Freedom and Equality

Spanish Parliament passed a law allowing gay marriage, the adoption of children and the passing on of wealth. Good for Spain. The traditionally conservative Catholic country passing a vote in this direction (a movement made for Socialist Reform more than likely) is interesting. What sort of ramifications will this decision have for Belgium or for the Netherlands is yet to be seen, though it is interesting to witness. According to supporters of gay marriage, the passing of this law was an act of freedom and of equality, the very fabric of the West. It is amazing to me that when people seek freedom and equality, that many places in the world, America for me, can be very stingy about who freedom and equality apply to. America was founded upon such a premise, though contingent upon whom it applied. To deny freedom and equality to some and grant it to others seems irresponsible, and contributes to discrimination.

In Response to a Response

If you don't believe in sin or hell, Christ does not need to save you, does he? If you don't believe in the tenets of Christianity, why call yourself a Christian? I challenge you to actually read the Bible, with an open mind to its being what is claims to be-the inspired Word of God. You are treading on dangerous ground here, in this blog.

First off, I want to thank those who are reading my blog and providing good arguments and criticism. Though, trying to analyze my person and beliefs in this blog is going to be very difficult. There are times I am playing devil's advocate, there are times when I introduce ideas given to me by others, who may or may not be of a Christian orientation. My point is that this blog is very haphazard and disorderly and has much to do with a search for identity.

In Response to the above comment:

It could be that I do believe in hell persay, but not necessarily a fire and brimstone place. It could be physical dying with no immortality of the soul, no tranformation into a heavenly body. I don't know. Nor could I experience it in this physical lifetime. Though I did have a psychology professor who had an out-of-body experience, who actually died for 20 to 30 minutes before being resusitated by the EMTs. His comments are interesting...anyway I'm bunny-trailing...

With regards to sin, I never stated that sin doesn't exist. It does. Am I perfect? Do I act on things when I know them to be wrong? Oh yes. I've done my fair share of sinning. There is no way for me to repay all of my wrong choices. Thus, by God's grace through the life, death, resurrection, and continuing Body of Christ there is a possibility of salvation for those undeserving. Whether because of 'the Fall' or from something else within human nature, all are sinful...no contestation there.

I find Scripture to be enlightening, a source of inspiration, a prophetic book for all the ages of the world, a divinely inspired text, but its message requires much discussion, debate. I must admit that I have devoted much study and exegesis to passages, some moreso than others. The text is foundational to my life as a Christian, without a doubt. Though sometimes I think that portions of its' message are misinterpreted or taken for granted by the masses. For instance, poverty. Christ, for me, came for the poor and marginalized especially, though many western Christians tend to be more concerned with abortion or gay marriage when millions or rather billions starve world-wide.

This view, despite my standpoint on it, can arguably fit within a Christian context and within the 'tenets of Christianity' or at least I can have a good go at it.

The Ten Commandments

Would you believe that the headlines on the news are revolving around a separation of church and state issue? The media is laughingly predictable. Actually, this time the issue is about the public display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, such as courthouses, etc. If the symbol is in fact promoting religion, then it does violate the separation of church and state clause, however if it is a representation of America's legal history then it is violating no such clause. Does anyone really think that it is a part of legal history? In some regards, I do, but in others, much of the foundation of this country was established by deists who believed in something, but not necessarily the ten commandments. Many were pragmatists.

I must admit, that I hold a place for the ten commandments in this country partially because they are a part of history, but partially because of my affinity for Christianity. I could not honestly say that I support the Ten Commandments in government buildings because it is a part of legal history. That would be more a way of justifying my beliefs to the general public using a loop-hole in the law to do so. Like many Americans, there is an apologetic sense for my orientation of living and as such a web of loop-holes to expose that keeps it mainstream.

Perhaps, sense America is making history, we could start putting symbols of the Buddha in public government spaces, or perhaps symbols of the Quran as well. Afterall, this is a mosaic nation where we celebrate a plurality of differences. Would having a statue of the Quran in government spaces violate the separation of Church and State seeing as how Islam does not worship in churches? Many Christian Americans would say 'yes,' 'of course.' But Islam has much to do with our natural history, and will continue to do so. And Buddhism is on the rise. Why not have statues of the ideal man in legal places? Would that bring us Christians a little too much out of our comfort zone. For Caucasian Christians, we are surely to be in the minor minority in the next fifty years, vastly outnumbered by others of a darker complexion. Does that bother Caucasion Christians? Perhaps some.

Swingers -- an ethical situation

An interesting scenario was placed before me the other day to which I instinctly responded, "That's wrong" until I got to thinkin' about it a little further. But here is the scenario:

Two married couples make their own vows at marriage but vow not to cheat or lie to each other, as would be custom for a western marriage. After marrying, the two couples get to know each other really well, and decide that they will have 'swinger parties' where each couple will switch sexual partners for the evening under the same roof. The couples are close and commit to living with and supporting each other.

What is wrong with this scenario? Is anything wrong? With a Christian lens, of course this is considered to be libertinist and wrong, but ethically, how is it wrong? The couples are not cheating on each other, they are not lying to each other, and they are in agreement as to their actions. Depending on their marriage vows, the covenant they make with their spouses (which I like to call spice [mouse = mice]) may actually accomodate the couples' actions and so in their eyes they are not actually doing anything unethical.

Utilitarians may have trouble deciding on the greatest good. What about kids, the effect on society? Do the effects on society outweight the benefits? If the couples were to conceive and orgy of kids, how would the situation look under the law? What would the psychological bills look like every month for the children trying to understand the situation? Clearly, this would be new territory. It may have more of a beneficial result on children having four loving parents instead of two. Would this upset society? Probably...because western society is culturally accustomed to monogamy, society might rouse in an uproar and protest. Thus a utilitarian might suggest that abstaining from swinger orgies is wrong. However, the act may contribute to more stability of the society and provide better care and nurture for children. Thus the utilitarian may agree with the act.

