On another blog site, Experimental Theology, it was suggested that boundaries are a problem. I imagine that this is the way people are trying to "connect" across cultural, and racial boundaries. It is the "usefulness" of the Church's message of "Christ". (A rose by any other name is just as sweet!). And such image/myth making is how our Founders understood and formed our government.
The question of whether one internalizes their culture in such a way that one's very identity is compromised and whether one's "self" is rooted in such a way that universalizes such myths, and destroy or damage "self". Can one who has gone beyond a "group identity" give up their "self"? This is the question of alturism. It obviously has been done, but is everyone predisposed to alturistic "service"? Is it an innate nature that needs challenge to become "alturistic", or is such a challenge futile because one's tendency is genetically determined? These are questions that will transform our understanding of psychotherapy itself.
I tend to think that one's racial and cultural background is internalized to such an extent that without being exposed to a "wider world", there is no hope for any change. And I also think that it is really myth that holds the "universalization" that is necessary for "alturistic concerns". But, I also believe that there is a tension between one's genetic nature and one's cultural examples. Some might not identity with others, but be independent in their thinking and being in the world.
Mystics aren't logical in their thinking, but romantic/transcendental. "Images" make for meaning in such minds/brains. Such thinking can be useful to "sell goods" such as marketers do, but is not the way to govern. Governance needs "real life" solutions to "real life" problems, not image making images that give some ungrounded hope about tomorrow. Politicians use such salesmanship to get elected, but how many prove themselves to really be true to their compaign promises. Such is the reality of the "real world". The real world is not based on "ideal solutions" but pragmatic ones.
Our Founders recognized that man was made for "ideals" to hope and dream. This was their "promise in their creation of our government" where all men are created equal. But practically speaking, when one has a job in the real world, all are not equal in position, nor in abilities. Therefore, "equal" has a limited application.
Internationalists would like to see our nation-state export such democratic ideals. But, the reality is that we have needs at home right now, that make it pragmatically improbable if not impossibe to meets "everyone's need" for democracy or humanitarian aid...There are just too many problems for one nation (or the West) to address! Politicians are trying to come to solutions that will pacify the Internationalist and the Localist, the essentialists and the non-essentialist. And scientists are wondering if "myth" might be a pragmatic solution to "real world" problems. Others think that the problem is religion itself, that uses myth to promote such "self-annilhilation" or "alturistic concern".
Showing posts with label myths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label myths. Show all posts
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Universalism
Universalism can be understood in various contexts. Universalism as it has been discussed lately by Bell and the evangelical, is about supernatural salvation. What "God" wants to do to reconcile people to himself. But, the naturalist believes that humans believe in myth when they are framing their realities as children. Myth is know in anthropological terms as the way people frame their cultures. While cultures are human by-products, all cultures are not equal.
Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.
Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.
How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.
All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.
Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.
Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.
Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.
Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.
Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.
How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.
All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.
Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.
Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.
Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Review of "The Final Cut"
"The Final Cut" was an interesting sci-fi type film, which had implications to society, the greater good, and privacy.
The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".
As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.
At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow. Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved, and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.
Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.
The other situation was when a woman found her "memories" before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.
The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.
I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of extremist views.
But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.
The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image", at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.
Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.
In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.
In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.
So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.
The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".
As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.
At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow. Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved, and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.
Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.
The other situation was when a woman found her "memories" before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.
The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.
I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of extremist views.
But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.
The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image", at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.
Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.
In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.
In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.
So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Myth Brings Meaning
Myth is known by anthropologists to bring meaning to a certain culture. And meaning is "made" or created by mythologizing history.
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Why I Think "God" Is the Problem
I think "God" is a problem for humans, because God, if he exists, is beyond our capacity to verify. And because there are so many ways in which God has been understood, it only leads to endless speculations.
Those that think that God has given them special priviledge or rights can act arrogantly or presumptively toward others, who differ in their understandings. And those that think that God has revealed all that needs to be known in scriptures, are doubly dangerous.
