I don't know what made me think about these subjects today, other than some postings on 9/11 on Facebook, and thinking about liberty! What makes one's physical life, a matter of value or commitment? And what makes for a life that is worth living? I come to my conclusions after considering those that have committed suicide. What were their reasons? And what makes a life not worth living?
The first case was the Attack on America. The question was asked on FB, "Where were you and what were you doing on 9/11?". My thoughts turned to that day, that was just like any other, and the answer left me suffering the effects of the attack itself. That particular day, I was just an average person that was going about my morning routine of putting on my make-up, when I heard on the radio that there was a plane that had flown into one of the towers. Upon hearing of the accident, I started to cry, as this was how I had experienced my life, psychologically, at that point.
At the time, the announcer didn't know if it was a commercial flight and assumed it was only a private plane! But as the events started unfolding it was obvious that those that had flown the planes, as well as those that were n the burning towers, weren't valuing their lives.
What were some of the similarities and differences in these two categories of people. One was the agressor, against the "symbol of Western culture", "capitalism", while the other was just going about their daily tasks of furthering their own lives, as well as benefitting their society. One was motivated by a religious zeal that would make them fear "God's anger" and want "God's reward" for a "spirtualized kingdom". These terrorizors had separated reality from the "real world". Theirs was a spiritualized hope disconnnected from real people apart from their own religious tribe. These people were motivated by similar reasons as all people, as all humans are motivated by incentives and disincentives, as we are self-seeking creatures.
One would not intially see the simliarities in these two groups, as their cultures are so different. But, those in the burning inferno were seeking a way out of their fear of being burned alive or suffocating to death. This is a rational fear, that brought about an irrational action because of the possible pain that might have been suffered either physically or psychologically. These were suffering a real and present danger in the real physical world. Were those that jumped to their death less courageous than those that flew the plane into the Trade Towers, because they sought relief from a painful death? On the surface, the terrorists were the courageous ones.
Another group that suffers a real and present danger that impacts them long afterwards are our Armed Forces, who are experiencing suicide rates higher than at any other time. Many think that this is due to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Their "realities" in the present have been affected by their experiences. They are reactive, anxious and fearful of what they had experienced while on the battlefield! Some do not want to get help, while others continue to struggle against such "imagined realities' and overcome them. But at what point does one loose hope to overcome them?
Life is about choices. And fears breed choices that might not look rational, but are to those who suffer under such beliefs/thinking, whether religious spiritualized thinking, or past experiential thinking. Both impact what and how one views the present and interprets the future.
Was it right for those in the burning towers to jump to their death, or did they take their life in their own hands. Who is to make that judgment when they themselves are the only ones that know what they really faced? Were they to have courage in the midst of being burned alive, rather than a quick and timely death by jumping? This thinking based on real world experience.
But, real world experience is also the case for the ex-soldier, while his "reality" is not. Who is to advise him that his "stress" is only in his mind, when his mind might have been changed chemically, for all we know? Is he to be labelled fearful, because he has had these experiences that have affected him?
The religious agressor based their reality on a spiritualized "hope" that didn't care what might happen n the real world as this was not their value. They would be recompensed. This thinking cannot be challenged, as theirs is special knowledge that breeds confirmaton bias.
What makes for a rational decision? It depends on one's experience, beliefs, and fears. And each one of these categories of people had "rational reasons" for their behavior, at least according to their "Tradition", Experience, and/or Reason.
Showing posts with label hope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hope. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2011
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hairdressers, Heroes and Hope
Today's paper had much to say about heroes, noble causes, and giving of oneself. Today's climate of "demands" on one's time, leaves little for one to spend in "noble causes" apart from one's job. This began my thinking this morning about hairdressers, heroes and hope.
My family was filled with hairdresses. My great uncle, my great aunt, and my own mother were hairdressers. Hairdressers help us to find our "best selves" on the outside. They are interested in beauty.
My mother worked hard and long hours as a hairdresser and spent some of her time pursuing awards in hairdresser's contest. I was often a "model" for one or another hairdresser.
At one point during my early teen years, my mother had a boutique in her beauty shop and I got to go to Atlanta to the merchandise mart and help pick out the "boutique's wardrobe". This was always fascinating to me, as I loved beauty, fashion, and even thought at one point of becoming a fashion designer, or something to do with the fashion industry.
My love for beauty was emphasized in the culture in which I lived, the South. The South prides itself on tradition, which is exhibited in the historical. The plantatian homes, lovely gardens and using the right fork were all a part of "my tradition", my cultural heritage.
