannot be understood apart from human speculation. And ends, canot be based on what cannot be agreed upon, unless one wants to live under oppressive rule of "Tradition" or Text, as defined by an "outside source".
Virtue of character means that the human being, himself determines his own values and he allows that same liberty to others. The individual chooses to make his life's choices within a free society of free assosiciation, not moral demands of "oughtness". In such a society, there is liberty of conscience, and free debate as to ultimate ends, because each individual chooses his life, as to happiness!
So, I don't value the Church or God as to an end, because the human distinction of choice is dissolved before authoritative demands of obedience of one kind or another. Life must be enjoyed as an offering IF one want to value Chruch or God, at all. Otherwise, life is dissolved of independent value, because life becomes consumed by something "other" or "outside" of life itself. And the individual ceases to "exist" in all practical terms, because he is determined, instead of a Moral Agent.
Individuals, on the other hand, don't have to have a reason to exist, as the individual is to be the "end" in himself. The individual must have the right to life and liberty, otherwise, his life is not his own. He becomes the slave to a "moral oughtness".
Therefore, while groups, such as the Church may demand "moral oughts", they must give room for individual choice, otherwise the "moral ought" has lost any values to it's "moral oughtness". Choice is the determinitive "end" of moral value. The individual must make the choice about moral value, not the Church.
A few posts ago, I wrote on the issue of abortion. I challenged my friend's post about "pro-life" on the basis of evolution. Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life. Will he obey the laws of his land, as a abiding and peaceful citizen, or will he become a criminal, a renagade? The "pro life" movement says that a person who chooses abortion has "sinned" against God, irregardless of what has been considered lawful according to the Constitution. So, the "Pro-Life Movement" has a "moral demand" over and above the legal requirements of Constitutional government.
Laws are what define moral behavior in a given society. Not every group will adhere to the same standards. But, in a liberal society, choice must be free association of chosen groups that uphold the individuals chosen values. Churches understand "the law" in their doctrines and their standards of behavior that supercede Constitutional government. This helps define the Church over against the Constiutional government..
The conservative church holds to a morality based on deontological ethics, meaning that "God's law" is to be upheld because it is "God's law". What is considered "good" is what God wills, not good in itself. Humans, then, are ends to "God's will". "Good" is not defined by universal consensus, but by "sacred texts". It is an ethics based "outside of" the individual. It is a moral demand or "oughtness".
On the other hand, virtue and consequential ethics have different values regarding what is good. Virtue ethics, is determined by the individual's character. What is "good" is not an outside form, but an inside agreement as to what is "the good". The virtue ethicist would play out the "inside character" based on whether one believed that there was an objective standard whereby "morality" or "the good" could be judged.
The Church would judge man's character again on an "outside text" or an organizational goal. The individual himself would not be granted moral choice, but demanded to behave according to an approved "standard"! Obedience to that standard of behavior or goal becomes the judgemnt of the individual's character, as to "Christian character". The atheist/agnostic would agree that virtue is within the individual, but would not agree that the standard is determined by "the Church", but on social contract. The individual, himself, must choose his values within a free society, and be allowed to play these out in his life. Character then, is defined by what is "natural" to that particular person.
The social contract forms a society by agreement. The Constitution is the 'standard that the West holds to be of value in maintaining a free society. Constitutional standards are created to protect the society from anarchy or from abuses of power. These are not hierarchal in nature, but are to be "democratic" in intent. Our government is "not sent from above", but granted from below. It is the political sphere where men adhere to the same standards of behavior because this is our cultural value, civilized behavior. Civilized behavior is expected to be ethical, or moral because it regards another's boundary.
Consequentialism would value the end as an ultimate, by whatever means. This position is utilitarian and does not value the human as an ultimate value, but the goal. There are no standards for behavior in this ethical frame. So, while the deontological sees the "moral ought" as ultimate value, isn't this really consequentialist in the Church's view of "ends"? The secular humanist would value the human, not the ends as ultimate value.
God cannot be the ultimate end, because "God" cannot be understood apart from human speculation. And ends, canot be based on what cannot be agreed upon, unless one wants to live under oppressive rule of "Tradition" or Text, as defined by an "outside source".
Virtue of character means that the human being, himself determines his own values and he allows that same liberty to others. The individual chooses to make his life's choices within a free society of free assosiciation, not moral demands of "oughtness". In such a society, there is liberty of conscience, and free debate as to ultimate ends, because each individual chooses his life, as to happiness!
