Funny How Christians "Use" Language

We all use language to communicate. But, though many of us can use "words", we do not know how to communicate. What is Communication?

Communication means that one understands a context and the history that affects "meaning". This is how the "Christian" uses language "to fix" or "redeem" (this is their theoogical term) the world. Such language is useful to get "believers to agree" and co-operate "with God's purposes, as Goe's purposes are assumed to be "about the world". But, is it just manipulation of language for certain purposes? When in reality, what is desired is certain behavior for certain outcomes or goals of personal interests or concern to leadership? These goals are defined within contexts, themselves.

Groups like to scapegoat. The Christian scapegoats "God", all groups think that "justice" is "their view" in a particular context and God 'is on their side". This is how the Church theologized "Christ" as the unifier of the world. Christ was scapegoated for one group's sins against another group of people. Group reality is not 'human development", but one identification factor to a particlar indivdiual.

In reality, groups are formed and framed by social, legal, moral, and interests factors. These factors support individuals and their view of themself and "life". Groups can be "causes" or "interests", or "pursuits" or "goals". But, all  formal groups are framed with certain unifying by-laws, written or un-written.

Communication between groups can be hard because interests, views, and commitments vary. And some of a group's assumptions about 'reality" are not readily understood. This is when diplomatic efforts are made to make for peaceful resolution. Resolutions are "peace treaties". Apart from negotiation, there is no "justice", and wars are made from such offenses/differences of values.

 The West believes that the individual has a right to representation and trial by jury. One is not guilty until proven innocent. These protections allow the individual liberty of conscience, as to values and commitments. "Justice", in this regard, has to do with rights. And rights are what make for the "human"/humane environment of the West. The individual is not required to submit to speicifications about their life and its commitments.  Group interests are to be negotiated with private individuals.

Christians like to define their group on the "language of theology", instead of understanding that Christianity itself is fraught with differences that are based on "language". What does "sin" mean? The definition will depend on how one understands "salvation", the Church, human/individual development, ulitmate purposes, practical realities, and contexts. This is where the "universalization of language" can be "defeating" to bringing "justice", because people understand terms differently. And such complexity makes it hard to bridge the communication gap.

People live within their understandings of the world. In the West, we believe that equality under law, protects the indivdual from hierarchal forms of co-ercion, but , religious groups understand that hierarchy 'honors God". Therefore, the individual is diminished and devalued, "in the light of God". During the Roman Empire Ceasars (or leaders over the government) were considered to be "gods". Christians were first thought to be atheists in this climate, because they resisted "earthly power". So, whether the Christian thinks that earthly government or 'spiritual governmant has primacy, it interferes with a universal view on government, as to "faith".

"Self-respect" and personal commitments are not values to many religious communities, because the individual is only 'a part" of the "whole" and the whole is more valuable. This view is a communal or societal view.  Paul said this in his analogy of the Body of Christ and interdependence. While interdependence is a fact of life, dependence is when hierarchal views are held and diminish the indivdiual within the corporate. This is 'injustice", because "the heads" or the corporation pre-determine without considering the "parts" that are needed to carry out their "plans". Such behavior disrespects/dishonors the individuals, who are to be a part of the team, for each team member must be aware to the specifics of the "goal" and know the part they play to be able to commit and carry out the plan. And sometimes the member may not value the goal, and this is when the member is free to consider other options and the "heads" can find a replacement.

It is interesting that individuals all have an innate sense of justice, because we all want to be valued and respected, unless there has been an environment that did not develop proper boundaries in the child.. Self-respect is the first and foremost foundation of coming to terms in 'just relationships. Otherwise, "self" is seen as "selfishness", and run over by those that cease to understand their own selfishness! Self-interest is the basis of our capitalistic system, and "self-interests" supports the view of the Christian or the naturalists. Men are viewed as "fallen" or "fighting for survival".  "Fallen" and Survival" also has many definitions, such definitions make for "life". How are we to understand 'life"?

The Christian likes to spiritualize terms, such as "life". Life is about "God:", instead of man. But, when these terms are united, the reality of "the god/man", we have a man fully developed. The Christian would term it 'in God's image". Such human development does not have to be "spiritual", as man is a physical entity. His brain responds to stimuli and interprets such stimuli in cerain ways. This is why communication is complex, because man's mind is different from his brain.