Some have thought that "God" was a projection of our wishes, others think that "God" is a fulfillment of our wishes. These views are underwritten by psychological science.
Anthropologists understand myth as a cultural value in describing "God" and these myths bring meaning to life in various cultural contexts. But, is meaning important when meaning skews the real world of values?
Sociologists understand that communities of faith are ways that humans find significance, value and belonging and sometimes, even their very identity. But, the basis of our identity is multi-dimensional. We are identified by our families of origin, our religion, our country, our friends, our social connections, our jobs, our personalities, and what we value most.
Each of these social sciences are not interested in whether there is really a "real God" who exists, but the practical reasons, and implications of such belief.
If one believes that family is the most basic foundation of identity, an individual's life is formed by the values that are held within the family. But, American society has dissolved family connections through many avenues of pursuing the American Dream. And the pursuit of the American Dream has led to countless divorce, child neglect, blended families, domestic abuse, and a de-valueing of family, as a whole.
The child so formed in such an environment of disorder and chaos, leaves the child with little to identify with, and a depth of loss that cannot be filled easily with finding other solutions. These need a healthy dose of therapy and help from others in society.
These children can experience osterizicism and criticism from the "Chrstian world" where things are "nice and neat". The attitude can be: "What's wrong with "That" family", or " We don't want our children to be influenced by "them". The child so labelled suffers doubly from isolation and a sense that everything is their fault.
So, "God" is useful to promote moral outrage at those who need what society needs to give. The "Christian Ideal" is seldom the real truth of the matter, no matter how devout or devoted. And Christians should be honest about this. Otherwise, there is no hope for anyone.
"God" is useless, as far as I am concerned for real solutions in the real world. Christians need to stop running to be "christian" and attempt to be human and learn to be a real person in a real world with real needs.
I used to believe in "God" as anesthesia to my pain. And I used "God" as a replacement for self-acceptance and coming to terms with reality. If God accepted me, then I could have permission to accept myself. But, self-acceptance is taking responsibility for one's own personal choices and decisions and not looking to communities, whether of faith or not, to validate one's choice, and commitments.
Reality is painful because there are many problems in the world and no theology, scripture, doctrine, church, or christian will "fix it", because the world is broken beyond repair. And our only hope is recognizing that and being there for another, while attempting to rectify what we personally think will help most.
Those that think that God has given them special priviledge or rights can act arrogantly or presumptively toward others, who differ in their understandings. And those that think that God has revealed all that needs to be known in scriptures, are doubly dangerous.
Some have thought that "God" was a projection of our wishes, others think that "God" is a fulfillment of our wishes. These views are underwritten by psychological science.
Anthropologists understand myth as a cultural value in describing "God" and these myths bring meaning to life in various cultural contexts. But, is meaning important when meaning skews the real world of values?
Sociologists understand that communities of faith are ways that humans find significance, value and belonging and sometimes, even their very identity. But, the basis of our identity is multi-dimensional. We are identified by our families of origin, our religion, our country, our friends, our social connections, our jobs, our personalities, and what we value most.
Each of these social sciences are not interested in whether there is really a "real God" who exists, but the practical reasons, and implications of such belief.
If one believes that family is the most basic foundation of identity, an individual's life is formed by the values that are held within the family. But, American society has dissolved family connections through many avenues of pursuing the American Dream. And the pursuit of the American Dream has led to countless divorce, child neglect, blended families, domestic abuse, and a de-valueing of family, as a whole.
The child so formed in such an environment of disorder and chaos, leaves the child with little to identify with, and a depth of loss that cannot be filled easily with finding other solutions. These need a healthy dose of therapy and help from others in society.
These children can experience osterizicism and criticism from the "Chrstian world" where things are "nice and neat". The attitude can be: "What's wrong with "That" family", or " We don't want our children to be influenced by "them". The child so labelled suffers doubly from isolation and a sense that everything is their fault.
