[December 1999 journal entry]
Note: 30,000+ died recently in Venezuela due to torrential rains and subsequent mudslides.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Fragment -- #115
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Fragment -- #114
[December 1999 journal entry]
Proposition: I must either adopt poverty as a way of life or advocate/push for the socio-economic interests of the impoverished as I would for myself (or for my children). Since the former is, as a choice, inherently affluent in that I would choose such (illustrating that the traits of affluence cannot be completely shed), I have chosen to pursue a thoughtful/sacrificial effort toward the latter option.
Proposition: I must either adopt poverty as a way of life or advocate/push for the socio-economic interests of the impoverished as I would for myself (or for my children). Since the former is, as a choice, inherently affluent in that I would choose such (illustrating that the traits of affluence cannot be completely shed), I have chosen to pursue a thoughtful/sacrificial effort toward the latter option.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Fragment -- #113
[December 1999 journal entry]
Interpretations of life experiences are conditional/relative
- in that all interpretations embody an individual’s perspective on a subject,
- in that relevant resources are not completely mastered,
- in that new resources are being perpetually discovered/generated.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Fragment -- #112
[December 1999 journal entry]
As long as one remains loyal to a particular paradigm, the tendency is
- to ‘cut the paradigm slack’ re questions that threaten the paradigm’s credibility,
- to accept minimal data and argument for taking pressure off the paradigm,
- to devalue thoroughly critical data/argument.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #32
[January 2000 journal entry]
The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering builds off of the credibility/integrity of the life of ‘Jesus’ in relation to ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims. I acknowledge but do not follow his participation in the pre-modern/pre-scientific thought world of his time/setting. Perhaps a kernel/husk analogy helps clarify this differentiation.
The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering builds off of the credibility/integrity of the life of ‘Jesus’ in relation to ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims. I acknowledge but do not follow his participation in the pre-modern/pre-scientific thought world of his time/setting. Perhaps a kernel/husk analogy helps clarify this differentiation.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #31
[January 2000 journal entry]
A ‘religious’ perspective today reconstructs the life of ‘Jesus’ within and consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective. The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering focuses on the life of ‘Jesus’ without appeal or reference to a ‘from above’ paradigm and without being built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective.
A ‘religious’ perspective today reconstructs the life of ‘Jesus’ within and consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective. The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering focuses on the life of ‘Jesus’ without appeal or reference to a ‘from above’ paradigm and without being built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #30
[January 2000 journal entry]
A core question for me is how to view/interpret ‘Jesus’ in relation to the Ecclesiastes essay and in relation to the story/play Job (specifically whether ‘Jesus’ could be written into the story as the missing character – i.e., a character who can be truly/unconditionally present with and not harm further or disrespect the ‘scrapheap’ Job). Should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm (perhaps as a prophet) of his time? Or should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm of his time (implying that the writers of the four Gospels superimposed their variations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm on ‘Jesus’)?
A core question for me is how to view/interpret ‘Jesus’ in relation to the Ecclesiastes essay and in relation to the story/play Job (specifically whether ‘Jesus’ could be written into the story as the missing character – i.e., a character who can be truly/unconditionally present with and not harm further or disrespect the ‘scrapheap’ Job). Should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm (perhaps as a prophet) of his time? Or should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm of his time (implying that the writers of the four Gospels superimposed their variations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm on ‘Jesus’)?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #29
[December 1999 journal entry]
I am convinced that the most effective way to see ‘Jesus’ comes from a Jewish vantage point rather than from a Christian ‘religious’ vantage point. One distinction of the ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering is this search for a view of ‘Jesus’ from an ancient, liberal, prophetic Jewish perspective.