Though I enjoyed beauty and relished the South in some ways, I rejected many of its values, as I personally felt "different" on the inside. I was an alien in my own surroundings. Such family names as "the Sullivans", "the Browns", and "the ???" often made me feel intimidated. These feelings were in spite of my grandmother's desire to "train me" in the "finer art of Southern gentiality". I resisted, resented and have learned that my rejection was self-defeating. I always viewed debutant's as "putting on airs", while my cousins all became debutantes. And my uncle (brother in residence) took city council and ran for mayor.
My feelings of unworthiness and my experience of rejection ran so deep that I never allowed myself a chance to succeed. Early on, my friends were the doctor's and lawyer's children, but when I became old enough to choose my own friends, I chose those "on the other side of the track". My uncle even had to bribe me to enter a beauty contest. Was it because I was partly raised by my grandmother's maid when I was only a tot? Was it my own self-rejection because of my parent's divorce? Or my father's eventual abandonment? I don't know. But, it has always made me interested in psychology.
What is my point? Well, to be honest, I was trying to think of a hero in my life, which led me to the values that impacted me most and why. I love beauty, as it gives delight and just "is". I think beauty is valued because of its "being" and that is how humans should be valued. Hope is in seeing the beauty that points beyond itself, because it just is.
My family was filled with hairdresses. My great uncle, my great aunt, and my own mother were hairdressers. Hairdressers help us to find our "best selves" on the outside. They are interested in beauty.
My mother worked hard and long hours as a hairdresser and spent some of her time pursuing awards in hairdresser's contest. I was often a "model" for one or another hairdresser.
At one point during my early teen years, my mother had a boutique in her beauty shop and I got to go to Atlanta to the merchandise mart and help pick out the "boutique's wardrobe". This was always fascinating to me, as I loved beauty, fashion, and even thought at one point of becoming a fashion designer, or something to do with the fashion industry.
My love for beauty was emphasized in the culture in which I lived, the South. The South prides itself on tradition, which is exhibited in the historical. The plantatian homes, lovely gardens and using the right fork were all a part of "my tradition", my cultural heritage.
Though I enjoyed beauty and relished the South in some ways, I rejected many of its values, as I personally felt "different" on the inside. I was an alien in my own surroundings. Such family names as "the Sullivans", "the Browns", and "the ???" often made me feel intimidated. These feelings were in spite of my grandmother's desire to "train me" in the "finer art of Southern gentiality". I resisted, resented and have learned that my rejection was self-defeating. I always viewed debutant's as "putting on airs", while my cousins all became debutantes. And my uncle (brother in residence) took city council and ran for mayor.
My feelings of unworthiness and my experience of rejection ran so deep that I never allowed myself a chance to succeed. Early on, my friends were the doctor's and lawyer's children, but when I became old enough to choose my own friends, I chose those "on the other side of the track". My uncle even had to bribe me to enter a beauty contest. Was it because I was partly raised by my grandmother's maid when I was only a tot? Was it my own self-rejection because of my parent's divorce? Or my father's eventual abandonment? I don't know. But, it has always made me interested in psychology.
What is my point? Well, to be honest, I was trying to think of a hero in my life, which led me to the values that impacted me most and why. I love beauty, as it gives delight and just "is". I think beauty is valued because of its "being" and that is how humans should be valued. Hope is in seeing the beauty that points beyond itself, because it just is.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Christ as Symbol and Substance
The end of the law is Christ. What did Paul mean by this? Christ's life had come to full fruition or maturity to come into "sonship". Sons of God are those who "rule and reign" with God. They create and express beauty.
Beauty is the ability within man to become and express. Christ's life was a symbol of representation of God's gifting within, and his life consisted of the substance of expression within history. Christ's life expressed the work of charitable service.
While Christ's life represented a full son's expression, it was only one life. His example is one that is symbol for those who need modelling, but it is one of sustenance to those who have come to maturity of expression.
Life was meant to develop and come to fruition with expression in particular gifting and call. This is what our university's Life Calling and Leadership is about....
So, it is not about salvation, except in from those who would oppress the gift, and it is not about sanctification, except to consecrate one's gifts to the benefit of others. The result is a life lived in fullness and abundance.
It is not about what or where or to whom, but when it it time, the fullness of time....the maturity of development in vision and hope.
Beauty is the ability within man to become and express. Christ's life was a symbol of representation of God's gifting within, and his life consisted of the substance of expression within history. Christ's life expressed the work of charitable service.
While Christ's life represented a full son's expression, it was only one life. His example is one that is symbol for those who need modelling, but it is one of sustenance to those who have come to maturity of expression.
Life was meant to develop and come to fruition with expression in particular gifting and call. This is what our university's Life Calling and Leadership is about....
