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

This is to be Rapture Day! Is anyone really disappointed, or fearful that they have been "left behind"? Why would people or anyone believe that one could really "know" these things? Because they have faith! Faith sanctions MANY unreasonable, foolish, and unwise thoughts, actions, convictions, and opinions! But people of Faith cannot be torn away from their "personal experience" which affirms their context!

 These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".

The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.

The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.

Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.

Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.

"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.

Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".

Values Come Before Virtue

Values are defined as beliefs that we have an emotional investment in. Our beliefs underwrite our practices. And our practices are the public realm of "living in the world". Thus, politics is the arena that values plays itself out.

In a free society, values should be discussed in an open-ended way, with no discrimination toward the religious or the atheist. All should have voice in the public square to voice their opinion and allow all to come to some resolution, or to a consensus. There should not be propaganda, but investigative reporting, which should lead those who hear to investigate themselves. A free society does not remain free, if its freedoms are ignored, or under-valued, whether the error is in an ultra right-wing religious beliefs, or a radical left-wing secular view.

I just read on "Exploring Our Matrix", that conservatives are re-writing the Bible. These believe that the political agenda of Obama supporters was too liberal for them. Was this decision made because of some specific conservative values, such as abortion? Or a political stance on the economy?

It saddens me that conservatives do not think they have a voice or that they must segregate themselves from others who may be more informed than the wider population. And, as always, those who think that their "purity" values are being undermined have separated themselves to "form a new group". This is the Protestant Principle at work.

I agree that our society seems to be more politicized than it ever has been. But, does this mean that conservatives should withdraw to another part of society, which they create to form their own values without "outside information"?

Virtue is a response to values that differ. Virtue has to have a "context" to express itself. And usually that context is defined by the "sacred or secular", that has erred on one side or another. This is where difference can "make a difference" in virtue ethics.

"Good sports" know how to loose. And loosing does not have to mean that one become passively submissive or dependent on the winning view. Politics demands that we do not give up. Losers seek a way around the views they disagree with. But, to re-write Scripture without any scholarship, seems a little misguided. This is how cults are started. Shouldn't all conservatives be open to those with understanding about these areas of interest?

Values have become so concretized, that one cannot differ in anyway from the "party line". "Party lines" limit critical thinking, education, and a broader understanding of the issue. Broader understanding of a value is mandantory unless we want to "follow the leader" without questioning why these are values that should be maintained.

The Bible. after all, was not the focus of religious life in the Church's early history. Possibly the Bible is too much of a "value" of conservitism. Is this the "problem"? Surely these conservatives kow that the Trinity was not even formulated until the Church had existed for several hundred years.

American Conservatives should be a little more nuanced than narrowly focused and formed "group think"!

Truth is Political

I think that truth is political. Although science discerns facts, which facts are used and how they are used to form the policy that determines reality, is what determines "truth" or "reality" for the average person.

Anyone in leadership is responsible for what facts are offered, how they are heard and understood and then implemented into practice. Any policy is a practical philosophy. And philosophy is where the discussion of truth lies.

In the Biblical text, many understand that the context of the book is an important determination, as the context determines what the interpretation is. Context is the political domain, nothing more nor nothing less. Therefore, the bibilcal text is a product not just of the author's political context, but the Church's in its canonization.

I think it is shallow to argue for the "bible", as in "battle for the bible", as it undermines the human contexts and the human authors. The text of scripture is a human construct. It was an attempt to rationalize and theologize about God, Jesus, and the human condition.

It is unfortunate that more people are not aware of how limited their life is, by living passively and restrictively because of an anceint text, such as scripture.

"Lordship", Discipleship, and Faith

Christians have defined their faith in many ways, and the implications upon their lives was the result. "Worldviews" within Christendom have attached to them certain expectations, and understandings of itself and those who are intiated by the indoctrination of these traditions within the Christian Church understand the mores, customs and traditions that are implied. These are absolutized views of faith based on Scripture. Those who are not and are not submissive nor teachable are doomed to suffer consequences, as their views are absolute, but do not allow diversity in viewpoint.

