"Humanity or the Nation-State"?

The journey of "faith" or "discovery of self" has been excrusiatingly painful, at times. The struggle to "beome" a "self", independent and free, not from society, but for society. This is what evey human being does at different stages of their life. It is called human development.

Recently, on another blog, it became obvious to me, at least, that the choice and conflict between one's identification factors have been the basis of America's "culture wars". What do I mean by that?

Our "culture wars" are based on two distinct ways of viewing the world. One has an affirmation of "humanity" as the epitome of "the good". The other side fights for "individuality" and "the right". While humanity is where the universality of human rights is affirmed; the other is where the nation-state and Constitutional government is affirmed. Both are values Americans hold!

This morning on another blog site, bloggers were asked to choose whether they would affirm God's existance or not. It was an experiment, of sorts, to determine whether "good" exists apart from God. It is called the "Euthyphro Dilemma". One side, reason says "good" exists apart from "God". The other side says that "good" doesn't exist apart from "god".  I could not choose, as it became evident to me that I affirm both! Why or How can I affirm both? Both are American values.

America affirms indivdiuality, personal choice, and protection 'under law". In our form of government, "self" and other" are affirmed. The "good" and the "right" are defined by "equal under law". I affirm that "self" and "other" exist and have a right to exist. "Self" is indviduality, choice, and value. And "self" has to do with "rights", while "other" has to do with "society" and government. So, both "self and other", 'individuality and society" have the right to exist, but where individiuals in a free nation such as ours will choose to affirm or value one side or the other, will depend on what they desire to do or be. This is a choice of value.

Piracy and Human Rights

Lately, there has been much discussion about piracy. The threat that is posed toward Americans, who are seeking to provide humanitarian aid poses a threat to 'freedom" and "human rights".

I was glad to hear that Sec. Clinton was going to take measures against such people. These people pose a threat to all of us, if left unchecked. Even though some have sought 'rights" for these pirates in the name of "humanity", it is obvious that they could care less about anyone else's right to their "freedom".

Humans like to control, as this gives us a sense of power. Control is not a bad thing, as without it, we cannot be moral agents, nor can we be self-governing. But, whenever control intrudes into another's territory, then we have hindered "freedom and justice" for the other. This is what our Founding Fathers desired for everyone, equal opportunity, fairness, and equal treatment. There is no sense of "peace' without the "rule of law".

Without the rule of law, we are only animals, not human. Human means that we respect the other's rights of difference. Without difference, there is not freedom.

Conservative Evangelicals Call for Concern

I just read a friend's forwarded e-mail about a concern over the UN's passage of "Defamation of Religions" resolution. It is driven by th 57 Islamic states to protect themselves from "persecution" of practicing their religion. It calls for tolerance.

Of course, evangelical Christians are concerned because their faith is the "right one" and those who risk their lives by converting Muslims are in danger of death, as well as the converted. The question remains, can we be tolerant to intolerance? Certainly international law would promote tolerance in general, but it should protect the human rights of the individual and not give Islam the right to kill in the name of their religion (god). It is outrageous that the West cannot take a stand against intolerance such as this. It combines law and religion over conscience and demands obedience under fear of death. This type of culture is a culture of death indeed, for it leaves no room for creativity or difference and it impedes the full development and flourishing of man. Human rights have no "rights" within Islam's tight frame of identity.

There is much discussion concerning what it means to be a human being. Islam doesn't care about what it means to be a human being because their view of God is more important than man and being a human being.

What Kind of God?

Mankind tries to understand God by developing different ways of worship. Some confine their understanding to a text, others to a tradition's "wisdom", while others have given up hoping to understand the transcendent, for the present problems are too demanding for them to take the time.

What is the Christian response to such diversity?

Christians should embrace diversity, as Jesus life and message did not limit or confine his ministry to the understandings of either text or tradition. This means that the Christian message should be about humanity, not God. Man is made in God's image and Christians and Jews were commanded to make no other graven image...That means that the face of man is the face of God. That does not mean that God's face is individually defined, but must be seen within the faces of all of humanity and its multiverse ways of understanding God.

Christianiy needs to define itself on humanity, and humanities' giftings in every area of life. The problem of a universal Christian faith, is that there is opporsition from those who define their faith along the lines of traditional or conservative understandings and feel a universal call to the Church would diminish the Church's distinctiveness. This has always happened within Chruch History. What do you propose in seeking to unify diversity? Surely, you don't propose conformity, do you?

Jewish or Judiasm? And What Does Jewishness Have to Do with Christian Faith?

Philosophy via religion OR fact via history?

When Christians talk about their faith, what does their faith mean? Most evangelicals have an understanding of "spiritual disciplines", denomination, or church doctrine that make their faith "real". But, with the discussion about whether the Jew was understood as a religious tradition OR had an ethnic history is an important issue to address. Why?

Paul understood that their was no difference in Jew or Greek, as he had been a Jew and had a Jewish religious heritage, as well as a Greek education. Possibly, the understanding of ethnicity or religious tradition looses pre-eminence when it comes to understanding what it really means to be human...man made in God's image...

The political and religious implications have tremendous implications for understanding Paul's "gospel". I think that both history and religious tradition is transformed by the "real understanding" of what it means to be human, which is humanity's human-ness....