I am convinced that the most effective way to see ‘Jesus’ comes from a Jewish vantage point rather than from a Christian ‘religious’ vantage point. One distinction of the ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering is this search for a view of ‘Jesus’ from an ancient, liberal, prophetic Jewish perspective.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #101
[January 2000 journal entry]
In pressing the ‘Santa Claus’ analogy re the nature/essence of ‘God’ language – note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm assumes there must be a ‘God’ language analogous to ‘Santa Claus’ language in order to incorporate children. Therefore, ‘the game’. A ‘non-religious’ approach focuses instead on character formation and spiritual inquiry, with patience and examples for children as they mature. With this approach, adults do not use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do anticipate that children will come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’. With the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm approach, adults do use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do not anticipate that children will eventually come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’.
In pressing the ‘Santa Claus’ analogy re the nature/essence of ‘God’ language – note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm assumes there must be a ‘God’ language analogous to ‘Santa Claus’ language in order to incorporate children. Therefore, ‘the game’. A ‘non-religious’ approach focuses instead on character formation and spiritual inquiry, with patience and examples for children as they mature. With this approach, adults do not use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do anticipate that children will come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’. With the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm approach, adults do use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do not anticipate that children will eventually come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #100
[January 2000 journal entry]
A ‘religious’ approach to spirituality/ethics begins and is anchored in/by the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm from which values and ethical obligations are deduced. A ‘non-religious’ approach begins with and is anchored in/by the concrete/immediate realities of human experience, centers on value-based life decisions, and reflects on spirituality in light of such decisions/experiences.
A ‘religious’ approach to spirituality/ethics begins and is anchored in/by the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm from which values and ethical obligations are deduced. A ‘non-religious’ approach begins with and is anchored in/by the concrete/immediate realities of human experience, centers on value-based life decisions, and reflects on spirituality in light of such decisions/experiences.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #99
[January 2000 journal entry]
I see a spectrum for distinguishing being ‘non-religious’ from being ‘religious’ that moves from a ‘from above’ methodology across to a ‘from below’ methodology. (1) A ‘religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from above’ end of the spectrum. Most variations toward this end of the spectrum do not seek/embrace ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions. Some variations on the ‘religious’ side of the spectrum’s threshold permit guarded/selective accommodation of ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions up to but not beyond the point that retention of a place within the ‘religious’ sphere is threatened and/or to the point that the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm is discredited. (2) A ‘non-religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from below’ end of the spectrum (i.e., for me, both intellectually and existentially ‘from below’) and, therefore, toward seeking/embracing ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions, with a willingness to retain/reinterpret as much as remains open to consideration from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm short of rejecting the ‘from below’ methodology.
I see a spectrum for distinguishing being ‘non-religious’ from being ‘religious’ that moves from a ‘from above’ methodology across to a ‘from below’ methodology. (1) A ‘religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from above’ end of the spectrum. Most variations toward this end of the spectrum do not seek/embrace ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions. Some variations on the ‘religious’ side of the spectrum’s threshold permit guarded/selective accommodation of ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions up to but not beyond the point that retention of a place within the ‘religious’ sphere is threatened and/or to the point that the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm is discredited. (2) A ‘non-religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from below’ end of the spectrum (i.e., for me, both intellectually and existentially ‘from below’) and, therefore, toward seeking/embracing ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions, with a willingness to retain/reinterpret as much as remains open to consideration from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm short of rejecting the ‘from below’ methodology.
Monday, March 9, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #98
[December 1999 journal entry]
The ‘religion’ from which I have removed myself is essentially a business (e.g., the professional career ladder for clergy, the investments, the real estate, the overhead, the marketing, the dependence on customer satisfaction, . . .).
The ‘religion’ from which I have removed myself is essentially a business (e.g., the professional career ladder for clergy, the investments, the real estate, the overhead, the marketing, the dependence on customer satisfaction, . . .).
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #97
[December 1999 journal entry]
A ‘religious’ methodology attempts to look at ‘the world’ through the perspective and theological norms of the ‘religious’ sphere. A ‘non-religious’ methodology begins on the ‘outside’ of the ‘religious’ sphere and looks conditionally/cautiously into the ‘religious’ sphere (for me, in light of the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay).
A ‘religious’ methodology attempts to look at ‘the world’ through the perspective and theological norms of the ‘religious’ sphere. A ‘non-religious’ methodology begins on the ‘outside’ of the ‘religious’ sphere and looks conditionally/cautiously into the ‘religious’ sphere (for me, in light of the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay).