So, I don't value the Church or God as to an end, because the human distinction of choice is dissolved before authoritative demands of obedience of one kind or another. Life must be enjoyed as an offering IF one want to value Chruch or God, at all. Otherwise, life is dissolved of independent value, because life becomes consumed by something "other" or "outside" of life itself. And the individual ceases to "exist" in all practical terms, because he is determined, instead of a Moral Agent.
Friday, February 4, 2011
"The Good Is Really the Bad"
Ayn Rand
"Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
“The Moral Meaning of Capitalism,” For the New Intellectual, 98.
Men seek to subvert others in their pursuits of happiness (values and choice) because they deem it necessary to define the "good life" for you. And it also usually means that their interests supercede yours.
Using moral platitudes to undermine another's right to life and liberty is the oldest game in the book. It plays on man's false sense of responsibility, and guilt. Adults are made to frame their own realities and choose for themselves what defines their life, as to purpose.
Don't let anyone else control your mind and life.
"Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
“The Moral Meaning of Capitalism,” For the New Intellectual, 98.
Men seek to subvert others in their pursuits of happiness (values and choice) because they deem it necessary to define the "good life" for you. And it also usually means that their interests supercede yours.
Using moral platitudes to undermine another's right to life and liberty is the oldest game in the book. It plays on man's false sense of responsibility, and guilt. Adults are made to frame their own realities and choose for themselves what defines their life, as to purpose.
Don't let anyone else control your mind and life.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Happy New Year! New Hope for Tomorrow
As a child many are asked what they want for Christmas. Christmas was meant for a child's "hopes and dreams". It is otherwise, called "human hope". Christmas is a suggestion that the world is in line with their heart. We all have "hearts". But, hearts are easy to bruise, if they are vulnerable to desire or love, at all. This is why there is the 'NEW YEAR"! Our disappointment with others or outselves can be "cleared away" and we can find "new hope" for tomorrow. Humans have a basic need to have hope for "new vision"..
What is hope? Hope is about dreams, and possibilities. Hope becomes diseased or bitter when it has been dashed upon the inevitable realities of life. The realities of life are starkly grey, where hope is 'black and white". Hope is where dreams and visions are clearly seen, but not yet accomplished. Realtiy is a blur or indistinct until a human heart embraces its own "delight". Then, hope clears the grey and makes the distinction between the black and white...
Passion of heart is not bad. but it can lead to an inattentiveness to others, and their personal goals. This is important to remember if one is in leadership. Leaders are meant to lead, but they are also meant to serve. And service is first about knowing the other's heart, so leading can be with clear vision, and not undiscerning passion. Otherwise, we trample another's "human hope".
What is hope? Hope is about dreams, and possibilities. Hope becomes diseased or bitter when it has been dashed upon the inevitable realities of life. The realities of life are starkly grey, where hope is 'black and white". Hope is where dreams and visions are clearly seen, but not yet accomplished. Realtiy is a blur or indistinct until a human heart embraces its own "delight". Then, hope clears the grey and makes the distinction between the black and white...
Passion of heart is not bad. but it can lead to an inattentiveness to others, and their personal goals. This is important to remember if one is in leadership. Leaders are meant to lead, but they are also meant to serve. And service is first about knowing the other's heart, so leading can be with clear vision, and not undiscerning passion. Otherwise, we trample another's "human hope".
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.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Do Monsters Exist?
Yes! Monsters are those who decide to determine another's "life", whether they are well-meaning parents, intellectural elites, or bad governments. There is no excuse in our government for anyone to experience such evil, as we are ruled by "law" and not the whims of people or "god".
Evil is the work of others in furthering their agenda, disregarding others in the process. We see this is Bernie Madoff or with the "bully" down the street.
While evil is done by individuals, there are times when evil is the combination of events that pre-determine or "set a course" that is not easily changed. This is momentum and it has been useful to appeal to "motivational goals", so that organizations can accomplish certain ends. But, enthusiasm is not based in reason, and sometimes without thoughtful reflection, unwise decisions and choices are made.
Evil is not "God's problem", unless one believes in a personal "god". It is much easier to not believe in a personal "god" who supposedly "cares" than to suffer in the "name of injustice" and think that this kind of "God" treats a person as "invisible". No, it is much more palatable to understand evil as unwise human behavior and understand that chance, chaos, indeterminism, and contingency, etc. than to believe in Providence.
This is where "co-creating" with God, falls short of wisdom, as it appeals to a certain view or goal that presupposes or determines what "that purpose is to be". Anyone who understands the complexity of issues and of life, would hesitate to predetermine "in the name of God".