I just read where a certain "Name" of an evangelical/fundamentalist leader of "lordship" teaching was based on a nominalistic faith without true discipleship. I disagree, as not only have I read his book (many years ago), have family who attended his seminary, and a friend's whose mother's church was split over the "lordship" teaching...but I think that any faith has an understanding of itself and a resulting expected behavioral "standard"...

The problem with any "lordship" theology is who determines what behavior and by what standard is a life measured? The Pharisees, during Jesus day, had certain purity standards that were specified, so that the behavior could be judged. Jesus, acted in an unconventional way according to their standards. Jesus morality was outside their box and this was the way that his life has led to a higher development of understanding morality. But, his life is not the only moral model.

Lordship can be viewed by many different standards, such as one's dress, custom, behavior, beliefs about ethical views, laws, etc....conformity is the name of the game for those within these types of environments. Questions are not appreciated, in fact, may be the very behavior that subjects one to shunning, criticism or rebuke. Authority's power is mandated by the leadership and judged as the necessary stated or implied behavior...this is the standard within the sect.
Most conservatives work within a conventional frame of reference, whether the authority comes from a written texts, or annointed leaders who speak, and judge for the people, even outside their borders. This attitude breeds prejuidice and unenlightened view, and limits the young in their intellectual development and interests. Some things are just not allowed as vocations within these traditions.

Our democracy allows freedom of speech, which allows questions, discovery, and journeying toward a larger view, a greater good, a more enlarged way of thinking than local and provincial ways of thinking and behaving. The world is too complex to describe in one demension. In our physical reality, we can only take in three demensions whereas, there are many more demensions that we can't "see". but are only understood by higher mathmatics...The order and structure of the world is a mystery which lives beyond reason, and yet is reasonable...Lordship theology and thinking describes faith and discipleship in only a certain way and by a certain standard and moral model...

Human Formation, Conformity and Discrimination

A lot of discussion has gone on in the recent past about the biblical text. What is this text and how did it come to be an authority? The text was written to form a tradition around history. The historical Jesus' impact on his culture began with a small group, spread to become a movement that came to define a religious tradition. The Church was born upon the heels of Jewish tradition and its text was interpreted as a unique revelation (but uniqueness is understood in any tradition, initially.).Tradition is the concretelization of experience that represents a universal "ideal" and are brought about by social, religious and political reformers (some would understand them as revolutionaries.).

Tradition is defined by its beliefs and many have suffered persecution under its power. "Conditioning traditions" of ostracism, exclusion, and heresy hunting have permeated the Church's history, but, unfortunately has not been viewed as discrimination. Belief is a powerful identity factor in humanity's search for meaning. Conformity is identified as spiritual formation in a tradition. But, conformity to a tradition is not uniqueness, but identification with a certain means of understanding existence.

Evolutionary biology/neuroscience has "revealed" that man is nothing more than animal in his responses, unless he is "trained" to conform. Brain science has born out that the neural connections must be disciplined, so that humans might behave in a proper way for maintaining society's order and structure. Man is no longer viewed as primarily a rational animal, but an animal of instinct. Moral training must form the individual into conformity, so that society's flourishing will be furthered and man will attain his "teleos".

I find that there is nothing wrong with training children, but is not the epitome of man's rational development. There is something wrong with conformity, when the "form" is so narrow that the individual child cannot attain to his/her uniqueness. Conformity is what Jesus stood against in discrimination of others who did not fit with the Jewish standard, which was a religious tradition.

In the Christian traditon, how is discrimination seen? And how would Jesus' example exemplify another standard than the "christian one"?

I find that "biblical christians" those, who live by the text are always dismissing some things while emphasizing others. Is this really what religion should be about? Or should religion be about unifying and expanding human existence beyond traditional understandings, where man is seen as human within a humane context and not one driven by a religious ideology? But, then religion is about defintions and standards, which are gauged by groupism, or textual understandings. And discrimination is always about how the other doesn't fit. Traditions call the outsiders "sinners", "infidels", and "dogs". Religion, then becomes a narrowing of boundaries and limitation to man's flourishing.