Kant might say that you couldn't will a swinger orgy to be a universal law, or he may say that you couldn't just use people as merely a means, but as an end in and of themselves. But are you using these people's as a means only, as 'merely means?' Perhaps the couples are life-long friends, a little community who shares in intimacy with each other (on each other's consent of course)...is this just treating others as means or as ends? Further, could you not will a swinger orgy to be a universal law, freely and rationally? If not, then way not? Is it because that is not the cultural paradigm you grew up in? Is there a conscious feeling that you are doing something wrong? Does that conscience only decide what is wrong within culture? Thus, is there such thing as a universal, absolute right and wrong to this scenario?

What has been enculturated into you, and what is innate? What role does experience play in a person's life versus a morality on a higher plane? What kind of rationale do you use in your decision-making? Does it derive from logic (which is ultimately limiting upon a person unless only searching for a certain kind of answer)? Does your reason derive from experience or from what you have been told by word of mouth, or in books your whole life?

Kant seems to rely too heavily on reason for his ethics. I find reasoning too limiting and a universal ethics too unrealistic. Utilitarian philosophy is philosophically dead. What about pragmatism? A good pragmatist would ultimately look at the consequences of the action. In this case, the consequences could 'swing' both ways and so pragmatists might be split on the action itself -- could be bad, could be good.

A value ethicist might notice a discrepancy between various virtues and the act. It would need to be asked, what is considered wrong in a marriage -- what is considered honest, what is considered aldutery, and rootly what is a marriage? After deciding on a definition, which may be nearly impossible depending upon how a definition is reached, then virtues and values must be used to analyze the situation. But how can a definition of marriage be reached when a conglomerate of marriages exists today in which different people take different vows of commitment? The commonality is the commitment, but the details vary depending on culture, religion, ethics, etc.

What is marriage I ask? Who has the right definition?

On the Verge of Reformation

Questions and comments:

Has the intellectual Christianity of the West broken away from the true core of biblical Christianity? What is biblical Christianity? Whose interpretation of scripture is more right than another's? Is there only one right? Is the rightness of a plurality of voices on biblical issues compatible with the one true Christianity? Why or why not? Is there an absolute right and an absolute wrong, God aside? Is there an absolute right and an absolute wrong, God included? Is a relative right and wrong incompatible with Christian beliefs? What is an absolute? Do true absolutes really exist within our experience as human beings? Are what we consider absolutes, absolutes for our individual selves and families that we use to organize our ethical lives, or for the global community. What about the human limitation of personal experience when labeling absolutes? If Christianity is an enculturated phenomenon passed on from generation to generation, then absolutes may be relative to a specific subculture within a specific paradigm. If Christianity is a linear temporal phenomenon with a supernatural God at its head, then are absolutes necessary and sufficient throughout all of history and the history yet to come for humans to live fruitful lives and achieve gracious salvation? Who defines absolutes? Is it us or God? Why can an absolute not be dynamic, plastic? God made nature as such.

In a society obssessed with postmodern thought, too anxious for something new, something different, is the arena of academia just looking beyond in hopes of something new, using the old tools of modernism to describe it? As of late, I have been careful not to use the term 'postmodernism' in a sentence and have critically questioned some professors and students who so quickly extend their faith to an unchecked idiom. To be quite honest, I think the academic world finds postmodern thinking attractive because it's new, it's not a set in stone concept or way of thinking (meaning intellectuals can intellectualize for hours without losing interest), and because it seemingly satisfies many debates.

But despite my doubt, something is brewing in the heart of men.

Western intellectual Christianity is not the dominant form of Chrisitianity and is limited to Europe and the United States especially. But Christianity is at a standstill in Western cultures. Africa, South America and Asia are continuing to grow by leaps and bounds each year, and will soon vastly outnumber Christians in the West. Christianity will look much different. Peoples in Africa have adapted a conservative, supernatural Christianity with their culture. Music is much more rhythmic, theology is much more liberative. The same is true in South America. Pentecostal and conservative supernatural Catholicism is on the rise with an emphasis on liberation and the supernatural aspect of the faith. I read an article from a Christian journal about two months ago that outlined a Christian's pilgrimmage from South Africa to the United States. He was/is a missionary sent to the United States to spread 'the Word' to, well, to put it simply, to those who have gotten it wrong: us. Pretty soon, I would wager within the next fifty years, Christianity will have a very different face altogether. A new Reformation and new Protestantism is on the move in the Third World, and America, being the rich nation that it is (with a superiority complex) doesn't even notice.

Christianity has become segmented into different denominations and sects because there are different takes on who is right and who is wrong, and because the world population is a plurality of different peoples in different places in different circumstances who have relatively different takes on theologies that all center around a catholic Christian message. (Do Christians celebrate differences among themselves or does the preoccupation with the self have more bearing, especially in the West?) ...

Christianity has a plurality of faces, taking on different attributes in different cultures. This is a fact. More than likely most would probably agree on key absolutes: There is a God and Christ is his son who graciously died for the sins of the world. Everything else is up to interpretation based upon a person's experience, research, relationships, etc... Feel free to add onto my list; these are just the Big Two. I'm not spoon-feeding you my own prolegomena -- I did that few blogs ago.

Enough rambling...back to work before I offend more people with my verbose flatulence.

Movies

As the clock ticks so too does the countdown of my life. Why waste it watching movies? What do movies contribute to life? Entertainment? Thought-provoking material? An escape from reality? I'm sure there are various reasons to watch movies, but for me, I love stories, good stories. Being a perfectionist, it is hard to find a movie that is completely satisfying. All I can think of is what I would have done differently to improve upon the movie, making it more engaging. For me, watching a movie is a search of the limits of imagination. It is not only the movies that are attractive, but books and more recently books on tape are extremely engaging.

Coming home from Nebraska just over a week ago, I listened to The Hobbit (unabridged) on the way home -- all 5 to 7 hours of it -- and arrived at another conclusion about myself. I am an auditory learner. When I read books, I read them aloud, quietly, so that I can hear the words and better understand passages. When someone explains concepts to me orally, those explanations are what I best remember. For all of the years I spent in college I spent hours reading and re-reading material because it took three times over to understand what a passage was saying -- not because the material was difficult, or badly written. In fact, for a while I thought perhaps I had Attention Deficit Disorder or something because I could not concentrate enough to make sense of passages. My attention was always elsewhere on slaying dragons, casting spells, defeating a foreign army. Perhaps I may still have ADD, but if it is a terrible happening to stray from academic thinking to imaginative adventures then I'm happy to be terrible.