So, "God" is useful to promote moral outrage at those who need what society needs to give. The "Christian Ideal" is seldom the real truth of the matter, no matter how devout or devoted. And Christians should be honest about this. Otherwise, there is no hope for anyone.
"God" is useless, as far as I am concerned for real solutions in the real world. Christians need to stop running to be "christian" and attempt to be human and learn to be a real person in a real world with real needs.
I used to believe in "God" as anesthesia to my pain. And I used "God" as a replacement for self-acceptance and coming to terms with reality. If God accepted me, then I could have permission to accept myself. But, self-acceptance is taking responsibility for one's own personal choices and decisions and not looking to communities, whether of faith or not, to validate one's choice, and commitments.
Reality is painful because there are many problems in the world and no theology, scripture, doctrine, church, or christian will "fix it", because the world is broken beyond repair. And our only hope is recognizing that and being there for another, while attempting to rectify what we personally think will help most.
Addendum to Morality and America
The Christian tradition has sought to answer the question of its veracity. Certainly, everyone would agree that the Christian tradition has had an impact on the world.
The conflict over myth and history has been a battle in the scholarly world. Was Jesus a historical person, or was he a mythological story. Or was his life a real life mythologized by the Church Fathers?
Myth has been known to be useful to represent things that are beyond the discipline of scienctific exploration. And ancient myths have been useful for eons for religions to build their stories, that help to identify a people and form communities of faith.
The same has happened in America's Founding, I think. Our Founding Fathers used myth to help bring unity, identification to a "people", a diverse people. And the unity was based upon natural law, where all were created equal with certain inalienable rights. So, our unity was in our diversity, not our uniformity. Even the Founding Fathers were different in their religious convictions and commitments. And so should Americans be.
If one accepts the former hypothesis, then, the question becomes, is there a God or not? Does it matter?
The conflict over myth and history has been a battle in the scholarly world. Was Jesus a historical person, or was he a mythological story. Or was his life a real life mythologized by the Church Fathers?
Myth has been known to be useful to represent things that are beyond the discipline of scienctific exploration. And ancient myths have been useful for eons for religions to build their stories, that help to identify a people and form communities of faith.
The same has happened in America's Founding, I think. Our Founding Fathers used myth to help bring unity, identification to a "people", a diverse people. And the unity was based upon natural law, where all were created equal with certain inalienable rights. So, our unity was in our diversity, not our uniformity. Even the Founding Fathers were different in their religious convictions and commitments. And so should Americans be.
If one accepts the former hypothesis, then, the question becomes, is there a God or not? Does it matter?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
History in the Making...
Many people who live in free societies, understand that humans have the ability to "make history". These like to "make their mark" in the world through many creative avenues. And free societies allow and encourage such activity.
History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.
Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.
Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.
In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".
But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".
I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.
So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.
I am so grateful for our liberty.
History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.
Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.
Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.
In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".
But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".
I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.
So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.
I am so grateful for our liberty.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why the Jews?
Sunday I was listening to a classical piece that reminds me of the Jewish plight under the Nazis. Why has the West identified with the Jews?
The Jews have become symbolic to our identity. Our identity is rooted in freedom under law. We, in America, are a people because we believe in freedoms of all kinds. We are not a people identified with a religion, a monarch, or an ideology. This leaves the individual at liberty to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with the laws that provide for our security. Our solidarity is only based on these freedoms and Americans don't have a strong "cultural identity" unless freedom is challenged.
Myths have been useful for identification. Stories are told to children and children identify with the hero or herorine in the story. They dream of rescue, dreams and hopes coming true. These are basic to the human heart.
In America, we have benefited by these basic human desires of "becoming all we can". Hollywood is known worldwide to transmit these cultural values.
The "Jews" are symbolic for all human rights and many Jews today are humanists because of their story of struggle to attain what the human heart has always longed for, Freedom.