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #96
[December 1999 journal entry]
Preachers, pastors, and professional theologians are surrounded by and most accountable to their ‘religious’ congregations/constituencies. Being so surrounded, they cannot speak directly or authentically to any ‘non-religious’ person/s present.
Friday, March 6, 2009
A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #95
[December 1999 journal entry]
Proposition: The ‘God’ language I find to be most credible is found when discussing/considering the human geist (German for ‘spirit’, ‘self’, ‘mind’). The point is not that the human geist is equivalent to ‘God’, but that language about the human geist is as near as I come to ‘God’ language that does not veer off into anthropo-, socio-, and/or cosmomorphic language that falls short of ‘God’ and that easily/frequently becomes idolatrous. Is this a way to understand Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence reference to ‘unconscious Christianity’? Can any language about ‘God’ avoid an idolatrous reduction of the word ‘God’?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #70
[January 2000 journal entry]
For me, the consequences of focusing radically on the breadth/depth of human suffering ‘from below’ became foundational for a radical (i.e., to the root) tracing of the implications of unrestricted/critical inquiry (also a component of ‘from below’ thinking) and for a radical (i.e., to the root) critique of ‘God’ language.
For me, the consequences of focusing radically on the breadth/depth of human suffering ‘from below’ became foundational for a radical (i.e., to the root) tracing of the implications of unrestricted/critical inquiry (also a component of ‘from below’ thinking) and for a radical (i.e., to the root) critique of ‘God’ language.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #69
[January 2000 journal entry]
I am convinced that all the writings in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture – except the Ecclesiastes essay and the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job – reflect variations on the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox paradigm.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #68
[December 1999 journal entry]
Yesterday a semi-trailer truck on I-65 southbound changed lanes, nicked a car in the left lane, lost control, crossed the median, grazed two vehicles in the northbound I-65 traffic before crashing head-on into a van. Three children, their parents, and the two children whose parents were driving a trailing van were killed in the crash/fire. A 19-year-old boy heading for his grandparents’ home was driving the car the truck nicked before crossing the median. He was not harmed. By the time a news team arrived on the scene, the boy’s grandparents had been notified and had come to the scene. Within sight of the horrible and deadly crash, the grandmother said on camera over and over – “Praise the Lord, thank the Lord, . . .” in reference to her grandson’s escaping injury. I find such ‘God’ language utterly offensive and abhorrent.
Yesterday a semi-trailer truck on I-65 southbound changed lanes, nicked a car in the left lane, lost control, crossed the median, grazed two vehicles in the northbound I-65 traffic before crashing head-on into a van. Three children, their parents, and the two children whose parents were driving a trailing van were killed in the crash/fire. A 19-year-old boy heading for his grandparents’ home was driving the car the truck nicked before crossing the median. He was not harmed. By the time a news team arrived on the scene, the boy’s grandparents had been notified and had come to the scene. Within sight of the horrible and deadly crash, the grandmother said on camera over and over – “Praise the Lord, thank the Lord, . . .” in reference to her grandson’s escaping injury. I find such ‘God’ language utterly offensive and abhorrent.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #67
[December 1999 journal entry]
Proposition: That no writing in Christian scripture is comparable to the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes essay re being oriented by a ‘from below’ concentration on and alignment with harsh human realities. I think the Gospel of Luke comes the closest, though the intent of the Gospel of Luke is different from the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes essay.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #66
[December 1999 journal entry]
Within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm, to say “life is not fair” is to say implicitly “God is not fair”. In the story/play Job, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three closest friends see this link in his statements and attack his integrity. I do not understand how individuals within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm trying to be observant miss, dismiss, or object to this implication of saying “life is not fair”.
Within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm, to say “life is not fair” is to say implicitly “God is not fair”. In the story/play Job, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three closest friends see this link in his statements and attack his integrity. I do not understand how individuals within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm trying to be observant miss, dismiss, or object to this implication of saying “life is not fair”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