Minds can be "formed" by certain social conditioning. Such is the Christian's attempt to "condition" through "moral education". But, usually, the Church has certain "goals" that are limiting the definition of such "education of character", which is "Jesus" life, as revealed in Scriptures.  Such a life was not respected, honored, or considered as in our Western concept of "justice". Should the West continue to promote such "education", as Christian character? Or should the Church cease in trying to use "language" to get humans to agree to "denying self-interest"? Should individuals allow the Chruch to abuse them under a hierarchal view of power? Is the Church justified in "making disciples", when the Church acts unjustly, according to our Constitutonal governent? Is the Church above the law, because "God is above the law"? Or is justice defined by the law, whether or not one uses The Church or God to 'sanction' or 'make it holy?

Since men are "fallen" or prone to compete for survival, how should we view "justice" in the Church? Justice in the Church is no more or less than justice in our Constitutional government, as without it, we do disservice to man  (made in God's image,). Man made in "God" image" is not one form, but many forms, because beauty allows for diversity.

What Questions Do You Ask?

I like to ask questions. Sometimes I try to connect answers to different questions, but this is not my subject today. The subject is do you ask questions? If so, what kind of questions? Questions reveal something about how we think and what we think is important.

What questions are factual and practical questions. What happened.? What can be done? What purpose does it serve?

How questions are investigative questions. How did this happen? How do we understand this? How do we fix this?

Why questions are causal/motivational questions. Why do you think this happened? Why do you think this is important? Why are you pursuing this course of action? These questions are questions of value and they reveal sometimes how a person thinks about 'life" and its overall "frame".

A naturalist frame understands what happened as a matter of course. But, sometimes "the course" is not completely understood, yet. This is where scientists, social scientists, help us to understand. This framing's "cause' is nature (man and his environment). These subjects help man to understand what is 'fact" about nature, but it doesn't address what to do with nature. It only reveals "what nature is" or how "nature works".

But, what of the humanities? Where do these fit into the questions abuot life? They fit by helping us to understand the "human", and "life", and "value". The answers to "life" is found in literature and other artistic expression. These are valuable to enlarge man's heart, reveal man's common experience, and suggest alternative views about "life".

I almost never read novels. I much prefer philosophical, thematic themes...possibly because it helps me answer questions.
Questions are important, as they help us to formulate our understanding and help us to frame our lives with the values that are most important to us.

Globalists Agenda and the Demise of Western Civilization

History is impacted by the latest philosophy, that impacts its academic climate. The Academy has power that has shaped the "color" and thinking of the young. And this is an important aspect to understand critically.

Today's academic is geared toward global concerns, as this is what is important if one is to remain relevant. The world has become globalized through our interconnections of communication and commerce. How have the global concerns impacted the Academy?

I think that the globalist has sought to undermine the nation-state status and the identification factors that define the citizen.

America's citizen is defined by the Constitution. And the Constitution has been understood in the liberal Academy as a 'living document" that must speak to the present condition, that being the global. The Constitution becomes irrelavant in such a context, because it limits and defines people that distinguish themselves. Distinction has become defined as discrimination, because if anyone dares to make a statement about citizen rights, then one is making claims above another 'human'. The argument becomes absurd.

But, the Academy cannot stop at the 'human' but with any living entity, because the Academy has come to understand our "interdependence" on all kinds of life. There becomes little distinction or way to define value about life, because all life is necessary. Ethical values are undermined because we dissolve again one distinction from another.

I think that America is experiencing its crisis because of such thinking. The "social" has trumped the individual. Society itself it the ultimate value, instead of individual liberty. The indivdual is only defined by his social context, and not by his own values, choices, and innatedness.

I agree with those that are angry about what is being done in the name of "right", the "moral imperative", or "moral concern". Whose "right", "moral imperative" or 'moral concern"?

Americans believe we are defined by our Constitution that has granted the citizen certain rights of liberty. The social agenda of the globalists, socialists, or the naturalists is NOT what has defined American values. And this is the problem, I think. We have been a people that have been identified by our ideals, that have created an environment that has prospered the individual's choice of value, resulting in the prosperity and liberty in our society.

Today, the very liberty that has brought about our prosperity is in danger. The few have been corrupted and America as a whole must pay. We haven't understood ourselves in this way. It is a hard awakening. But, awake we must be!

"Do Unto Others"

"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you", is a universally acclaimed rule. But, do all people want the same things in life? That depends on one's needs desires, and values.

Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.

What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".

Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.

Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.

The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.

India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?

The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?

If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.

Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.

Naturalism is Just Another Name...

Naturalism is just another name for God. Naturalism claims that there is no 'open universe". Resources, whether they be the natural environmental, or social are in "short supply". So, all people are called to altruistic ends, because we all need to survive.

Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.

I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.

Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?

So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!

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.