On our anniversary, my husband and I decided to go to the movies to watch the new Meryl Streep movie, "Hope Springs". We think Meryl Streep is a great actress, and thought this would be a good choice for entertainment. But, instead of entertainment, I found myself wondering what meaning I could find in the movie.
The movie is about a couple who had "lost touch" with each other, as they had been married for 31 years. Their basic problem, it seemed, was their lack of communication or intimacy. Intimacy was much more than the physical act of sex, or the legal aspect of marriage. Intimacy was the communication style of the couple, which had broken down.
They sought a marriage counselor only after much "dispute" and it seemed that the marriage counselor's advice brought up many 'conflicts' within the relationship, which needed to be resolved before the marriage could "go on".
The counselor sought to bring to the forefront the question about their basic attraction to one another, what their fantasies were and encouraging the couple to compromise and cooperate with each other in meeting those desires.
All of the counselors advice made me think of "sex" within the broader context of our society, in general. America has had her conflict over what will define marriage, but is marriage a traditional/religious value, or a social construct that benefits the parties involved?
How can human relationships and natural human desires exist within a healthy context that maintains "order", while not denying the natural needs and desires of the humans involved? Does shame enter into the questions that this movie brought to the forefront? Marital difficulties, separation and divorce, masturbation, oral sex, human desire and natural needs in the context of religious framing when social structures and society itself has changed in light of "scripture and tradition"?
Humans get married at later ages than in "biblical times", leaving the question of natural human desires on the physical and emotional/social planes. Students need to finish college or find what they want to do with their lives before taking on responsiblities of a spouse and family... Are natural human desires to be accomadated by marrying earlier, self determination (however conscience allows), and is it a "shame" to allow for same sex unions? What is the best for society and human flourishing? Does tradition enlighten, or inhibit? When is inhibition and enlightenment considered a good thing? Does society exists for the individual or does the individual exists for society? That question has been a quandary....
"Hope Springs" made me think of our society and what makes for a good marriage, and and a good society. It cannot be less than mutually satisfying relationship, if marriage is to have a real meaning and impact. And both the husband and wife in "Hope Springs" illustrated what that meant for them individually. The wife had come to the "end of the highway", because she found herself more lonely married than she would be unmarried. The husband had abandoned his wife many years prior, yet would not admit it to himself for his own reasons. Marriage is about companionship, as much as sex, or a legal contract. And it makes for "stranger bedfellows" if marriage is about anything less.....
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Monday, May 16, 2011
Supenaturalism and Religion
I had a discussion with a friend on Facebook about her faith. She believes that her faith is not religion, but a real experience of the transcendent. These experiences are supernatural, by all accounts to religionists, as they see the world and explain it in terms of religious ideology, or "God". Why would I not think that there interpretation is the best?
First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered.. This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.
The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.
This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.
I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.
So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want an authoritarian whether an individual or group of people, to come into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered.. This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.
The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.
This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.
I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.
So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want an authoritarian whether an individual or group of people, to come into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Richard Feynman's Genius!
Last night I had the priviledge of attending a talk by Lawrence Krauss on Richard Feynman! I was impressed with Richard Feynman's personality and his curiosity! He was a true genius and a scientist at heart! Some of these quotes give a glimpse into a mind that was "open" and curious, not set and determined !!! He was "all over the place" in his lectures and his thinking, unlike other methodical scientists that lecture from a beginning and come to a conclusive end!
Here are some of his quotes!
"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."
— Richard P. Feynman
"Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."
— Richard P. Feynman
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."
— Richard P. Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
I wonder how many people really think like this? I think it is refreshing! It is certainly engaging. And wouldn't one feel that one could "be" in that kind of "Presence"? YES!
Here are some of his quotes!
"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."
— Richard P. Feynman
"Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."
— Richard P. Feynman
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."
— Richard P. Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
I wonder how many people really think like this? I think it is refreshing! It is certainly engaging. And wouldn't one feel that one could "be" in that kind of "Presence"? YES!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Choice, Responsibility, and Negotiation
Choice is an ultimate value for any human, as choice values differences as to value and interests. Responsibility is about owning the consequences for one's choices and negotiating with others about differences of value or commitments. All of society's relationships should be based upon the individual right of choice.
Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".
The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.
Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.
Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!
Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".
The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.
Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.
Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Difference Between the Philosophical and the Religious?
