STUDIES IN THEOLOGY - Popular Christianity 08/01/2006

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -08/01/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

08/01/2006

There seems to be two common directions in a general sense, pertaining to humanity and "Theology." One being "progressive" and the other being "digressive" at this point. "Digressive" usually transpiring in the guise of "progressive."

The "progressive," of which I feel that I am more inclined toward - is one of addressing existence and that which is, while using established structures as reference to that which has been perceived, and further as to how it was perceived in comparison to what has since been realized.

The "regressive" seems set on containing humanity within those established structures put forward - some even thousands of years ago - more to the point in my opinion, of containing humanity within a computerized interpretation of said standards and structures in a rigid form - insisting that such rigidity is and always has been, even in the face of easily modified "interpretations" to fit what ever political need is present.

The "regressive" seems quite dispassionate about considering them - said structures and developments - beyond themselves as a central point and issue. To consider their (said structures) relationship with humanity as only that, isn't readily accepted as consideration it would seem, within the "regressive." As if to consider the complicated "math" equation, for instance, as the cause instead of a possible manner from which to interpret.

I see this as something definitely to look into in further studies. It is as well, perhaps an example of that area of transition concerning "concept" into "application," in a larger sense - which would immediately indicate, that even after the firmness of "application" has set in, that it is more than possible for the continued progression of said conceptual matter in other ways - as and after it has become rigid - outside of that "firmed" perspective value as example. ~

It would seem that there are those dreadfully opposed to the "change" of said structures - even and especially in the sense of interpretive values more than physical augmentation - which is of course in an extreme and resides firmly within the direction of "regression."

I agree that stability in consistency isn't a bad thing in many ways. But, from my experience it is change within those structures which occurs from the attempt to force those structures in that larger sense - given that it is obvious that a certain amount of "change" is a normal and irresistible occurrence - which is all the more obvious when examining history.

In my opinion, to fail to acknowledge the progress of even simple human capacity, is to fail to acknowledge the successes - in whichever degree - of those structures themselves.

In some ways, it is similar to "parents" unwilling to see children grow into their own - as a metaphor. Which in turn seems to contribute to the dynamic I have described in the larger motion of "progress." This especially with the potentials and effect of modern media. ~

I have just experienced an occurrence in result of said media effect - with the display of paranoia so easily placed in society in our modern day - A "gentleman" with obvious mental issues, just approached me and ranted something about "Al-Qaeda" in a manner as to suggest that I may have some affiliation with such an extremist group, as I lay there in the park studying and writing - this I assume is because I happen to have a full beard - which is greatly affiliated (though in an unfounded way) with such through the media and constant imagery depictions.

As a person can see through my writing and personal presence - such affiliation isn't even possible as the group which the "gentleman" referred to is not only extremist, but incredibly seated in the rigidity of those tradition leanings and structures affiliated with certain religious bents.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ME as affiliation simply based on that, but of course such would have to be surmised at a personal level, which is entirely contrary to the direction and more common intended usage of the modern media.

If the general public had the slightest clue beyond some sensationalized use of "fear" in the media, the country would actually be safer.

This display puts forward another issue as well, pertaining to those efforts of containing humanity within said structures - without knowing it, in his blind direction and action, he is actually providing opportunity in such reactionary displays, for the advance of other versions he seems to be so concerned with - again within that tendency and attempt to "contain" that which cannot be fully contained - being humanity and of course, cognitive thought. ~

Within Catholisism alone, as I have briefly addressed elsewhere, there are several examples of the "change" to said structures through it being forced upon and into other cultures and societies.

As I presented before, one example is the result in said within the Tropics south of Florida - another of course is in having forcibly introduced it to natives in Central and South America - Even between those two locales, is a vast difference in application, having developed as per their own differences initially, I would imagine - then further with the progress of humanity itself. Their interpretations differ from one another, both then differ from the Italians, then as well from the Spanish - on and so forth - all displaying those differences, even from one rather considerable, consistent point of focus. ~

I should note that this as well further demonstrates the effect and dynamic within that larger process concerning Proximity Gestation, as it were - and the emulation of it within human existence. ~

I should further note that I don't see those differences as "wrong" beyond the "incorrect" aspect in perception of not being within the suggested (and at times forced) consistency of structure. Again, from my personal perspective such is a very common and irresistible part of the motion within existence - it is more a testimony to that larger consistency in the motion of the smaller inconsistencies and differences within the motion and "progress" of humanity.

To fail to acknowledge it is somewhat a violation of such teachings to begin with (in my opinion).

Knowing of those naturally occurring differences within such a rigid structure as is Catholisism, how then could it possibly be discounted in said differences not being altogether too different than the more pronounced differences of "interpretation" between different "structures" in other areas of existence? Only in a larger, more removed sense.

The consistency in comparison is obvious when seen from such a perspective.

Further then, how could it be denied that examining that sort of relationship from other perspectives beyond those structures, is acceptable?

How is it justified to say that such would be un-acceptable?

To be "lost in the mire" of embattlement over which of the existing rigid structures should be dominant, in my opinion is to miss the opportunity which they provide in aiding the actual observation and addressing of the actual substance of our existence.

I do not believe at this point in my life that stifling our potentials was the initial intention of such examples in writ - I do not believe they were intended as applications of and for limitations exclusively - including subject matter of the more philosophical sense.

But again, such is my opinion -whether I am alone in it or not, I choose to acknowledge my own opinion. If only for my own personal self discovery.

I feel that I owe that honesty at least, to myself and the efforts of humanity - myself being a part of it however distant and/or insignificant. ~