Scripture has been useful to impact the individual's "self-concept" as a special creation of God. A life filled with purpose and a future hope of rewards fill the heart of every evangelical believer. But, these understandings are a limited view of what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
Showing posts with label individuals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individuals. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Kant's Moral Ethic and Categorical Imperative
Kant said that a person should never be used as a means. I agree. He also was known for his Catergorical Imperative, which states that we act in a way that we wish would become a universal. This is an important universal, as it is a re-phrasing of "the Golden Rule". And this is where I think atheists have a point in theodicity, as how can one understand an evil that uses another human being for "great ends"? Governments or those in power are the ones who are responsible for creating environments that are best for the individual, so that he is not used as a means, and can choose to act as the Categorical Imperative would have. The problem with the Categorical Imperative is twofold. Where the universal standard of treating another like we would want to be treated, there remains the problem of differences in preferences. Some like hones forthright conversation, while others prefer insinuation, and a gentle nudge in the right direction. How does one treat another in a universal way, when it boils down to individual preferences?
Some who argue for the position of the Categorical Imperative are pacifists, since they believe that all individuals are important, they think that conflict should be resolved only through diplomatic means. I don't believe that diplomacy is open in closed countries, where there is little or no outside influence, because of their prejuidice about the outside world or their lack of information. The military are useful to protect our interests so that our freedoms can be maintained, as apart from these freedoms, we are doomed to fall into the hands of tyrannical leaders, whose purposes are not for the individual, but for their own misconcieved ends. And these ends use any means for their purposes, even individuals.
Some would claim that "God is the Blessed Controller" of all things and passively submit to injustice, while others seek to give out this "advice" so their control is maintained, or because they fear for their life. There is no universal in these situations, but in our free society, we must stand for justice. Rosa Parks, Gandhi would have never accomplished their ends if it had not been for standing for justice, whether the personal right of a seat on a bus, or discrimnation. Justice never just happens, but is activism for social, political, moral "causes". This is why Martin Luther King, Jr. , whose birthday we celebrate, said that "where injustice was allowed anywhere, it was an enemy to justice everywhere". It is not wrong to seek justice, as this is merciful to those who live under injustice, and where unjust governments and rulers rule, others suffer.
Some who argue for the position of the Categorical Imperative are pacifists, since they believe that all individuals are important, they think that conflict should be resolved only through diplomatic means. I don't believe that diplomacy is open in closed countries, where there is little or no outside influence, because of their prejuidice about the outside world or their lack of information. The military are useful to protect our interests so that our freedoms can be maintained, as apart from these freedoms, we are doomed to fall into the hands of tyrannical leaders, whose purposes are not for the individual, but for their own misconcieved ends. And these ends use any means for their purposes, even individuals.
Some would claim that "God is the Blessed Controller" of all things and passively submit to injustice, while others seek to give out this "advice" so their control is maintained, or because they fear for their life. There is no universal in these situations, but in our free society, we must stand for justice. Rosa Parks, Gandhi would have never accomplished their ends if it had not been for standing for justice, whether the personal right of a seat on a bus, or discrimnation. Justice never just happens, but is activism for social, political, moral "causes". This is why Martin Luther King, Jr. , whose birthday we celebrate, said that "where injustice was allowed anywhere, it was an enemy to justice everywhere". It is not wrong to seek justice, as this is merciful to those who live under injustice, and where unjust governments and rulers rule, others suffer.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The State as a Means and an Ultimate Value
The State in free societies is to protect individuals, and groups from undue intrusion into private spheres. Some do not believe that separation of powers between State and religion is a good thing. I disagree.
Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between behavior, which should be ruled by law, and belief, which is not. Behavior impacts another's life, while belief is a personal matter. Some in our country would argue that one's beliefs cannot be fully held without legislating these beliefs, because they underwrite what defines morality. While this is true of some beliefs, even these convictions must be open to discussion, where the "free market" determines what transpires "under law". This is a just society that takes into account all members convictions, tries them in the public square, and votes on them in free elections. The result are our represetatives, who legislate our laws, but must be collegial to other opinions. It is what civil discourse is all about. There should be no personal attacks.