I read an interesting analysis in a comment to Ayn Rand's point of view on her web-stie, that got me thinking. Martin Buber said that religion is an I-Thou relationship, while philosophy is an I-It relationship! I still pondering this, but my first thoughts are......
Religion is not idea oriented? No, this is what theology is, philosophy "annointed" by and in the institituion of the Church. It is for the purposes of the Church.
Philosophy proper is an I-It relationship, meaning that the idea/subject itself is of interest and value, not the institution of the Church, necessarily. Philosophy serves the interests of society and individuals and is understood within certain disciplines of interests.
Therefore, philosophy is of wider and broader value to society, if one values reason. But, religion is of value and interest if one values tradition/text. Human experience is much broader than text or tradition, this is why I would commit to philosophy above religion.
Religion is not idea oriented? No, this is what theology is, philosophy "annointed" by and in the institituion of the Church. It is for the purposes of the Church.
Philosophy proper is an I-It relationship, meaning that the idea/subject itself is of interest and value, not the institution of the Church, necessarily. Philosophy serves the interests of society and individuals and is understood within certain disciplines of interests.
Therefore, philosophy is of wider and broader value to society, if one values reason. But, religion is of value and interest if one values tradition/text. Human experience is much broader than text or tradition, this is why I would commit to philosophy above religion.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Does the Nation State Have Rights?
Much has been written about "colonialism',"empire", imperialism, Statism, and the nation-state's status in general. Most of these labels have a certain view of universiality about "humanity" and rights. But, what is good about the nation-state?
The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.
Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.
Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.
These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!
The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.
I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.
Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.
A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?
The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.
Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.
Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.
These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!
The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.
I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.
Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.
A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Faith and The Quadralateral
As I have been thinking along the lines of what values are most important to individuals, on what basis do individuals maintain or uphold their values? This "foundation" or "beginning" is what gives definition to values.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.
Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?
Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.
Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.
Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.
The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?
The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Is a Particular Language Universal?
Structuralists believe that language holds the structures of society together. These believe that the rules of grammer determine the meaning. But, others do not believe this to be so.
In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?
This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.
Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.
The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.
The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?
I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.
In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?
This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.
Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.
The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.
The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?
I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
What is Wrong with Providence?
Providence has been understood to be "God's rule" or "over-ruling" of life in all its aspects. But, what is wrong with this view and providence?
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Rights and Relationship
This morning while talking with a friend, I realized that if we base our nation's values on individual rights, then the homosexual has the right to a civil marriage. Some find that this does not dissolve the issue between the Church's "place" in society, but still allows the homosexual person to have "citizen" rights. This view defines a separation between Church and State in a definate way.
Others believe that allowing homosexual marriage, will affect our society in such a way that it will "conform society" , which is the Church's job. I wonder which is of most importance; separation of Church and State and individual rights, or a re-definition to our understanding of the Church's place in society, in regards to "forming society's" future.
On the other hand, if we don't base our nation's values on individual freedom, then where does that leave the young Muslim girl? Does this young girl have a right to develop differently than her parent's religious tradition? Is tradition important in the development of children? in society? And what of a young adult's maturation? Don't humans develop apart from the definitions of cultural standards? This is an important part of growing to maturity, in evaluation of one's ultimate values and convictions.
So, will individual rights have to be defined more specifically than is granted in our Constitution? These issues have always confounded lawyers, professors, philosophers....So, I am not about to "solve' the problem :)! But, it is of uptmost importance.
But, these issues define our society. And whenever the laws define our society differently than what we have been used to, we have to change. This happened during the civil rights movement. I wonder how the definitions will affect our future?
Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses.
Should States have a right to define these issues, themselves? If so, how will that aleviate people from "doing what they want" and going across State lines? Should the decision be decided as a nation? So, that we can enforce these issues under the "rule of law", irregardless of State? Then where do cultural differences lie?
Whatever the Supreme Courts decision will be, we, the people, will have to abide by it. And that will ultimately be played out in our courts, in various cases.
Others believe that allowing homosexual marriage, will affect our society in such a way that it will "conform society" , which is the Church's job. I wonder which is of most importance; separation of Church and State and individual rights, or a re-definition to our understanding of the Church's place in society, in regards to "forming society's" future.