The Jews have become symbolic to our identity. Our identity is rooted in freedom under law. We, in America, are a people because we believe in freedoms of all kinds. We are not a people identified with a religion, a monarch, or an ideology. This leaves the individual at liberty to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with the laws that provide for our security. Our solidarity is only based on these freedoms and Americans don't have a strong "cultural identity" unless freedom is challenged.
Myths have been useful for identification. Stories are told to children and children identify with the hero or herorine in the story. They dream of rescue, dreams and hopes coming true. These are basic to the human heart.
In America, we have benefited by these basic human desires of "becoming all we can". Hollywood is known worldwide to transmit these cultural values.
The "Jews" are symbolic for all human rights and many Jews today are humanists because of their story of struggle to attain what the human heart has always longed for, Freedom.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Calvin's "Spiritualized" Salvation History
I find it quite amusing to read Calvinistic theology nowadays. Why? because it is a big mythological way to understand "salvation", "God", and "history".
There is always "something special" in Calvinistic thought; the elect, salvation-history, the divine Christ, the penal substitutionary death atonement, the exclusivist claims, the Canon itself, Israel, the Church, a special call, etc. It is as if there is no real reality, if one is a person of faith. This understanding seems to me to be absolute aburdity. It is looking at everything with "spiritual eyes", as the 'natural man does not accept the things of the spirit".
I think that there are those who have an agenda for the Church to maintain its "identity with Calvin". Others are truly duped. The social organization is no less "special", if one has eyes to see and believe. The government is no less a place to be a "minister". The Church is a social organism and a social structure, which is useful for certain purposes, nothing more and nothing less.There is no separation of secular and sacred, as all of life is about giftedness and gifting.
Jesus life was mythologized by the early believers and Church. His "story" is one narrative among many narratives. Many have made use of his identity and lacked the ability to come to their own identity.
There is really no "God's salvation history". There is only ancient history and ancient texts. These are the ways of coming into mature and responsible behavior, where one does not seek another's "help" to avoid the responsibilities before them. One starts to own his own identity. He no longer identifies himself primarily as a Christian, but as a person. This is where the individual finds their own identity and "life focus" and creates their story, within the narrative of history.
There is always "something special" in Calvinistic thought; the elect, salvation-history, the divine Christ, the penal substitutionary death atonement, the exclusivist claims, the Canon itself, Israel, the Church, a special call, etc. It is as if there is no real reality, if one is a person of faith. This understanding seems to me to be absolute aburdity. It is looking at everything with "spiritual eyes", as the 'natural man does not accept the things of the spirit".
I think that there are those who have an agenda for the Church to maintain its "identity with Calvin". Others are truly duped. The social organization is no less "special", if one has eyes to see and believe. The government is no less a place to be a "minister". The Church is a social organism and a social structure, which is useful for certain purposes, nothing more and nothing less.There is no separation of secular and sacred, as all of life is about giftedness and gifting.
Jesus life was mythologized by the early believers and Church. His "story" is one narrative among many narratives. Many have made use of his identity and lacked the ability to come to their own identity.
There is really no "God's salvation history". There is only ancient history and ancient texts. These are the ways of coming into mature and responsible behavior, where one does not seek another's "help" to avoid the responsibilities before them. One starts to own his own identity. He no longer identifies himself primarily as a Christian, but as a person. This is where the individual finds their own identity and "life focus" and creates their story, within the narrative of history.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Ancient Scripture's Meaning and Modern Man
Christians organize their life around different authorities and different activities. But, whenever one source becomes a pominient one, then we are headed for disaster. This is the case for the Chirstian Protestant evangleical Church, which interprets Scripture as their prime source of authority.
Christian scholars seek to understand the original meaning of the text, and in doing so they must use reason in addressing the questions of context, social history, and cultural history. I think that whenever we assume that the text is undestood in a certain traditional way (as Christian Scripture, for instance), without understanding how modern scholarship has come to understand the text(s) with their new investigative tools, then we are doomed to live within traditional frames, which limit reason's discovery for a new age.