Academia has its limits. After completing college and continuing my education, I realize that a person can get too wrapped up in his studies and forget to live. It is an addiction. One day I find myself telling my wife that I'll talk to her later when she comes to me on the verge of tears to talk to me about something obviously important to her. I'll talk just after I come to a stopping point in my studies. There is no stopping point. And I should have made one right there. What is important in my life? In a random order: My wife, others, my beliefs, being knowledgable. When a person is married he commits to and cuts a covenant with his wife. That should never be taken for granted, ever. Luckily, I have been forgiven countless times for the same mistakes. You'd think I'd learn by now. I have a thick head apparently -- takes a while for info to breach it.

Back to movies...

I finally saw the movie most people are raving about, Napolean Dynamite at my family's house. The movie was very creative, very funny, and very thought-provoking. It just goes to show that a person doesn't need to spend millions of dollars on CGI to make a movie that millions will enjoy.

The Passion of the Christ, which I have only seen (regretfully) once, was a great success for Mel Gibson. His combinination of the three gospels with a Pre-Vatican II twist, for me, was not so much a success of putting on screen the last days of Christ, but was a success apparent in the title. The 'passion' was ever so attractive to the masses. In a time when intellectual Christianity dominates the western world (predominantly the U.S.) passion is that holisitic aspect that Christians lack. Christians are tired of their religion always being at an apologetic stance, ready to defend against or explain away anything science has to introduce. Where has all the passion gone? It is what Christians are hungry for -- a passionate zeal for Christ first experienced as young men and women. When my wife and I waited in line for the movie theater to empty from the showing of the Passion right before our own we witnessed the entire audience exit in a cathartic detail. (We made the mistake of actually buying popcorn.)

Mr. and Mrs. Smith was very enjoyable to see. The script was well-written, funny, and left much room for the actors to impersonate who they thought the characters should be like. There was some truth about the actor and actress playing Mr. and Mrs. Smith that I couldn't quite put my finger on. It seemed satirical, portaying the extreme of marital difficulties and the violent solution presented over time, but then the extreme of marital commitment and its (also violent) conclusion. The couple was not perfect, but still kept the relationship intact by beginning again, this time honestly talking with each other. Couldn't we all learn something from this?

Indomite Man

Why do human beings need purpose, need a structure to their lives, need beliefs and hope that the cycle of life is not all that there is? Generally, human beings like to believe that there is an immortality awaiting them after death, or if not immortality a cycle in which someone is reincarnated into various things. The point is that a person never really dies in the grand scheme of things. Even further, why do we mourn the dead when death is a natural occurence that inevitably happens to all. Should we not celebrate life at a funeral, thus better preparing the living for the inevitable. Tribal peoples seem to understand this concept. In Tibet there is a tribe that conjugates and drags huge stones weighing tons to the river -- a mile away -- in rememberance of a loved one and his contribution to the community. What a way to celebrate life, of doing something honorable for a part of the community. In Africa, there is another tribe who has intricate ceremonies for a person after they die which makes the people of the tribe confront death (by use of costumes and other personification) and thus confront their fear of it. When one of these tribesman dies he is well prepared for it and well respected (and remembered) by the entire tribal community. The life cycle is understood. Americans fear death because we are never really prepared for it. Becoming old is something undesirable in our culture because physical beauty fades, mental capacity fades, hair grows more in the nose than on the head. Although go-tees compensate for the loss of hair on the head, I suppose. But the point is that younger generations do not think about getting old or retiring until they are thirty or so because they distance themselves from even the thought of it. Granted, dwelling on the thought of death and a limited life can distract a person from truly living, but accepting that a person has only one rather short life can greatly encourage that person to do something benevolent with it, something worthwhile.

Will I be remembered? By anyone? For how long until the memory of me is forgotten? How will I be remembered? Does it matter? Why do I care? I'm hoping death is becoming wrapped up in Love or becoming a part of it.

Clarification

In my last blog I discussed evolution as a whole but did not specify the differences between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution, I accept fully. But macro evolution, the jump from species to species, I have questions on. Granted, life is full of spontaneity, but the theory of a jump from species to species has yet to convince me. Though I will not deny its possibility just as I will not deny the possibility that God exists. Is this fair?

Cosmology and other stuff

Just this morning a friend of mine from work was talking about creationism and discussing its illegal place within schools (since 1987). What are the arguments and are they sound?

First, there is the claim that creationism has more to do with religion than it does with science, with objectivity and so there is no place for evangelism within an objective education. However, Darwinism is just as much a religion as a Christianity, so is achieving objectivity in schools a realistic endeavor? The theory of evolution is not Darwinism however, it is not the scientism expressed by Darwin in The Origin of Species. Micro-evolution is an observed phenomenon noting the changes in species over short periods of time, while no sure evidence exists for macro-evolution. This is not a 'ha-ha' moment for creationists however, because evolution is more than just a scientific theory. It marks the start of a new paradigm that becomes more and more likely each day, with no sign of replacement according to Stephen J. Gould.

Creationism should not be taught in science classes, because the theory is based upon a particular religion's beliefs and as such is an imposition of that religion on others. If schools were to offer religion classes, philosophy classes, ethics classes, or cosmology classes then perhaps various religious beliefs can be properly expressed in a country where the make-up is a plurality of religions, peoples and cultures.

On the other hand, as a holist, science and religion should always be in dialogue because both have an impact on the other at times. The realm of facts and the realm of values cannot be categorized completely into two separate categories. Christian fundamentalism and the stress on creationism rose with the introduction of Darwin's Origin, as a response to the supposed attack on human dignity and humanity's status as specialized creatures. Scipture cannot be interpreted literally and imposed on the scientific community because situations such as that with Galileo are sure to repeat. Christians are so pre-occupied with interpreting scripture a certain way that they fail to realize its dynamic orientation as a living book. Thus our understanding of 'how' the universe was created is lessened, our knowledge concerning how God creates, is lessened. Scripture is very helpful when seeking answers (or rather further questions in my experience) to the 'why' questions of the world. But the 'how' and the 'why' should not be incompatible with each other as is argued by those who support a conflict model posing science and religion against each other. It makes no logical sense. Nor are the two completely separate from each other.