On the other hand, if we don't base our nation's values on individual freedom, then where does that leave the young Muslim girl? Does this young girl have a right to develop differently than her parent's religious tradition? Is tradition important in the development of children? in society? And what of a young adult's maturation? Don't humans develop apart from the definitions of cultural standards? This is an important part of growing to maturity, in evaluation of one's ultimate values and convictions.
So, will individual rights have to be defined more specifically than is granted in our Constitution? These issues have always confounded lawyers, professors, philosophers....So, I am not about to "solve' the problem :)! But, it is of uptmost importance.
But, these issues define our society. And whenever the laws define our society differently than what we have been used to, we have to change. This happened during the civil rights movement. I wonder how the definitions will affect our future?
Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses.
Should States have a right to define these issues, themselves? If so, how will that aleviate people from "doing what they want" and going across State lines? Should the decision be decided as a nation? So, that we can enforce these issues under the "rule of law", irregardless of State? Then where do cultural differences lie?
Whatever the Supreme Courts decision will be, we, the people, will have to abide by it. And that will ultimately be played out in our courts, in various cases.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Frames, Forms and "Formation"
This morning's message was on 'unity" and how important unity was/is. The commendation to corforming one's opinion to the tradition of the text of scripture and the 'form of Christ", was a unified way of understanding, which is based on "tradition", instead of "agreeing to disagree" (reason). Christ and who he has been undestood to be as the Chruch (tradition) has interpreted his life (doctrine) is to be the "form". But, is this necessarily true?
The "pastor" suggested a "faith," that was mindless and not based on reason. Reason subverts faith, in this scenario, because "ideas" were viewed as "endless speculation" and "not after Christ" (text). I disagree. Will the pastor "tolerate" (live in unity) with my disagreement? Or do I have to conform to this pastor's understanding because she is after all the "leader"? I think not.
I find that unity is not about beliefs (text and tradition), as beliefs will always be formulated differently, depending on one's frames and the forms, which represent the highest value of a certain individual. Even in using "Jesus, as the Christ" as the "form" universally, is invalidated, because there are so many ways that his life has been understood. So, unity cannot be in beliefs, because otherwise, we would have to agree about things that it is impossible to agree about. We have different ways of understanding, formulating and thinking about "reality". These ways of understanding are not absolute, as they represent certain contexts of personal, and cultural "conviction".
So, what is unity about? Unity is about attitude toward another's right to exist. The other has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prejuidice is a pre-judging according to some "group" standardization and understanding. There is nothing wrong, in fact, it is informative in some settings to understand another groups "convictions", ideas, and opinions, as this helps the sociologist, and anthropoligist to "diagnose" how a certain culture "functions".
Functioning cultures are those that are based on an "ordered government". The differences of government depend on the ideas that "form" that government. Government is about equality and law. Therefore, government should be a way to protect individual rights under law. Other forms of government are based on absolute power, domination, and even anarchy.
Therefore, unity has to allow diversity, otherwise, unity commends conformity, which is domination of another's view and how they have come to understand and formulate their reality. And domination is not "good government'.
The "pastor" suggested a "faith," that was mindless and not based on reason. Reason subverts faith, in this scenario, because "ideas" were viewed as "endless speculation" and "not after Christ" (text). I disagree. Will the pastor "tolerate" (live in unity) with my disagreement? Or do I have to conform to this pastor's understanding because she is after all the "leader"? I think not.
I find that unity is not about beliefs (text and tradition), as beliefs will always be formulated differently, depending on one's frames and the forms, which represent the highest value of a certain individual. Even in using "Jesus, as the Christ" as the "form" universally, is invalidated, because there are so many ways that his life has been understood. So, unity cannot be in beliefs, because otherwise, we would have to agree about things that it is impossible to agree about. We have different ways of understanding, formulating and thinking about "reality". These ways of understanding are not absolute, as they represent certain contexts of personal, and cultural "conviction".
So, what is unity about? Unity is about attitude toward another's right to exist. The other has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prejuidice is a pre-judging according to some "group" standardization and understanding. There is nothing wrong, in fact, it is informative in some settings to understand another groups "convictions", ideas, and opinions, as this helps the sociologist, and anthropoligist to "diagnose" how a certain culture "functions".
Functioning cultures are those that are based on an "ordered government". The differences of government depend on the ideas that "form" that government. Government is about equality and law. Therefore, government should be a way to protect individual rights under law. Other forms of government are based on absolute power, domination, and even anarchy.
