Security

I've had a bit of a paradigm shift... or at least had that "kick you in the head" experience realizing a new perspective that I was very naive about.

It is the issue of security. In the past, I've always been real frustrated whenever you here a politician talking about security, because yeah, its important, but historically it has been used as justification to do something that probably ought not be done, (or at least in its manner).

One big example of this is the present conflict between security on one side, and jsutice on the other. Usually those in category #1 are willing to set aside some morality, and some justice, for the sake of their security. Those in #2 cry out at the injustice they have suffered, but often a few from #2 are willing to inflict evil on #1 for retribution. In the past, I have had such a hard time understanding how #1 could opperate without realizing how great a cost they pay for their goal!

Anyway, so recently a friend of mine at my apartment complex was robbed, and for the few weeks after that I had a bit of loss of a sense of security. I feared for myself, but even more for my wife. I didn't freak out, but was nevertheless uneasy.

It hit me that what I expereinced was so minor compared to the fear many people have to live in day by day. Of course that kind of fear and provoke a person to do thigns he wouldn't normally do! And its a very deep fear... the fear of not being in control, the fear of benig at the mercy of somebody with il intentions, and the fear of simply being violated.

9/11 didn't spark this fear in me, probably because I am livinvg in the exact opposite corner of the country from NY. Probably because our culture is so desensitized to evil in the world, but I rarely get disturbed by all the evil that is happening in our world, pooring through the TV every night.

So I have had a change of thinking in several ways:

1) The need for security is real, it may provoke one to hasty and bad decisions, but it is a powerful motivational force.

2) Security is something all people feel is a need. We need to have a "safe place"

3) The sense of security is ultimately an illusion (viz. 9/11)

4) When you have a conflict between one side needing security and the other side needing justice, neither side is "the good guys" or right. At least in my limited knowledge, it seems both ideologies are willing to sacrifice what is right to achieve what they want.

so these still remain:

1) The world is full of evil people wanting to do evil deeds to otehrs

2) Our only real security is being in the will of Christ. Only here can we find peace and true safety. Of course followers of Christ experience evil, but there is a biblical sense of peace of mind, knowing that it will happen, but that ultimately whatever happens your on God's side.

Read more...

More Absolutist Garbage

I really don't have much to say... just was reading in some forums about some folks reactions to Serenity, and some discussion on religion specifically Book, and his approach to religion .

As always, somebody has to drop the all to common line "there are multiple interpretations of scripture", and "you don't have the only true interpretation", in other words -- religion changes over time. These are fighting words to most Christians... and yet they seem to be such a common, cliche, statement for our culture to make, usually about religion, specifically, Christianity.

I have three observations to make.

First, Every time somebody says something like this, its easy to assume that this is relitivistic crap, religious pluralism. I'm beginning to think that really, this is not necessarily the case. This can simply mean, it is important to recognize that other people approach this differently, and we need to interact with these different views. I think a few use this language in this sense, and it is very easy to assume they mean the next meaning: that all of those interpretations should not only be treated equally, but that they are equal (i.e. all are fair representatives of truth).

I think it is important to always make sure to actually listen to what somebody is saying, something I know I so often struggle with. Just because what they say sounds like it disagrees, greater humility is needed to make sure "what it sounds like" is what they really mean. While I believe communication happens in a reliable way, there still is the 10% or more that breaks down due to our human inperfections, and often limited viewpoints.

Second, what is interesting is that, I fear this latter of the 2 meanings is a bit deceptive. While for the consistent post-modernist this is an epistemological claim that extends beyond religion, I think for most people that spout this what they really mean is that, the supernatural isn't true in the sense that it represents reality. Instead, it is a meaning for finding significance, explaining the unexplainable, enlightenment, etc. In this sense, any "interpretation" of course is valid -- its not representing something about reality, but something "spiritual" (i.e., abstract, philosophical, mental, emotional).

Why? Because honestly "all interpreations are equally true" never works, and even those who argue it, naturally, are arguing that that proposition is always true. Of course this all depends on what "true" means, but really, I think that everybody /for the most part/ opperates with "true" meaning that which corresponds to reality, i.e. Objectively true. To argue anything else would be a contradiction. "True for me" = I think this is truth.

Finally, what I'm getting at is I have been trying to reconcile why so much of our media is so thoroughly anti-supernatural still (i.e. naturalistic), yet it seems our post-modern culture is very open to religion / spirituality. This seems so contrary, the media is always spouting how God can't exist (viz. Katrina, and the "recent blow to Intelligent design by the ruling of a Judge).. and I am just wondering that, either these two are in opposition, or maybe our culture isn't as open to God, so much as open to "spirituality", whatever that means.

Read more...