Further, what about the Big Bang theory? Is it so unbelievable? The rate of the expansion of the universe can give a person a ball-park figure on how long ago a Big Bang would have happened. But what happened in the first 10 seconds or perhaps the first split second that caused energy and mass contained in a space smaller than that of one atom to 'bang?' Is this so incompatible with Christian belief? 'God created the heavens and the earth...' why not this way?

Before I forget there is another item I wanted to write about that I heard discussed in a sermon. What is doubt and does it have a positive or negative connotation within Christianity? Can I 'will myself not to doubt?' According to some pastors I can. But in my opinion, doubting is essential to growth and to exploration. A Christian minister, in his learning, should doubt his faith more than anyone else. Doubting does not lead to an abandonment of faith. Doubt is not the 'Devil's instrument' to get Christians off track. Christians are to freely love God and love others. To doubt is to be an autonomous human being. Because my doubts are many has nothing to do with my commitment to serve a God I cannot directly experience using my physical senses. I must always concede that I could be wrong and that my beliefs may be in vain. Thus, for me, doubt is essential in my epistemology -- it is a sign of becoming knowledgable and a reassurance of my ability as a human being to freely make choices. Why would God create us if we had no choice of truly loving him?

I'll stop rambling

Political ramble

George W. a leader? Of course. A good leader? Debatable. Leader of the military? Traditionally. Leader of the nation? Traditionally. But George W. is an elected leader rather than a leader who's following deems him as such. The law gives him the authority to lead rather than his actions.

Parties disrupt the election process and is a cop-out to actually voting for the best candidate. Republicans vote Republican and Democrats vote Democrats (usually) because a competition exists between the two. Perhaps historically, the competitive impulse is not only for an orientation of action within government, but more a spin-off from the manhood puzzle -- the competitive nature shared by men of all cultures. People are voting to outdo the other, despite the candidate. More and more voters are less informed of candidates (including me). All the garbage on the media focuses on many of the issues I am not concerned with. For once, if a campaign would do more than talk about gay marriage, cloning, stem cell research and focus more on how the candidates will ultimately help people around the globe and relate to them.

George W. aligns himself with Christianity but backs a war to spread democracy and end terror. Ending terror, like ending poverty is a great ideal, but communism never worked. And when did democracy become equated with Christianity? Personally, I cringe every time I see an American flag in a sanctuary because it feels to be an icon, or mistakingly an idol. America was not founded under Christian principles and even if it was, it would not be worth worshipping as the supreme city on a hill. We have as much wrong if not more than other countries around the world. Our faith in our technocentric society is misplaced. Is technology more powerful than the human being? It's not an easy question.

My 'Profession'

The term professor has become more or less another term for a teacher or lecturer and has lost its original denotation as someone who professes. Though I am not a college professor, professing is a good way to understand the prolegomena of a person and why they orient their lives the way they do. And so I profess. I have blogged for a while and have indirectly professed what I believe and how I choose to orient my life, and why. But I have not set forth a prolegomenon that may shed some light on the content of my blog. The explanation is not simple, but a life-time in the making. And the exciting part is that who I am and what I believe is plastic. There are core values that I hold to be truth, all of which derive from a valuation of people. Thus ethically, I tend to orient my thinking with the idea of the freedom of the will iterated by Kant, with a little less emphasis on reason, but depart by placing more emphasis on relationships, an idea derived from Joseph Butler's view of the conscience and a point of view held by a professor friend of mine and my wife.

Growing up in a Christian family that always attended church on a Sunday morning, my original orientation of living was a derivation of my belief that incorporated the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church (USA). God was always forefront and sovereign. Towards the end of high school the Christian-orientation did not fit with my studies and was not convincing enough for me to have faith in something I never really understood from day 1. I went through the motions, worshipped, prayed, attended functions, volunteered, and God was always the explanation for the loving community, always the explanation for fellowship, and always the excuse to withdraw from culture.

But why was God the reason for such things when I had never seen or experienced Him to my knowledge; plenty of other peace organizations and humanitarians experience the same sensation of community that I experienced at church, so what made church so different? And why was my church so obsessed with 'saving' people who did not want to be saved? It felt like I was a door-to-door salesman trying to clandestinely and underhandedly steal the souls from neighbors for a God who could have been evil for all I knew at the time, who apparently were going to hell? Why was the supernatural element to miracles always emphasized when common-day miracles (within nature) happened all the time? Church was never a reality for me growing up.

Needless to say, questions kept spawning from questions and my faith in God diminished. However, my interest remained. So what did I do? I studied Religions, learning about Buddhism, Islam, Hindu sects, Christianity, Taoism, the Ba'hai, Scientism, Capitalism, and many other -isms. Religions are characteristic of humanity and it is too bad that critics only focus on the few that make the papers. Aren't malls a contemporary place of worship for consumers?

All religions offer something valuable, a part of a universal truth, I realize. Each seeks truth but touches upon different aspects of it. Thus the plurality of the world seeks truth from certain points of view (not to be too confused as a relativistic view of life).

Conversion experiences, talking in tongues, meditating, shamanistic passages, rituals, et al are not only anthropological observations of culture, but are examples of a human striving for passion. In an intellectual age where objectivity rules the day, people find themselves longing to feel. In fact I read an article just the other day in a magazine that articulated the rising rate of teenagers especially who cut themselves to feel or to lower stress. Thus, objectivity may be an effective research method for causality (not to be confused with determinism), but it does not define human nature.

Religion tends to represent a creative and artistic humanity in search of truth and the answer to the world's 'why' questions. The artists, for me, are those that realize and experience truth and thus, for me, all of art is religious art and reveals much more about human nature than does objective studies.

Human nature is not inherently evil or corrupted as I had grown up being taught. My conscience and my free will remind me that I have a choice and the ability to decipher right from wrong (using my conscience), which does not appear to me to be something completely corrupted or 'fallen' as most Christians say. The 'fall' was not complete.

