Humans are created in the "image of God", or so the believing community affirms. Therefore, humans are special, or distinct from other forms of life. Human life is to be respected. Therefore, those who choose to believe must affirm that humans cannot be manipulated, controlled, oppressed, or "trained" as animals.
In the Old Testament, there is a story about a man who attempted to "steady the ark of the covenant". His intentions were well-meaning, as he didn't want the ark of the covenant to "fall to the ground" and defile it. But, what happened to him struck fear in the heart of others as to the seriousness of "touching the ark of the covenant" for any reason, well intentioned or not.
The Ark of the Covenant was symbolic of the Presence and Law of God. In the New Testament, it is understood to be "the human being" who is created in God's image that is the "ark of the Covenant".
Other communal understandings is "the Church", as the "Ark of the Covenant". The problem with this view is the problem of any group type form. But, in this sense, the Church is a cult. A cult or sectarian faiths have certain irrational beliefs that defend their practices. These are symbolized in communion, marriage, baptism and other sacraments. These symbolize "the community" as ancient cultures understood themselves in "communal ways".
Enlightenment via the Reformation has understood the importance of the individual, not the communal. Some have thought that this is what has undermined America's civil responsibilities. But, I believe that what the individual child is taught and becomes is based in the family. Family is understood by both pyschological and sociological science and faith communities as a formative community. Therefore, the individual is formed in the framework of care, concern and commitment.
Those who choose to believe will not presume or assume upon the community nor the individuals within those communities.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
What is Wrong with Providence?
Providence has been understood to be "God's rule" or "over-ruling" of life in all its aspects. But, what is wrong with this view and providence?
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
What is Wrong With "Covenant"
On another blog, I read this morning where arranged marriages could be a way to "form" intimacy. The one response was affirming of this type of "legal commitment". But, I find there are some problems with this sort of "covenant".
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Art, As Expression and Free Speech
Artists are known to be a "little different". Perhaps, this is a stereotype, but it seems that artists do "see" things differently, "feel" things deeply, and express things vividly.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Amusement About Augustine...
Today I remembered a blog I read yesterday and couldn't help but think that it was amusing. The blogger said that Augustine had suggested that God's reason for creating man's nipples was for aesthetic reasons. Isn't that funny?
On the other hand, or seriously, Augustine must have felt he needed to defend everything and somehow give God the credit for its reason for being. Men's nipples? No real purpose, other than they "look good"? But, that is okay. The world is as beautiful, as it is baffling,
That is really " good news" if you find that "art", music, beauty, and other "useless" creations are really important as pointers to and of beauty. Beauty resonates in the heart of man, as something that is from "another" category, than useful. And that category has a lot to do with what is NOT, but what humans "know" by nature. What is the meaning of beauty?
On the other hand, or seriously, Augustine must have felt he needed to defend everything and somehow give God the credit for its reason for being. Men's nipples? No real purpose, other than they "look good"? But, that is okay. The world is as beautiful, as it is baffling,
That is really " good news" if you find that "art", music, beauty, and other "useless" creations are really important as pointers to and of beauty. Beauty resonates in the heart of man, as something that is from "another" category, than useful. And that category has a lot to do with what is NOT, but what humans "know" by nature. What is the meaning of beauty?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Superbowl, Free Speech, and 'Political Correctness"
Free speech is again in question. It seems that some think that it is inappropriate to feature an ad taken out by "pro-lifers". The question posed to Palin tonight was; Was this appropriate? Was the Superbowl the place to feature a "controversial" ad. Palin, of course, was supportive and definite in her commitment to the right to "free speech".
I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?
I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.
On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.
Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.
I'm listening, but there is little explaining.
I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?
I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.
On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.
Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.
I'm listening, but there is little explaining.
The Question of Why.and Which.....
I was talking to a couple of friends last night and something came up in the course of conversation that made me start thinking of why it was that an individual prefers one choice above another. Some have believed that the preference is due to cultural upbringing, which conditions the child to a certain "bent of mind". I adhere to the value and necessity of an affirming culture, but are all our choices due to cultural conditioning?
As I am the only one that knows and has experience my family, culture, and innate nature, I will "consult" my memory and share my questions.
I was brought up in the South; strong, and proud of its heritage. I have come to appreciate some of the pride I before distained. But, it makes me wonder why? Was my resistance, or "rebellion" of my Southern heritage because of my own innate preferences (biological determinism) or because of my nurture and its failures (self-concept)?
My family was conservative Baptist, but not fundamental in the true sense. I was "raised in the Church" and found friendships there. But, always longed to move to a large city (New York) and experience a larger frame of reference. Was this because I innately preferred large cities and a more liberal environment? Or was it because I didn't feel I "fit" or belonged in a provincial setting, due to family divorce and bad parenting?
In choosing friends in school, I didn't always choose those in the sororities or the popular bunch because I fear rejection and felt like tha "little guy" who couldn't "make the grade" was of value just as I had wanted to be. So, while grandparents chose the doctors, lawyers and "Indian chiefs", I chose the "little guy". And while cousins became debutantes and sorority sisters, I chose to distain such distinctions. Was it due to my self image and fear of rejection or was there something about me as a "person" that innately did not desire such position?
In school, I never excelled or valued education, except for two years that I attended an experimental school that "tracked" individual students based on their ability. Since this was a new type of school there was no way for adminstration to know where to "trac me", when I moved from another school. So they put me in the bottom level of each subject. I worked my way up to the top level of every subject, even though it meant a lot of "catch up work". I was proud, but no one else was. So, I moved on to junior high school interested in finding friends and boys to "give me value".
So, which is it; nature, or nurture? I can't seem to tease out which is of more importance. I only know that it matters that environments be conducive for the individual to excel as far as possible and that includes many social/political dimensions of life.
As I am the only one that knows and has experience my family, culture, and innate nature, I will "consult" my memory and share my questions.
I was brought up in the South; strong, and proud of its heritage. I have come to appreciate some of the pride I before distained. But, it makes me wonder why? Was my resistance, or "rebellion" of my Southern heritage because of my own innate preferences (biological determinism) or because of my nurture and its failures (self-concept)?
My family was conservative Baptist, but not fundamental in the true sense. I was "raised in the Church" and found friendships there. But, always longed to move to a large city (New York) and experience a larger frame of reference. Was this because I innately preferred large cities and a more liberal environment? Or was it because I didn't feel I "fit" or belonged in a provincial setting, due to family divorce and bad parenting?
In choosing friends in school, I didn't always choose those in the sororities or the popular bunch because I fear rejection and felt like tha "little guy" who couldn't "make the grade" was of value just as I had wanted to be. So, while grandparents chose the doctors, lawyers and "Indian chiefs", I chose the "little guy". And while cousins became debutantes and sorority sisters, I chose to distain such distinctions. Was it due to my self image and fear of rejection or was there something about me as a "person" that innately did not desire such position?
In school, I never excelled or valued education, except for two years that I attended an experimental school that "tracked" individual students based on their ability. Since this was a new type of school there was no way for adminstration to know where to "trac me", when I moved from another school. So they put me in the bottom level of each subject. I worked my way up to the top level of every subject, even though it meant a lot of "catch up work". I was proud, but no one else was. So, I moved on to junior high school interested in finding friends and boys to "give me value".
So, which is it; nature, or nurture? I can't seem to tease out which is of more importance. I only know that it matters that environments be conducive for the individual to excel as far as possible and that includes many social/political dimensions of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
