I recently commented on a friend's post about research on "gay lifestyles". The post was referenced back to "Renew America", which is a Christian grassroots political organization. Such organizations have a particular agenda that they deem significant because of their belief that "God" has ordained Scripture to be the "tried and true" (and right) way to promote human flourishing. I have questions.
First of all, I do not accept that the text as "inspired by God", other than it was written by men in certain situations that granted wisdom of and for that day. Today's wisdom is a scientifically oriented one, not a religiously biased one.
Secondly, I do not believe that anyone should be promoting a re-orientation to another's identity, unless it is damaging to society. This research was promoting a "repentance" from a lifestyle that was considered forbidden by "God", as they take the text at "face value". Such "re-framing" of identity is "in Christ". It is a movement of social organizing for a specific purpose, which is "God's Kingdom", as they interpret Scripture.
Such people believe that "God" exists and oversees all things and "God" has revealed His will in the confines of The Book. This is the traditonal view of evangelical Protestant Christianity, but it does not recognize the broader questions other than take at "face value" what is "to be believed". They seek to validate Scripture by a presuppositonal stance toward it! There is no way to disprove Scripture, because one's community is a self-perpituating entity. Truth is to be proven, and experienced, instead of sought out and discovered! And those that don't believe "lack faith" to believe and be "saved"!
This "tradition" does not take into consideration the history of the Church, or the roots of Judiasm, when they think of "faith". Theirs is an experiential and lived faith that they think is appropriate to promote for everyone. Theirs is an intense "mission focused' and oriented. All people are to be brought under their umbrella, as this is promoting "the Kingdom of God". While such a movement is not rooted in "deep history", it is rooted in American Revivalist tradition, and serves the purposes of furthering the political machine of "the social".
I know what it is like to suffer under another's religious conscience. Transitional and memorable life events were tainted or undermined by those that "thought better" than what I desired! The reason could be nothing other than the "conviction" that they were right and I was wrong, or that they were the "authority"! There was no "discussion" about differences of opinion, because their "conviction" was "not an opinion"!!! It was "God's fact"! If there was resistance, then I was rebellious, disobedient and would live under "God's judgment". The fear of God was to "keep people in line". Such attitudes did not "happen" until there was a conversion experience! Then, the experience somehow gave such as these "God's mind"!
"Self" is defined by such religious cultures and ceases to exist apart from another's sanctoning, sanctimonious and righteous attitude about life and all that is! Persecution will ensue if one does not acquiesce to such "convictions". A Bible beating is the end of such questioning, or differences of opinion. One wonders if these have any sense of "self" other than what they "feel" to be "God". The truth is that "God" is really THEIR conscience! And others are to be conformed to it!
I have come to the point where religion is not beneficial to me, and I do not want to promote it, other than allow those that want to affirm their faith in a way that is non-interfering to others.
When I think back about my journey, I used to also be persuaded that leaving churches that allowed divorcees to teach, or withdrawing approval of those that chose to see things differently was an appropriate way to handle "life's problems". And if everyone would concur with Scripture everyone would come to a unified understanding and life would be "perfect". In the meantime, I was comforted with the fact that life's tragedies were to teach me for "God's purposes"! It was all about me, because I needed it to be!
I still need it to be "about me", as everyone else does. Self interst is a "fact of life". Individuals are unique in their interests, but not in their desires. The desire to be loved, accepted and understood is a human trait, but all individuals will differ in interests, values and commitments. I don't believe that to be "human" means that one has to be a clone in one's interests, values and commitments. This seems to be the case for many in the evangelical camp. They think that if one has a difference of opinion concerning such social issues as abortion, gay marriage, etc. then, you are undermining "God's order" of the universe!
Gay marriage should be legalized in our society because it is just. Society can stll affirm monogomy which affirms the value of the two individuals involved, as well as protect society from STDs. Gays have desires, as all humans do for sexual expression and commitment to the person that means the most to them. That expression should be allowed within the confines of a marital relationship, where the partners can be respected as equal before the law and not marginalized by those that think they have "God's mind"!
Showing posts with label human desires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human desires. Show all posts
Friday, October 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Longings of the Heart
I just read a number of beautiful eulogies from former students of Alan Segal and had to share one of the quotes from his book, "Life After Death".
"Religion's imagining of our hereafter also seems to say the same - our 'immortal longings' are mirrors of what we find of value in our lives. They motivate our moral and artistic lives. Our longing itself deserves a robe and crown, nothing less. If humans can be, in Hamlet's words, 'in apprehension like a god,' do we not deserve his epitaph: 'flights of angels sing us to our rest'?" (p. 731).
I think this is a beautiful quote that resonates within my own heart about the "human value" of valuing and determining. These longing of value deserve a "robe and a crown"! His students described a man who talked of transcending oneself. He obviously found that he could do that through the students he left behind. Alan must have been an artist in creating his scholarship of early Christian and Judaic communities and using classical literature to defend or support the "human element" of such literature.
After that , what more can be said?
"Religion's imagining of our hereafter also seems to say the same - our 'immortal longings' are mirrors of what we find of value in our lives. They motivate our moral and artistic lives. Our longing itself deserves a robe and crown, nothing less. If humans can be, in Hamlet's words, 'in apprehension like a god,' do we not deserve his epitaph: 'flights of angels sing us to our rest'?" (p. 731).
I think this is a beautiful quote that resonates within my own heart about the "human value" of valuing and determining. These longing of value deserve a "robe and a crown"! His students described a man who talked of transcending oneself. He obviously found that he could do that through the students he left behind. Alan must have been an artist in creating his scholarship of early Christian and Judaic communities and using classical literature to defend or support the "human element" of such literature.
After that , what more can be said?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Humans and Need
My grandchildren came to spend the night last night. Our youngest is almost 7 months old. She is a delightful child, but can be very demanding when she knows what she wants. This got me thinking about human behavior.
Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?
We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?
I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.
Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.
My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..
It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.
Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?
We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?
I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.
Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.
My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..
It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