Secondly, I believe in a God so powerful that he limits himself by not directly interfering with human activity. Think about it. Without choice, then none of us really has the ability to truly love, nor the ability to make decisions on our own. But we do. But this lends another question: Does God create morality or is morality something that transcends God, or rather something in nature? I do not dare presume to underestimate the power of a deity too much because of His notably cosmic qualities and so cannot use the famous C.S. Lewis analogy that God cannot make a circle-square, because both a circle and a square are categorizations that human beings have attached to the shapes. Would this not be putting God to the test (using biblical terms)?

Thus it follows that I have adapted a view of process philosophy and theology that expresses the idea of the dynamic and changing world. God did not create once, he still creates in and through nature and still exists in nature. He does not directly interfere with actions but is a whisper in nature that sustains life and influences decisions (perhaps by means of his gift of the conscience).

But why believe in a God at all? or why orient myself as a Christian? To these questions, I will never have a sure answer in this life-time. But at present God is a reality because love is a reality, life is a reality, my experience is a reality. None of these I can truly explain and so neither is less true than another. It makes no sense that life accidently spawned from conditions so perfect that it was able to come into existence. But despite this, why does nature, does life adapt and evolve? Why is change and process so characteristic of nature? Why is life constantly trying to evolve into something more able to survive? Survival of the fittest mentality does not fly with me and nor does 'because God made it that way.' And so the idea of a creator is just as possible as a deterministic reason set forth by natural evolutionists or objective cosmologists rather.

Christianity is attractive because of my study and because of my experience. The bible is invaluable as a metaphorical and hyperbolic book that expresses so much truth. It was a book compiled by a community in process of becoming during different paradigms in history. It is a work of art, it is myth. Though the passages, when referring to 'God's right hand,' are obviously metaphorical as God, the Father is not human and so does not have a right hand. But this leads to more inquiries of other passages which may or may not be metaphorical or hyperbolic or expressive of a certain idea. To literally read scripture is dangerous especially when numbers are involved because many of the numbers represent perfect numbers within a particular culture or within the Christianity or Judaism of the time. For instance, did God create the world in a literal 6 days resting on the 7th? No. What is a day? And does it matter how long it took, whether millions of years or a few thousand? Not really. It changes nothing for me. In fact a million years is much more interesting.

Christianity is attractive because of its intellectual challenge as well as its life challenge. Many Christians are willing to dialogue about issues in community and wrestle with challenges of biblical interpretation or experience. The willingness to accept all and the forefront priortiy to help those on the margins satisfies my valuation of people. But Buddhism is attractive as well, and in fact I have adopted much meditation technique into my prayer and contemplative prayer life (which is essential to knowing the self as well as communicating with something greater than the self).

I do not believe in Hell or the Devil/Satan/The Evil One (because I find it more a metaphor for an embodiment of evil). Evil comes from wrong choices (whether ignorant or deliberate). The Devil versus God just adds to the dualism that permeates modernity.

I haven't talked about Christ yet. Christ is hard to talk about because I oftentimes find it hard to have faith in Christ, while not as much having faith in God. But I can relate to Christ and I admire his orientation of living. Each gospel portrays a different picture of Christ placing more emphasis on various characteristics. But which characteristics are accurate? Perhaps it does not really matter. It did not matter for the people who wrote the gospels or other letters and books uncanonized. Relaying a message to a specific audience is what really mattered so that the message would talk to and reveal something to that community. Whether Cosmic Christ, the historical Jesus, his identity as a Jewish rabbi, his actions in life made the difference. His words are important and they ring true, but his actions in correspondence with his words (his holistic orientation) are significant. To live is to act, not just to think. Christ actively taught, preached, and died, when understood in light of the cross, reveals much about not only his cosmic identity, but in his humanity, much about human nature. The Christ 'myth,' I use this lightly and probably ill-placed, has had some impact on humanity which still professes the faith two centuries later. There is a power in paradox, which I am still wrestling to understand and will continue to do so.

This is just a start...to be continued

Utilitarian note and Historical note

The end or the result is not what a person should consider when living. The process and the orientation of living in the now is important. For a time I may have expected someone else, not me, to bring about change that would ultimately benefit the world. But it is not just anyone else that I should wait for. I have a mind, a body, a heart. I am capable of being human and being human I am capable of maintaining my own personal values and virtues for the betterment of others and for the betterment of a personal self-interest. Though both benevolence and prudence do not necessarily contradict. In acting out of self-interest I may in turn act also out of benevolence, and vice versa. The line between the two is hard to draw. Though my conscience relays to me in the form of guilt-after-the-fact if in fact my action was an action done out of self-interest. Regulating my actions, my conscience -- something good within human nature -- makes me responsible for each and every decision that I make.

Depending upon which decision it is that I make in any given situation, the outcome is not always the same. What then is history (a topic I've struggled to interpret)? Is it a paradox that westerners celebrate peaceful historical events that lead to violence as a friend of mine suggests? Like living, history is indeed a paradox, as is its relative interpretation and categorization. The pinnacle events that we celebrate in America have much to do with American history recorded within the borders of the United States because patriotic brain-washing is needed for democratic control and support of the people. Personally, I have read much of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's works and greatly admire his rhetoric and prose -- simple, yet deeply intellectual. His words mean much for the black community definately, but much more for all of humanity. The value of persons that he emphasized and his realization that only one race exists on earth (not including the other species in the animal kingdom) -- the human race -- was too true for his time. Truth hurts. It's amazing that human beings strive for it, yet settle for some falsity when the search becomes dangerous or threatening to security. History is not a search for truth then. It is an interpretation of past events that contains fragments of truth -- What did people care for? What was their reaction to circumstances...
To speak of history in terms of the world as static and the self as dynamic, is to withdraw from reality and maintain ignorant to the happenings of the natural world.

Rock-bottom

It's amazing how money affects the way we think, act, and feel. We are capable of receiving convenience -- stuff and services so that we are no longer self-reliant or capable of surviving without it because we are not taught how. If the world economy, however unlikely, were to crash, the Third World would become the super-powers of the world, while westerners struggle for survival -- so much education, intellectualization, convenience, but no survival skills.

I can scarce remember writing my school papers by hand or on the old electric typewriter my parents owned. What would this age do without their handy computers or their XBoxes or their Playstation 2s or their cell phones? What would I do without these things? Personally, the thought is foreign to me, which strikes a tune of fear, while the adaptable aspect of my personality ponders the challenge. Perhaps if I were involved in the Boyscouts of America...