Therefore, unity has to allow diversity, otherwise, unity commends conformity, which is domination of another's view and how they have come to understand and formulate their reality. And domination is not "good government'.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Individualism and Collectivism
Tomorrow I get to lead a discussion after viewing a video on DNA, personhood, and human nature. In thinking and preparing for it, I began thinking about DNA sequencing.
The video features, Watson, who was one of the scientists that discovered DNA. He suggests that the decisions that we make about DNA should ultimately be of value to society.
While initially, I wasn't thinking about the "theories" of collectivism and individualism as being related to his ultimate goal; I find that they are profoundly related. He didn't dismiss any type of human configuring or manipulation of DNA, IF it was good for society. But, how does he determine what is good for society, except what the individual can add to society? The individual is not valued in his "economy", as is the case with any collectivist.
The video features, Watson, who was one of the scientists that discovered DNA. He suggests that the decisions that we make about DNA should ultimately be of value to society.
While initially, I wasn't thinking about the "theories" of collectivism and individualism as being related to his ultimate goal; I find that they are profoundly related. He didn't dismiss any type of human configuring or manipulation of DNA, IF it was good for society. But, how does he determine what is good for society, except what the individual can add to society? The individual is not valued in his "economy", as is the case with any collectivist.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Justice Is Not Just Social
Justice is defined by our courts as adhering to lawful standards of behavior. Justice is blind because justice is not partial. The law doesn't care about the specific details, it only defines boundaries and borders around the individual's property or person. It is only when the social has respected the individual boundaries that the social is of any moral or ethical value. Otherwise, it is an unjust community, organization or nation.
Justice is to be sought by all of us, as it limits evil, and protects society from further abuses of power. Individuals have to hold the social to account, and these are the ones who bring about social change.
Wouldn't it be the height of hyposcrisy and arrogance, if one teaches and believes in social justice and, yet, perverts justice by scapegoating an individual? This is why the evangelical message has no meaning, insofar as real justice. Real justice is about the individual and human rights, and good government, and lawful behavior.
Social conformity should only be done if there is an adherence to honesty, and integrity, and lawful behavior, which is demonstrated by a commitment to the value and worth of the individual. We must seek justice, especially in the face of evil.
Justice is to be sought by all of us, as it limits evil, and protects society from further abuses of power. Individuals have to hold the social to account, and these are the ones who bring about social change.
Wouldn't it be the height of hyposcrisy and arrogance, if one teaches and believes in social justice and, yet, perverts justice by scapegoating an individual? This is why the evangelical message has no meaning, insofar as real justice. Real justice is about the individual and human rights, and good government, and lawful behavior.
Social conformity should only be done if there is an adherence to honesty, and integrity, and lawful behavior, which is demonstrated by a commitment to the value and worth of the individual. We must seek justice, especially in the face of evil.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The State as a Means and an Ultimate Value
The State in free societies is to protect individuals, and groups from undue intrusion into private spheres. Some do not believe that separation of powers between State and religion is a good thing. I disagree.
Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between behavior, which should be ruled by law, and belief, which is not. Behavior impacts another's life, while belief is a personal matter. Some in our country would argue that one's beliefs cannot be fully held without legislating these beliefs, because they underwrite what defines morality. While this is true of some beliefs, even these convictions must be open to discussion, where the "free market" determines what transpires "under law". This is a just society that takes into account all members convictions, tries them in the public square, and votes on them in free elections. The result are our represetatives, who legislate our laws, but must be collegial to other opinions. It is what civil discourse is all about. There should be no personal attacks.
Some in the past, such as the Puritans of old, believed that theirs was a "commonwealth" under God, as revealed in Scripture. While this view had some virtues, it also held many vices. Their understanding of revelation was within a text, which is a human construct. It was the Church who decided what was to be contained in the canon. The Puritans, though, understood the text and Church in purely spiritual terms. It was a supernaturalism that called for an absolute obedience to the "rules" constructed by the Church or in the text. Theirs was not a free society of conscience, but one of enforcement of "law and order". While there is value to "law and order", there was much done in the name of "law and order" that subverted God's natural design in humankind. Dogma became the "law of the land", where Puritans held trials convicting those who did not adhere to their understanding or interpretaion of revelation (god). The same happens in Islamic countries under Shairia law. This is not justice.
