Equality

One of the philosophical dilemmas that I have been reading on, is between equality or elitism. It is not a matter of whether there will be elitism, but what type or kind...as leadership is about elitism.

Should equality be based on standardization of the eononmy? These leaders believe that the "masses" should be equal in outcomes, not opportunity. Equality in outcomes means that costs will be similar. Govenment is to maintain the costs of healthcare so that all people can have the same or similar healthcare plan. But, the leaders that are voting this way are not going to submit to the same "equality of outcome". Their "place of priviledge" gives them the right to better choices about their healthcare plan. What this really means is that they don't have to pay for others to have healthcare, not in reality.

Other leaders base their equality on opportunity. These believe that outcome or maintaining costs should not be the focus, but rectifying the injustice through equal opportunity. No discrimination for the individual to have the right of choice. The government does not demand that the individual "take the opportunity" or the right of a certain outcome.. The government is only there to rectify injustice in concerns to discrimination about opportunity. These are civil liberties.

Risks about the choices one makes, whether that means not getting the education needed for a better job, or taking a risk by investments and enteuperneurship. These are individual choices or liberties that Americans value and should value, as it maintains the free society that we have been used to.

Poverty is a social problem, but approaching the problem through equalizing the outcomes, demoralizes those that might choose to do otherwise than what government demands. Is it not the right of the individual who produces to get profit from his effort and labot? Or is government going to determine 'what is right" or "moral" in regards to salary? Is government to be the moral police officier in how the individual chooses to live their life? This will be the case whenever the government gets more and more involved with the decisions of individuals and families in America. We will then have little need for the vision that inspired our Founders to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because government will TELL us what we are to value and how we are to live.

Theodicity, Salvation, and Free Will

I just read on another blog spot that this person was attempting to re-think his theology on two points
1.) there is no free will
2.) salvation collapses into theodicity

I may be misunderstanding him, but is seems to me, that if one works within a closed system, then one has to believe in free choice, otherwise how does anything happen at all.

Leaders whether in government or organizational structures, are responsible for the choices they make, as they set vision, determine purpose, et al...then, the conventional level moral development people are given "the good news", as in the theodicity problem is really a call to "sanctification"! Therefore, they are to practice the disciplines, the Sermon on the Mount and count it all joy, because as God is their eschalogical hope, they can be assured that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed ....

IMAGINE, the VICTIM (those who have limited choices, or are pre-determined by "leadership") are then given the "good news" of the redemption of sin...in the sweet by and by and in the meantime, they are to have Christ-like character!!! while those in leadership rest at ease in their imaginings....I imagine the Book of Hebrews would come in handy about now, too!! Then, tradition could benefit with those so sanctified, as well as enlarge the portals of scientism's knowledge....

Salvation is character, but character does not act arrogantly, immorally, or unethically. We do have problems in ethics concerning the choices set before us, in coming to understand and settle on what constitutes the greater good, or the highest value, or the ultimate end...But, there must not be determinism. No, choice is a matter of individual conscience, the moral order of accountability, and justice.

I do not believe in Calvinism, determinism ala scientism, even God's foreknowledge. No, I believe in a free and open universe, where anything can happen, because man isn't God and doesn't know everything, nor control everything...but I struggle with God's control, knowledge and intervention within history. We all see the facts and interpret them in faith...

Am I the ONLY One?Social Construction and Determinism

Am I the only one that doesn't like to be determined? controlled? manipulated? "predestined"? I like choice.

Some social constructionists like to believe that they can create another in an image they want formed. But, can they? How do they know how a person will respond, or react? Do they know what "patterns" are in the brain that may "kick in" and hinder the result they desire?

Some believe, as I do, that the early Church formulated their theology because of the meaning that Jesus' life gave to them. Does this mean that our theology is framed within our own paradigms of understanding in experience? Agnosticism and atheism would come about because the person experiences tragedies that are inexplicable, bring incongruence, and cognitive dissonance. Attempts to resolve these incongruencies resolve themselves in agnosticism or atheism.