Some in the past, such as the Puritans of old, believed that theirs was a "commonwealth" under God, as revealed in Scripture. While this view had some virtues, it also held many vices. Their understanding of revelation was within a text, which is a human construct. It was the Church who decided what was to be contained in the canon. The Puritans, though, understood the text and Church in purely spiritual terms. It was a supernaturalism that called for an absolute obedience to the "rules" constructed by the Church or in the text. Theirs was not a free society of conscience, but one of enforcement of "law and order". While there is value to "law and order", there was much done in the name of "law and order" that subverted God's natural design in humankind. Dogma became the "law of the land", where Puritans held trials convicting those who did not adhere to their understanding or interpretaion of revelation (god). The same happens in Islamic countries under Shairia law. This is not justice.
Because humans are social animals and desire to belong to some group for identification, social collegiality, etc., I believe many people "conformed" to the "tradition" of Puritanism, and some even psychologically responded to "revivalistic sermons" to their felt need. Many others have suffered under the repression and oppression of such types of communities. Their understanding was a group identification that held many duties over their congregants. I find this disturbing.
While humans are social animals, there is something unhealthy about adult super dependence on others for identity. There are some cultures that thrive on group identification, but not so, in America. While there is a need for the child and young person to develop within social contexts and adults continue to change in their roles and understanding of themselves, individuation is necessary for one's personal "fulfillment" or maturity. This is not valued in some societies. While America's freedoms have allowed the fullness of individuation, it has also hindered our values of communal fellowship. This is because our way of life is so stressed and structured around work. Job opportunities call for moving across the country and a dissolution of family responsibilities.
The modern State, as we find it, still upholds the values of the individual conscience, while maintaining "law and order" so that individuals can live their lives in relative peace. Our Founding Fathers understood natural rights, as a creation order and structuring, where man would flourish most effieciently. The freedom to "be" and "become" are the values that America values and should be one of our ultimate value for it breeds a repsect for others in their individuation. And respect is about justice and value of another's life.
Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between behavior, which should be ruled by law, and belief, which is not. Behavior impacts another's life, while belief is a personal matter. Some in our country would argue that one's beliefs cannot be fully held without legislating these beliefs, because they underwrite what defines morality. While this is true of some beliefs, even these convictions must be open to discussion, where the "free market" determines what transpires "under law". This is a just society that takes into account all members convictions, tries them in the public square, and votes on them in free elections. The result are our represetatives, who legislate our laws, but must be collegial to other opinions. It is what civil discourse is all about. There should be no personal attacks.
Some in the past, such as the Puritans of old, believed that theirs was a "commonwealth" under God, as revealed in Scripture. While this view had some virtues, it also held many vices. Their understanding of revelation was within a text, which is a human construct. It was the Church who decided what was to be contained in the canon. The Puritans, though, understood the text and Church in purely spiritual terms. It was a supernaturalism that called for an absolute obedience to the "rules" constructed by the Church or in the text. Theirs was not a free society of conscience, but one of enforcement of "law and order". While there is value to "law and order", there was much done in the name of "law and order" that subverted God's natural design in humankind. Dogma became the "law of the land", where Puritans held trials convicting those who did not adhere to their understanding or interpretaion of revelation (god). The same happens in Islamic countries under Shairia law. This is not justice.
Because humans are social animals and desire to belong to some group for identification, social collegiality, etc., I believe many people "conformed" to the "tradition" of Puritanism, and some even psychologically responded to "revivalistic sermons" to their felt need. Many others have suffered under the repression and oppression of such types of communities. Their understanding was a group identification that held many duties over their congregants. I find this disturbing.
While humans are social animals, there is something unhealthy about adult super dependence on others for identity. There are some cultures that thrive on group identification, but not so, in America. While there is a need for the child and young person to develop within social contexts and adults continue to change in their roles and understanding of themselves, individuation is necessary for one's personal "fulfillment" or maturity. This is not valued in some societies. While America's freedoms have allowed the fullness of individuation, it has also hindered our values of communal fellowship. This is because our way of life is so stressed and structured around work. Job opportunities call for moving across the country and a dissolution of family responsibilities.
The modern State, as we find it, still upholds the values of the individual conscience, while maintaining "law and order" so that individuals can live their lives in relative peace. Our Founding Fathers understood natural rights, as a creation order and structuring, where man would flourish most effieciently. The freedom to "be" and "become" are the values that America values and should be one of our ultimate value for it breeds a repsect for others in their individuation. And respect is about justice and value of another's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