Evil is the work of others in furthering their agenda, disregarding others in the process. We see this is Bernie Madoff or with the "bully" down the street.
While evil is done by individuals, there are times when evil is the combination of events that pre-determine or "set a course" that is not easily changed. This is momentum and it has been useful to appeal to "motivational goals", so that organizations can accomplish certain ends. But, enthusiasm is not based in reason, and sometimes without thoughtful reflection, unwise decisions and choices are made.
Evil is not "God's problem", unless one believes in a personal "god". It is much easier to not believe in a personal "god" who supposedly "cares" than to suffer in the "name of injustice" and think that this kind of "God" treats a person as "invisible". No, it is much more palatable to understand evil as unwise human behavior and understand that chance, chaos, indeterminism, and contingency, etc. than to believe in Providence.
This is where "co-creating" with God, falls short of wisdom, as it appeals to a certain view or goal that presupposes or determines what "that purpose is to be". Anyone who understands the complexity of issues and of life, would hesitate to predetermine "in the name of God".
Thursday, March 12, 2009
What Are The Implications to a Flat, Closed or Open Universe
Last post I was thinking in terms of how one views reality and how that view affected how reality was understood. Now, I want to think about the implications of those views more deeply.
The closed reality is a reality of limited resources and is a backward focused view of history in the real world. Evolutionists think in these terms, as their understanding is a closed system of natural/physical reality. Although natural/physical reality is part of our understanding of the universe via the natural sciences, it should not be our only reality, as a closed universe suggests limitation to the human species. Limitation of natural resources play upon natural fears of death within man and further his fear of death, by re-enforcing a competiveness that is destructive. This is what evolutionists call "survival of the fittest". Even though competition works in the free market, competition should not "drive" men, as men are prone to beat another down by competition. This is not a compassionate way of life, which must be gauged with a balance of power, and accountability.
The flat understanding of reality is the ancient's understanding of "wisdom" and is best understood within religious traditions. Wisdom is the understanding to live one's life with insight. Insight is a knowledge of self and other. Our country's balance of power again breeds the environment of accountability and cicumspection. History does repeat itself, if we are not wise enough to learn from it. This is a backward look into our past, so that we will not be people without self-reflection, which continue to make the same mistakes of those in the past.
The open view of reality is a view of possibility and potentiality. This view paints a hopeful tomorrow, because it is not based on limitation of resources but a prosperity that can benefit all. A limitation of government must be mandated for the individual to attain their highest potential and find the freedom to "be" and "do" whatever their heart finds passion in. America's values are the ones that give hope for the future, as it does not limit individual choice or action. The American dream is one that is filled with the hope of equality. Equality means opportunity, but not necessarily success. Success is for those who choose to continue to be diligent in following their goals to the end. And understanding is given to those who perservere.
I think as we face the global economic crisis, we should be reminded of these truths. For those of us who have lived with little thought for tomorrow and presumed upon the future, perhaps we need to reflect on our lack of wisdom. And for those of us who have thought that controlling the limited resources either through hoarding, or controlling others, we should learn to be accountable. And those who have lived with little means really have little to learn as this is not "their lesson", but ours.
The closed reality is a reality of limited resources and is a backward focused view of history in the real world. Evolutionists think in these terms, as their understanding is a closed system of natural/physical reality. Although natural/physical reality is part of our understanding of the universe via the natural sciences, it should not be our only reality, as a closed universe suggests limitation to the human species. Limitation of natural resources play upon natural fears of death within man and further his fear of death, by re-enforcing a competiveness that is destructive. This is what evolutionists call "survival of the fittest". Even though competition works in the free market, competition should not "drive" men, as men are prone to beat another down by competition. This is not a compassionate way of life, which must be gauged with a balance of power, and accountability.
The flat understanding of reality is the ancient's understanding of "wisdom" and is best understood within religious traditions. Wisdom is the understanding to live one's life with insight. Insight is a knowledge of self and other. Our country's balance of power again breeds the environment of accountability and cicumspection. History does repeat itself, if we are not wise enough to learn from it. This is a backward look into our past, so that we will not be people without self-reflection, which continue to make the same mistakes of those in the past.
The open view of reality is a view of possibility and potentiality. This view paints a hopeful tomorrow, because it is not based on limitation of resources but a prosperity that can benefit all. A limitation of government must be mandated for the individual to attain their highest potential and find the freedom to "be" and "do" whatever their heart finds passion in. America's values are the ones that give hope for the future, as it does not limit individual choice or action. The American dream is one that is filled with the hope of equality. Equality means opportunity, but not necessarily success. Success is for those who choose to continue to be diligent in following their goals to the end. And understanding is given to those who perservere.