Looking for a job: Looking and not finding is obviously frustrating, but getting caught in a web of debt due to credit cards and unforeseen circumstances exponentially amplifies the stress. The America economic motto should read: "spend money, whether or not it is yours, until you owe a debt that can never be paid off in your life time." But not to worry. When a person dies much of his school debt is waived. Thank goodness. It's nice to know that when I die I won't have to make post mortem payments. So take that school loans. If I threaten suicide perhaps they'll give me a life-long extension...

Just threaten not to spend money and watch the concern and horror of the market.

Can we go one day without spending a dime? Not really. Electricity is running, gas is being used, TV is being watched, the list goes on.

If I were to make a petition of people that wouldn't spend money for one day and received a million signatures, the economic result would probably be catastrophic -- people losing jobs, more pushy sales people, mini stock market hiccup. Just one day of not spending money would completely offset our economy which would probably take a decade or so to mend. In fact, it would probably offset the economy even worse than 9/11. What an idea. It's no wonder everyone likes spending money and buying things -- the culture gears us to enjoy it by creating all sorts of crap we really don't need, but they convince us that we need it. Who's the sucker now? Suckered in by the economic deep play that is convenience and materialism.

Disbelief versus Belief: a natural dualism?

My high school calculus teacher relied heavily on the scientific method and oriented his life as an atheist. He was one of the most moral people I have ever met even among those who orient themselves to a specific religion that preach high moral standards. As a matter of fact, in my personal experience, libertinism is much more common among people who orient their lives around a religion probably due to the belief in another life to follow the physical one...

Historically the trends of atheism or the claim of 'unbelief' (which is absurd since every person believes in something, whether that belief is not to believe in anything) generally rise and fall with the internal problems that arise in believing communities. The French Revolution is a good example. So is unbelief then a response to internal problems or a natural inclination to dualism or perhaps because of recent study a response that represents rebellion, which is solely determined by a gene?...

Individually we want to be different in the West, we need to be different to get the attention we need and have needed since our breast-feeding days. Atheists who speak of progress in America, based upon its growth of technological sophistication perhaps do not believe in a noumenal deity, but they do believe in a survival of the fittest mentality and that the West is actually progressing. Do they not think of the sacrifice of people around the globe for our technological way of living? While millions of people are dying each day from starvation, we view our country and culture as progress -- but shouldn't progress involve the value of people?

I once knew a computer programmer who held this view of technological progress. He didn't stop to think that his faith in technology and Western progress was as strong as a Christian's faith in God...

Human beings are not naturally dualistic. Good/Evil, God/Satan, Dos/Don'ts, Us/The Other are absurd because they fit the schema of western culture and make great stories to tell. For Christians -- the Devil, the evil one, Satan -- all of these represent the embodiment of evil or that which is contrary to the good. The names do not necessarily refer to a personified entity that is pure evil. And I am sure that someone will argue with me, that Satan is an entity and then cite scriptural examples that state such claims. But holding on to an interpretation of a living book that is metaphorical and hyperbolic in nature is dangerous...

Traditionally, tribal cultures are much more holistic in orientation. My question concerning epistemology in this case, is whether or not learning about categories and the content within as expressed in Western culture is a true method of learning at all, or whether it contributes to dualistic thinking rather than holistic thinking...

Returning to atheism for a moment, the atheist can reflect much about a culture and its religion in the way he lives his life. My calculus teacher did not like the dualism that culture and modern Christendom adapted, nor the libertinist tendency among religions believing in an afterlife. He revealed to me that living in this life ethically, morally, and for people as if this was the only life is as important if not more so than faith in a specific religion. Though I take his faith to be misplaced in the scientific method and in technological progress, I value his stance in valuing people. Though logically, because the scientific method seeks to objectify everything, I find his strong morality to be in contradiction to his faith.

Liberal arts graduates

According to MSN news this morning, those students studying in a quantitative field of math or science will most likely find it easier in landing that first job that pays more than $45,000 per year. Is this really a surprise? Most students who graduate do graduate with a liberal arts degree not related to math or science and so the number of, shall I call them, quantitative students find it much easier landing a job in a country who relies heavily on the scientific method and supply and demand.

Though just this Saturday while lusting over pianos in one of Saint Louis' only and finest Roland digital piano dealer, one of the sales people approached my wife and I nicely chattering on about how she recognized us from college (though we had never seen her before). It was not long before she started chattering on about statistics and then when couldn't answer our questions, she fetched yet another sales person who started spouting poetic falsities that made my wife and I flinch when we knew well the products. The one interesting aspect of the conversation between us and the sales woman was that she was a biochemist who worked in laboratories for years testing samples and earning over $50,000 per year. But she could not handle the monotany of the job, the loneliness of it without people to interact with. She felt the objectivity and unfeeling of science. I'm sure she took a dramatic pay cut to sell pianos and digital pianos, but the job was a good fit for her -- positive attitude, talkative, good communicator, knowledgable.

Perhaps much of the reason for the failure of liberal arts colleges and universities lies in their curriculum. With the diminishing realm of the arts and the requirement of math and science becoming more and more emphasized, objective, methodical thinking replaces genuine creativity. The liberal arts are turning into a general education college where a student skims the surface of many different subjects. Capstone courses, or courses that integrate life and learning, specialized field with general knowledge of other fields, interaction with people from different disciplines touch upon a concept that may better prepare students for the job market, but do not change the fact that math and science fields are in more demand.

What then is the true artist, writer, photographer to do in a world quantified and controlled by the American government? When creativity is limited by the way in which students are taught beginning in preschool what then is it to live? Creativity does exist in the quantitative fields, but only because of the few eccentric who still cling onto childhood curiosity and who question the methodical systems of the culture. Those who blindly accept a system worship an idol.

My liberal arts education was not achieved so that I might get a high paying job, but so that I could avoid the lust over wealth that cripples the world. Those of you who want money, you can have it. It doesn't make life easier...it gives you more responsibility...and if you don't think so, you're ignorant, cold, and barely human (just my opinion). Don't forget to live because you're too obsessed with striking it rich. To the artist who wants his art to succeed monetarily -- your self orientation of artist is misplaced. True art and money do not necessarily correlate.