Throughout Church history, the Church has sought to understand the Scriptures, and what Christ's life meant, this was done within the text in polemics and without the text, in apologetics. Tradition was what formulated around the text and became it's meaning. Today's apology cannot disregard scholarship, which is scientific investigation into sources, and meaningful dialogue with a diverse understanding of these issues.
Today's scholarship uses many "tools" in ascertaing what the text meant in ancient historical realms...
Ancient history is a valid area of "discovery", not just within the text alone, otherwise, we create a system of understanding that is not its original meaning nor intent, as ancient Greek values, ancient myths, etc. were incorporated into the Scripture, which was man seeking to make meaning and create value to and for his life...
Christian scholars seek to understand the original meaning of the text, and in doing so they must use reason in addressing the questions of context, social history, and cultural history. I think that whenever we assume that the text is undestood in a certain traditional way (as Christian Scripture, for instance), without understanding how modern scholarship has come to understand the text(s) with their new investigative tools, then we are doomed to live within traditional frames, which limit reason's discovery for a new age.
Throughout Church history, the Church has sought to understand the Scriptures, and what Christ's life meant, this was done within the text in polemics and without the text, in apologetics. Tradition was what formulated around the text and became it's meaning. Today's apology cannot disregard scholarship, which is scientific investigation into sources, and meaningful dialogue with a diverse understanding of these issues.
Today's scholarship uses many "tools" in ascertaing what the text meant in ancient historical realms...
Ancient history is a valid area of "discovery", not just within the text alone, otherwise, we create a system of understanding that is not its original meaning nor intent, as ancient Greek values, ancient myths, etc. were incorporated into the Scripture, which was man seeking to make meaning and create value to and for his life...
Monday, January 12, 2009
Without Faith....
Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Many evangelicals believe that faith becomes possible through the revelation of Scripture alone. But, what about other literary works? Are they significant and can they impart "revelation that is just as important? Fundamentalists would not believe so. I disagree.
Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....
Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.
What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.
There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.
While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.
Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.
The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...
I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....
Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....
Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.
What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.
There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.
While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.
Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.
The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...
I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Friends, Foes and Fables
Today's "First Things" entry was about 'God on Trial". The usual questions about suffering, innocence, and a personal Almighty God. How men can bear anything as long as they believe that there is "purpose".
This article is really written to Christians, because it assumes that the person still believes that there is 1.)original sin 2.)the Jews were God's chosen people 3.)God has a purpose in suffering...he acts in history, if not in the "now", then in the future 4.) and that God spoke in/through texts. Such assumptions do not speak to the agnostic or atheistic rationalist, because it appeals to faith.
Suffering happens as a consequence of others choices that impinge upon our life as well as, just "life" itself. There are no reasons for some things. Friends do not bring suffering into their friend's life, but seek to bless and identify with it. Scripture says that Jesus calls us "no longer servants" but friends. Friends bear with you and are there for you in suffering. Friends do not seek to "test" you, as "First Things" claimed that God does. Friends remove obstacles in your way and help lift your burdens.
Foes, on the other hand, judge you as "a Jew", or other derogatory labels. While labels serve to help us understand where an individual "commits" or how an individual "understands", it should not be used to describe individuals, themselves. Individuals may identify with a group, but are much more than the group. Prejuidice is blindness to the commonality of humanity's "needs".
Fables, or myths, help groups to define themselves, or help the group to maintain certain values that are meaningful. These myths are not true in the historical sense, necessarily, but help give vision to a people. Myths can "grow up" around a historical figure, which is what transpired around the historical Jesus, Buddha, or the Pope or any other authority .