So, it is not about salvation, except in from those who would oppress the gift, and it is not about sanctification, except to consecrate one's gifts to the benefit of others. The result is a life lived in fullness and abundance.
It is not about what or where or to whom, but when it it time, the fullness of time....the maturity of development in vision and hope.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Theology's Task Today (continued)
In my last post, I said that there needed to be a globalized faith. This means that several things must change in the Christian world, where it concerns faith.
Science deals in the real world and describes many aspects of life in this world. Anthropological study of man within context, psychological study, which studies everything from neuroscience, cognitive science, learning theories, to how people respond and understand religion and God...Church history has focused on questions that confronted the Church and how they should be answered using philosophy. This is how theology should be done today, as it connects the real world with the transcendent. There is no superspiritual message of salvation in the sweet by and by, as we really do not know about the transcendent. We only know about how man has functioned within the world. This is a theological humanism, as all men are created in God's image.
Some would like to protect the Bible as a special revelation to man, but I find this is misguided. The material in Scriptures has always been interpreted differently throughout the ages, but some would like to protect Jesus as a unique figure, instead of understanding him within a moral framework as natural theology would. A natural theology could be palatable to many atheists, I believe for it would not deny or detract from reason or reasonble scientific understandings of "truth" and theology. Of course, many would say that the wall between science and religion should remain intact, but why is this necessary? To protect the Church's interests? The Church's interests should be first and foremost about man and the world.
Augustine understood man within a certain framework that I think is downright wrong. Why? because of many atrocities that happen when one religion thinks it owns truth! And more so when there is correction in the name of God that must be made because man is fallen and will go to hell if he is not saved (spiritually). This attitude and focus breeds a radicalization of faith that breeds what Wesley would call enthusiasm. We do not need such thinking and feeling about faith today. We need a re-structuring that breeds understanding, listening, and a wideness in understanding God's grace, mercy and love. This theological framework would be diplomatic in its undertaking of peace in the world and would help to alleviate much miscommunication.
Jesus has been interpreted in so many ways that there is not "right way" of understanding him. He was a moral model, but was one among many in the world of religion. Religious understanding should include moral, ethical, social and political models within all cultures. Understanding others and their cultural heroes help to breed understanding and trust, which helps communication.
What do Christians really want? Do they want to have the "ultimate and only" truth? Or are they open to struggling to breech the wide gap amongst the religions of the world and bring a larger vision of hope?
According to the science and religion debate, this view is NOT complementary, but integrative. This is necessary and mandantory, as education has left faith altogether, which has bred the atheist we see today.
Science deals in the real world and describes many aspects of life in this world. Anthropological study of man within context, psychological study, which studies everything from neuroscience, cognitive science, learning theories, to how people respond and understand religion and God...Church history has focused on questions that confronted the Church and how they should be answered using philosophy. This is how theology should be done today, as it connects the real world with the transcendent. There is no superspiritual message of salvation in the sweet by and by, as we really do not know about the transcendent. We only know about how man has functioned within the world. This is a theological humanism, as all men are created in God's image.
Some would like to protect the Bible as a special revelation to man, but I find this is misguided. The material in Scriptures has always been interpreted differently throughout the ages, but some would like to protect Jesus as a unique figure, instead of understanding him within a moral framework as natural theology would. A natural theology could be palatable to many atheists, I believe for it would not deny or detract from reason or reasonble scientific understandings of "truth" and theology. Of course, many would say that the wall between science and religion should remain intact, but why is this necessary? To protect the Church's interests? The Church's interests should be first and foremost about man and the world.
Augustine understood man within a certain framework that I think is downright wrong. Why? because of many atrocities that happen when one religion thinks it owns truth! And more so when there is correction in the name of God that must be made because man is fallen and will go to hell if he is not saved (spiritually). This attitude and focus breeds a radicalization of faith that breeds what Wesley would call enthusiasm. We do not need such thinking and feeling about faith today. We need a re-structuring that breeds understanding, listening, and a wideness in understanding God's grace, mercy and love. This theological framework would be diplomatic in its undertaking of peace in the world and would help to alleviate much miscommunication.
Jesus has been interpreted in so many ways that there is not "right way" of understanding him. He was a moral model, but was one among many in the world of religion. Religious understanding should include moral, ethical, social and political models within all cultures. Understanding others and their cultural heroes help to breed understanding and trust, which helps communication.
What do Christians really want? Do they want to have the "ultimate and only" truth? Or are they open to struggling to breech the wide gap amongst the religions of the world and bring a larger vision of hope?
According to the science and religion debate, this view is NOT complementary, but integrative. This is necessary and mandantory, as education has left faith altogether, which has bred the atheist we see today.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Atheist, Agnostic or What?
Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
