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.

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...