Science does it again

Did you know that rebellion is something that resides in your genes? Richard Dawkins' reductionistic thinking and his selfish gene strikes again. The West yet again has its answer, right, and it's about time. Science has an excuse to take over the world now and become the only way to answer a question...right? Forgive me if my faith in the method does not seem up to par with the 'age of progress.'

The self

Most of my blogging has held an emphasis on the importance and significance of community without an explanation of the individual and his or her identity. My wife has especially taught me the significance of the journey for a personal identity within the context of the whole world, cultures and subcultures. Who am I? I am a caucasian male, almost 23 years of age; I grew up attending magnet schools emersed in poorer urban environments where I was in the minority of the population, present in the midst of different subcultures. From sixth to eighth grade the predominant culture in school was a Mexican hispanic culture, where most students were bilingual, poorer, with less motivation to do well in school. Similarly, my high school experience was much the same but I was emersed in an environment that was predominantly black. The students were poorer and were not given encouragement to do well in school by family and friends and peers. Fitting within the subculture was what was crucial for survival among my friends and so school appeared to be a 'white' thing and an intrusion on their identity as black Americans who experienced and probably still experience the segregation and discrimination of white America.

Racism exists; segregation exists; and discrimination exists.

Discrimination based on the color of the skin is, I feel, still my responsibility despite the fact that it was my great, great grandparents that were the discriminating ones. Healing hundreds of years of discrimination does not just end in a few decades with the passage of laws prohibiting segregation. Not to pass the buck, I am discriminating against others -- perhaps outwardly I do not show it, but inwardly I am uncomfortable around those that are different, even if that difference is because of an accent, skin color, or some other feature characteristic of a particular subculture. But I purposefully expose and immerse myself into environments that are multi-cultural, that are different, not because I enjoy awkwardness, but because I strive to be understanding of others, to escape my enculturated fear of difference.

Many of my friends are different -- they are black and hispanic, poor and rich, Jewish and Buddhist. We have great times and much fun watching football, playing games, going to the movies -- but the plague of awkwardness from difference lingered at all times. When tensions were high, we occassionally exploited our difference to justify our actions.

I called my friend a nigger.

His reaction was heart-breaking and I could not repair the damage I had done -- I had recalled half a century of slavery and discrimination for him. To this day, I regret my words whole-heartedly because he was and is one of my best friends, though I have lost contact with him. Last summer, on a Sunday afternoon my parents and I were leaving from a steakhouse after an interesting meal and my friend spotted us from his car, turned around, parked, got out, and gave my family and I each huge hugs. He was a lot taller than I remembered (and bulkier). To be forgiven for something in which I did not deserve forgiveness and to be loved despite my faults was very humbling for me. He had forgiven me and still considered me a good person and a good friend. Could I do the same if in his situation?

So, who am I?

What do you think?

My identity is not always just my perception of self, but it is a conglomerate of other people's perceptions about me and my reaction to their perceptions of my actions. My actions reflect my inner self or at least they should. If I do not act in accordance with my values then, adopting the notion of Thomas Aquinas, I am committing an evil.

Living in community and in the midst of others is crucial to live, otherwise living is something else entirely. When I make a decision, when I reason things out, I am never doing it alone. My experiences and my relationships and all of what I am (values, virtues, etc) goes into the reasoning process and reaches conclusions based upon these things. Art then is not a one-person activity, but a communal effort. Writing a dissertation or a thesis is a communal activity. Individuality resides in the different experiences of individuals at the root of which is the notion of free will. Though free will is debated, the assumption of the freedom of the will is widely accepted and so here do I make an assumption. Paradoxically, we are individuals and parts of a community living out a linear narrative.

Living life the artists' way

What is an artist? This question has always been on the forefront of my thoughts as many passerbys make the claim. An artist, historically, has never always had a specified role as artist until the West, in its categorization process, specified the title. Art always accompanied other aspects of life in tribal societies. Shamans expressed art in their journey to the spirit realm; ritual dances and rights of passage were always accompanied by culture, artistic expressions; and music served a purpose and contained a deeper meaning in tune with nature. Where has this holistic view of art gone and has its replacement, namely the title of 'artist,' really exhibited true art? Art was not a rebellion originally, but an expression of culture, a part of the culture.

Though art has become just 'for me.' Its relative meaning lends a universality characteristic of the mosaic model of a heterogenous culture -- the celebration of differences -- rather than an outdated melting pot model. Many artists contend that their art is either 1) an expression of the self, 2) an expression of something greater than the self, or 3) a profession. The first of these three delineates a view that is often accompanied by those who consider their art something that they have personally done, not for others or for a purpose, but for themselves (perhaps these are the rebellious artists). The second view (2) is best illustrated by Madeleine L'Engle in her book Walking on Water. She gives a definition of art in light of her faith in the Christian deity. She 'dies' to her art; her art does not come from her, but is a gift; art is a expression of core values; it is sacrificial, cathartic, universal, (seemingly) atemporal, an act of love, salvific, holistic, prophetic, a communal construct, and active; it is not a means to an end, but is an end in and of itself. The third view is very much in tune with the capitalistic socio-economic climate of the West and is most likely a means to a monetary end or perhaps to a position of prestige.

If art does not ring true in light of my values or experience within the confines of my culture, then it is hard for me to find it an aesthetic activity. Can I relate to what I am seeing, hearing, touching, etc? What does the piece say to me, to the world? What is its universal character? Art is definately not something analyzable in the world of facts, and so cannot be objectified, but its power cannot be ignored.

Symbols, icons are foundations for American patriotism, representing an ideal that most Americans agree to be worthy of their effort and support. Can art be a method of political control? Of course. Commercial art in our culture has proven that as advertising and marketing have realized the natural human capacity and longing for artistic expression, it has exploited this to sell products and promote materialism and individualism any way possible, which has crippled the idea of individual virtue. Materialism and individualism are not in and of themselves evil, but without a responsible knowledge of the culture and artistic expression, they can be misunderstood and misused.

What then is true art? Or more generally, what is truth as expressed through art? Does all art contain a unifying universal characteristic shared by and distinctive of humanity? The only conclusion I can arrive at is that art is meant to be experienced by more than one person, more than the one through which it comes into existence. The bond between artist and art, art and the individual, art and the community, the artist and the community, and the community to itself is defined in the creative, living relationship they have with each other. Human beings need meaning and purpose, to what end and why is up for grabs.