I think as we face the global economic crisis, we should be reminded of these truths. For those of us who have lived with little thought for tomorrow and presumed upon the future, perhaps we need to reflect on our lack of wisdom. And for those of us who have thought that controlling the limited resources either through hoarding, or controlling others, we should learn to be accountable. And those who have lived with little means really have little to learn as this is not "their lesson", but ours.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Knowledgy, Social Construction and Reality
We form our identities from our cultures, which contain the values, mores, and traditions that define our lives. Identities are culturally bound until education enlightens our minds to another reality, which is larger than our previous "world". This is growth and change.
People who are educated are informed to a larger context than specific communities, or specific cultures. Cultures are defined by religious tradition, which are limited ways of understanding. This limitation breeds environments of prejuidice, as it defines right and wrong upon supernaturalistic understandings, which are usually absolute in understanding.
Reason, on the other hand, is necessary for man's understanding of his own values, opinions, and convictions. It is ethical development, not spiritual development that is a necessary focus.
Although reason is absolute as far as the individual's development in critical thinking and evaluation of convictions, reason cannot be absolute in determination of another's reality. Therefore, in organizational structures, there must be a room for each individual to find their place, or to "get out". Leadership is the determining drivers behind organizations. Each organization has a vision or purpose that drives their goals. These goals must be in line with the individual's desires, convictions, and purposes. This is the proper order and structuring of free socieities.
People who are educated are informed to a larger context than specific communities, or specific cultures. Cultures are defined by religious tradition, which are limited ways of understanding. This limitation breeds environments of prejuidice, as it defines right and wrong upon supernaturalistic understandings, which are usually absolute in understanding.
Reason, on the other hand, is necessary for man's understanding of his own values, opinions, and convictions. It is ethical development, not spiritual development that is a necessary focus.
Although reason is absolute as far as the individual's development in critical thinking and evaluation of convictions, reason cannot be absolute in determination of another's reality. Therefore, in organizational structures, there must be a room for each individual to find their place, or to "get out". Leadership is the determining drivers behind organizations. Each organization has a vision or purpose that drives their goals. These goals must be in line with the individual's desires, convictions, and purposes. This is the proper order and structuring of free socieities.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Culture, Tradition and Difference
In our multicultural world, it is unacceptable to be prejuidiced. So, we struggle to identify where our prejuidices are and when they raise their "ugly heads", we submerge them in a "sea of denial". Why don't we sift our prejuidices for "gems of reality" and underpinning of value(s)?
Whenever one has suffered at the hands of intolerance, there are two wrong possible responses. While both are submerged in a mass of pain and humiliation, one circumvents a full development of reason in the name of tolerance, while the other response becomes just as hostile and intolerant as ther perpetuators. Fear is the root of both. While the merciful want nothing to do with intolerance, the just want nothing to do with tolerance. There is no moderation and rationale of emotion.
Culture is the environment of a location or a group. The culture of prejuidice defines that culture by it boundaries created by the laws and rules that shape that culture. Prejuidice is not necessarily wrong in these instances, for it is only in definition that the group or culture can identify itself from another. Humanity, undefined, cannot be embraced for it is only in the specified that another understands and can embrace with knowledge. Knowledge is a necessary component of love.
While love does embrace, it at the same time does not have to condone all aspects of another's life. We can love and be prejuidiced. We can embrace and reject. The values that the individual holds represents the goals of his/her life. Bring these goals to the fore and allow the values to take care of themselves.
Whenever one has suffered at the hands of intolerance, there are two wrong possible responses. While both are submerged in a mass of pain and humiliation, one circumvents a full development of reason in the name of tolerance, while the other response becomes just as hostile and intolerant as ther perpetuators. Fear is the root of both. While the merciful want nothing to do with intolerance, the just want nothing to do with tolerance. There is no moderation and rationale of emotion.
Culture is the environment of a location or a group. The culture of prejuidice defines that culture by it boundaries created by the laws and rules that shape that culture. Prejuidice is not necessarily wrong in these instances, for it is only in definition that the group or culture can identify itself from another. Humanity, undefined, cannot be embraced for it is only in the specified that another understands and can embrace with knowledge. Knowledge is a necessary component of love.
While love does embrace, it at the same time does not have to condone all aspects of another's life. We can love and be prejuidiced. We can embrace and reject. The values that the individual holds represents the goals of his/her life. Bring these goals to the fore and allow the values to take care of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