Because humans are social animals and desire to belong to some group for identification, social collegiality, etc., I believe many people "conformed" to the "tradition" of Puritanism, and some even psychologically responded to "revivalistic sermons" to their felt need. Many others have suffered under the repression and oppression of such types of communities. Their understanding was a group identification that held many duties over their congregants. I find this disturbing.
While humans are social animals, there is something unhealthy about adult super dependence on others for identity. There are some cultures that thrive on group identification, but not so, in America. While there is a need for the child and young person to develop within social contexts and adults continue to change in their roles and understanding of themselves, individuation is necessary for one's personal "fulfillment" or maturity. This is not valued in some societies. While America's freedoms have allowed the fullness of individuation, it has also hindered our values of communal fellowship. This is because our way of life is so stressed and structured around work. Job opportunities call for moving across the country and a dissolution of family responsibilities.
The modern State, as we find it, still upholds the values of the individual conscience, while maintaining "law and order" so that individuals can live their lives in relative peace. Our Founding Fathers understood natural rights, as a creation order and structuring, where man would flourish most effieciently. The freedom to "be" and "become" are the values that America values and should be one of our ultimate value for it breeds a repsect for others in their individuation. And respect is about justice and value of another's life.
Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between behavior, which should be ruled by law, and belief, which is not. Behavior impacts another's life, while belief is a personal matter. Some in our country would argue that one's beliefs cannot be fully held without legislating these beliefs, because they underwrite what defines morality. While this is true of some beliefs, even these convictions must be open to discussion, where the "free market" determines what transpires "under law". This is a just society that takes into account all members convictions, tries them in the public square, and votes on them in free elections. The result are our represetatives, who legislate our laws, but must be collegial to other opinions. It is what civil discourse is all about. There should be no personal attacks.
Some in the past, such as the Puritans of old, believed that theirs was a "commonwealth" under God, as revealed in Scripture. While this view had some virtues, it also held many vices. Their understanding of revelation was within a text, which is a human construct. It was the Church who decided what was to be contained in the canon. The Puritans, though, understood the text and Church in purely spiritual terms. It was a supernaturalism that called for an absolute obedience to the "rules" constructed by the Church or in the text. Theirs was not a free society of conscience, but one of enforcement of "law and order". While there is value to "law and order", there was much done in the name of "law and order" that subverted God's natural design in humankind. Dogma became the "law of the land", where Puritans held trials convicting those who did not adhere to their understanding or interpretaion of revelation (god). The same happens in Islamic countries under Shairia law. This is not justice.
Because humans are social animals and desire to belong to some group for identification, social collegiality, etc., I believe many people "conformed" to the "tradition" of Puritanism, and some even psychologically responded to "revivalistic sermons" to their felt need. Many others have suffered under the repression and oppression of such types of communities. Their understanding was a group identification that held many duties over their congregants. I find this disturbing.
While humans are social animals, there is something unhealthy about adult super dependence on others for identity. There are some cultures that thrive on group identification, but not so, in America. While there is a need for the child and young person to develop within social contexts and adults continue to change in their roles and understanding of themselves, individuation is necessary for one's personal "fulfillment" or maturity. This is not valued in some societies. While America's freedoms have allowed the fullness of individuation, it has also hindered our values of communal fellowship. This is because our way of life is so stressed and structured around work. Job opportunities call for moving across the country and a dissolution of family responsibilities.
The modern State, as we find it, still upholds the values of the individual conscience, while maintaining "law and order" so that individuals can live their lives in relative peace. Our Founding Fathers understood natural rights, as a creation order and structuring, where man would flourish most effieciently. The freedom to "be" and "become" are the values that America values and should be one of our ultimate value for it breeds a repsect for others in their individuation. And respect is about justice and value of another's life.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Development of the Individual Within Society
When I used to believe that evangelical inductive study was "truth", I understood that "context was king". Context meant what the text meant within the culture, and language of the given frame of "orginal meaning". Of course the context was understood with different textual "helps". I understood that there was diversity within the Church and understood many of the arguments which brought about separation or understandings of difference.
But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.
Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".
Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.
Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.
This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).
Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.
But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.
Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".
Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.
Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.
This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).
Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Suicide, the Market, the Eigth Commandment, and Human Value
While waitng for my husband to come our from his office this morning, I heard on the news that a woman had attempted to take her life. The reason was blamed on the market. Anaylsis was given that the woman "had other problems" besides her mortgage.
Just this morning I couldn't sleep, so I decided to get up and write on my blog. The subject was on suicide and human value. In that entry I argued that life's meaning was given within the context of community and when the social structures do not affirm the life, there can be the response of suicide. Suicide is not done within an isolated context, but an incident that illustrates what has happened over a lifetime. It's "speech/act" is of a de-valued life.
This morning"s sermon was on the Eigth Commandment, "thou shalt not steal". In the sermon, my pastor argued that the OT's boundaries were different from the NT's. The Old Testament regards the boundaries of self and other. He argued that the Sermon on the Mount asked us to "give all" without any regard for "self" in how, or what was required. In fact, if we do not give, we are stealing, in effect, for all things belong to God. While I agree with this in premise, I wondered to myself, and this was before hearing of this woman's suicide, how in disregarding another's improper behavior toward you would enlarge the "greater good"? Wouldn't it only empower evil? and make a statement to the guilty that there needs to be no guilt? My pastor went on to make an illustration of a burglary he had experienced, where this young man broke into his house on four occassions. Wouldn't it be appropriate to get him help? And wouldn't part of the help be reabilitation for his behavior?
Nations certainly don't maintain the NT's standard of "turning the other cheek", unless one adheres to pacifism. I find that the "ideal" of the Sermon on the Mount is just that "ideal" in an imperfect world. Idealism is impractical. What I really think my pastor meant and what I believe the Sermon on the Mount means is that possessions should not "own us". That means we are not making decisions based solel y on the market. But, that does not mean that we do not consider the market, otherwise there is no justice in our form of government. Justice is not what the Sermon on the Mount is about, but mercy. And certainly, my pastor was not asking us to disregard justice.
What does my blog's early morning entry, the woman's suicide, and my pastor's sermon have in common? A person's value....A person's value is worth more than the money he makes or has, and yet, if the community, state, nation, condones market values on life, then my pastor's sermon becomes an absurdity to the individual whose life has been weighed and measured by those standards and not loved and embraced as an individual.
I wonder if the woman who attempted to take her life, was only acting out what society's message to her was in the first place?
Just this morning I couldn't sleep, so I decided to get up and write on my blog. The subject was on suicide and human value. In that entry I argued that life's meaning was given within the context of community and when the social structures do not affirm the life, there can be the response of suicide. Suicide is not done within an isolated context, but an incident that illustrates what has happened over a lifetime. It's "speech/act" is of a de-valued life.
This morning"s sermon was on the Eigth Commandment, "thou shalt not steal". In the sermon, my pastor argued that the OT's boundaries were different from the NT's. The Old Testament regards the boundaries of self and other. He argued that the Sermon on the Mount asked us to "give all" without any regard for "self" in how, or what was required. In fact, if we do not give, we are stealing, in effect, for all things belong to God. While I agree with this in premise, I wondered to myself, and this was before hearing of this woman's suicide, how in disregarding another's improper behavior toward you would enlarge the "greater good"? Wouldn't it only empower evil? and make a statement to the guilty that there needs to be no guilt? My pastor went on to make an illustration of a burglary he had experienced, where this young man broke into his house on four occassions. Wouldn't it be appropriate to get him help? And wouldn't part of the help be reabilitation for his behavior?
Nations certainly don't maintain the NT's standard of "turning the other cheek", unless one adheres to pacifism. I find that the "ideal" of the Sermon on the Mount is just that "ideal" in an imperfect world. Idealism is impractical. What I really think my pastor meant and what I believe the Sermon on the Mount means is that possessions should not "own us". That means we are not making decisions based solel y on the market. But, that does not mean that we do not consider the market, otherwise there is no justice in our form of government. Justice is not what the Sermon on the Mount is about, but mercy. And certainly, my pastor was not asking us to disregard justice.
What does my blog's early morning entry, the woman's suicide, and my pastor's sermon have in common? A person's value....A person's value is worth more than the money he makes or has, and yet, if the community, state, nation, condones market values on life, then my pastor's sermon becomes an absurdity to the individual whose life has been weighed and measured by those standards and not loved and embraced as an individual.
I wonder if the woman who attempted to take her life, was only acting out what society's message to her was in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