What then is the role of the artist in contemporary society? Is he a rebel, someone different? The artist is a prophet speaking a universal message to all because he has the vision of the age to see culture as it is. Her epistemology is in tune with something greater than her self and her reality is her relationship to humanity. Speaking words of truth so that others can hear and understand is salvation. In essence, the true artist is a modern-day miracle -- not a superstitious, unnatural happening, but a miracle in nature nonetheless. Because the artist's 'vision' is different, his journey is difficult, full of hardship and distress, full of denial and loneliness. Such are the effects of presenting truth to people that value security and feel a sense of superiority. Further, in a induction-oriented society the artist is constantly hurt by those seeking to devalue art into something as a means to an end, and by the emphasis to objectify everything by means of the scientific method. The artist knows that there is more to life than 'scientific progress,' that is unmistakingly powerful, but mistakingly limited in its scope and its unfinished definition of what is real.

Response to doing History and studying Law

History entails an interpretation of action representing an orientation of thinking at a given time. It is not an objective observation of past events, but rather a reconstruction of past events that aligns with a persons interpretation of those events. This is definately an incomplete characterisation of history, though it illustrates an important aspect of it for me -- action + abstraction shapes history, but does not present truth.

Similarly, studing law can be misconstrued as studying, working to be a truth seeker. But practicing law is just that -- seeking truth only within the confines of the law. Morality is not an issue for a lawyer who is appointed or charged with the best possible defense for a client as possible whether or not that person is innocent, guilty, or legally insane. The law is real as a lawyer and it is the idiom the rules the day. Objectivity of law breaks down because of a peer jury or perhaps because of the judge who decides the verdict. Appealing to values held dear can sway people in different directions. And because the scientific method, or rather induction is so popular, experiments shape thinking. To practice law is to understand a jury, a judge, a client, and the law to win a case. Exploiting values is a means to an end. It's amazing our justice system survives sometimes when winning a case many times comes at the expense of many others. For someone who values people, it's hard for me to understand. But...it is a much-needed job. Anyone interested?

Thoughts

Visiting my wife's family this past weekend yielded the much-needed relaxation I have been longing for for quite a while. Time slows down when cars are not whizzing by your window with exotic mufflers that vibrate your core. Instead of chattering people, trains announcing their arrival, and duties waking me up early in the morning, I found outward peace and in so doing an inward peace as well. The hospitality of my new family and friends resonates true and warming. Perhaps we do not agree on how we orient our lives or what we doctrinally believe, but we share a mutual respect, not to mention a mutual link (my wife). Holistically, the fervor is refreshing. To escape, or rather to re-establish a self identity is illuminating and refreshing with no clear words to express the sensation. I feel energized to action, more secure in my decisions and interestingly enough, more confident. It was too bad that I was not able to witness transplanting watermelons due to rain, but I did re-realize one thing: waiting/patience is a virtue and essential to living. In the city, I'd forgotten that.

I give much thanks and offer much prayer to my wife's family for their love, support, friendship and prayers...and for the inclusivity. Thanks. On a personal note, being a part of a loving community, for me, is to really live, is my foundation for metaphysics.

Erratic Response to Acquired Info

Why is it that people insist on being different and separate themselves from others to define themselves individually? Quite honestly, this kind of self-interest seems selfish and self-absorbed, an attempt to justify a life alone in a world of cruelty, unfairness, yada-yada.

New conveniences define our life because we are just too lazy to get up off our butts to do things. Those in the agricultural community still understand the virtue of patience, though for us city-folk, we want things now and not later. And when we don't get things our way we sue or whine or pray. What a waste of time to do so out of selfishness and our want for things.

Paradoxically, everyone is an individual and a part of a community. I know I am repeating myself, but relationships are the only way we can give ourselves meaning and purpose. Everyone maintains their own core values, which adapt and change with experience throughout life. Though our western scientific-oriented society attempts to achieve true objectivity, when objectivity is never a reality in a world of subjective human beings with relative ethics. As evidenced with Galileo, Darwin, Newton, the power of science does affect the realm of values. Fundamentalist Christianity is the living proof. But can science really answer all of humanity's questions?

Further, as a 'whiner,' (a person who does not propose solutions, but likes to complain) usually there is no argument for change/action, just complaint -- something characteristic of our culture, which inadvertently conforms to culture rather than departs from it. So what is whining about? We as human beings are culture makers to orient our living and give our lives meaning. Rebellion is conformity to a certain community.

Perhaps a look into anthropology with first understanding the self and its biases might shed more light onto cultural norms and patterns. Existentially, the self is where a person can start to understand. For instance, John knows that he is a homosexual, child-loving, fundamentally religious, with core values that permeate all of his thinking. After obtaining this knowledge of self he can identify his bias and present a more objective approach to a study. But nothing is entirely objective.

Looking inward does not always help others or identify cultural or political problems. Active, rather than passive, relationships among people and one's experience reveal problems in a political or socioeconomic system. The Hebrews called those with "eyes" the prophets. But then that was only with the spirit of God present. How should we explain prophecy in the West where science seeks to rule, to conform, to objectify reality, everything?

Personally, and with some bias, reductionism does not sit well with me, because it does not effectively answer questions in the realm of values. Thus physics and biology are limited by the very method they use for truth. Anthropology and sociology both seek to answer questions concerning people, their cultures, their socioeconomic systems, their values, how they give themselves meaning, but cannot answer why people need meaning or purpose without some interpretive freedom. [These social sciences cannot be predictive tools because of the adaptation and plasticity of culture, and cannot foresee drastic pardigm shifts.]

Reflecting on different epistemologies, no matter how convincing or unconvincing shapes the way I think. When I read someone's theory I ponder it within the realm of my experience, my values and my facts and reformulate ideas based upon my experience that I believe to be factually more consistent than others in light of my values.

To focus inwardly without being informed is ludicrous. Further, to look inwardly being misinformed or without understanding personal bias is ludicrous and leads to the whining conformity of our culture. But even further, looking inwardly without regard for others is even more ludicrous.