The ideals that America stands for: equality, liberty, justice for all people, are values that include every people group. We believe in the individual and the individual's right to choose his own way of life. American values "ideally" respect all people and their "way of life". American history has not realized the "all" in its history, but has grown in its embrace of all. But, the quandary lies in "traditional cultures", where the individual is not valued, but only the 'tradition". The individual only exists as the tradition defines him/her and conformity is mandated 'under law". These cultures are oppressive regimes under tribal 'elders" that terrorize anyone challenging its views. Not only religious or traditional cultures are challenging today, but political oppression is also a challenge to America.
We Americans have challenges today with those who would undertake to undermine our values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and it is done in the name of God or in the name of the "common good". Americans are open and somewhat naive about the world and life, because of our freedom to puruse our own lives. This very "freedom" has bred ambivalence on the part of many Americans about the larger world. Even our major news networks inform us of our own "news", while for the most part, leaving us in ignorance as to the rest of the world. While these are drawbacks to our "maturity", our values have been ones that others have jealously desired by those who do not have our freedoms. Many have come to our shores to seek the freedoms, that we so often take for granted. Our immigration policy must allow those "others" the equality, liberty, and justice that we Americans enjoy all the time. While embracing others into our country, we should not negate the need to qualify citizens in regards to loyalty to our culture's values of tolerance. Tolerance cannot embrace the intolerant, whether in religious or political ideologies. If we do, we are doing so at the demise of our society at large.
This article is really written to Christians, because it assumes that the person still believes that there is 1.)original sin 2.)the Jews were God's chosen people 3.)God has a purpose in suffering...he acts in history, if not in the "now", then in the future 4.) and that God spoke in/through texts. Such assumptions do not speak to the agnostic or atheistic rationalist, because it appeals to faith.
Suffering happens as a consequence of others choices that impinge upon our life as well as, just "life" itself. There are no reasons for some things. Friends do not bring suffering into their friend's life, but seek to bless and identify with it. Scripture says that Jesus calls us "no longer servants" but friends. Friends bear with you and are there for you in suffering. Friends do not seek to "test" you, as "First Things" claimed that God does. Friends remove obstacles in your way and help lift your burdens.
Foes, on the other hand, judge you as "a Jew", or other derogatory labels. While labels serve to help us understand where an individual "commits" or how an individual "understands", it should not be used to describe individuals, themselves. Individuals may identify with a group, but are much more than the group. Prejuidice is blindness to the commonality of humanity's "needs".
Fables, or myths, help groups to define themselves, or help the group to maintain certain values that are meaningful. These myths are not true in the historical sense, necessarily, but help give vision to a people. Myths can "grow up" around a historical figure, which is what transpired around the historical Jesus, Buddha, or the Pope or any other authority .
The ideals that America stands for: equality, liberty, justice for all people, are values that include every people group. We believe in the individual and the individual's right to choose his own way of life. American values "ideally" respect all people and their "way of life". American history has not realized the "all" in its history, but has grown in its embrace of all. But, the quandary lies in "traditional cultures", where the individual is not valued, but only the 'tradition". The individual only exists as the tradition defines him/her and conformity is mandated 'under law". These cultures are oppressive regimes under tribal 'elders" that terrorize anyone challenging its views. Not only religious or traditional cultures are challenging today, but political oppression is also a challenge to America.
We Americans have challenges today with those who would undertake to undermine our values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and it is done in the name of God or in the name of the "common good". Americans are open and somewhat naive about the world and life, because of our freedom to puruse our own lives. This very "freedom" has bred ambivalence on the part of many Americans about the larger world. Even our major news networks inform us of our own "news", while for the most part, leaving us in ignorance as to the rest of the world. While these are drawbacks to our "maturity", our values have been ones that others have jealously desired by those who do not have our freedoms. Many have come to our shores to seek the freedoms, that we so often take for granted. Our immigration policy must allow those "others" the equality, liberty, and justice that we Americans enjoy all the time. While embracing others into our country, we should not negate the need to qualify citizens in regards to loyalty to our culture's values of tolerance. Tolerance cannot embrace the intolerant, whether in religious or political ideologies. If we do, we are doing so at the demise of our society at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
