STUDIES IN THEOLOGY - Popular Christianity 08/06/2006

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -08/06/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

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

08/06/2006

Thinking more about the "diversity" aspect prior to the advent of a single (less diversified) point of focus - It further solidifies my perspective currently, pertaining to the bottle necking effect "advance" seems to have, this as well being evident in the nature of such a shift in perception upon perhaps even the capacity of most humanity. This simply being from memory of what I have known in my life time pertaining to organized religions - I will seek to further substantiate (or disprove) my current perspective through studies when I feel I have matured enough and experienced enough to do so with efficiency. ~

Further in regard to my perspective from memory - it is that I see some definite similarities and rather interesting directions of development on both sides of that "line" (being the single focal point and the multiple). ~

As I have stated, the "earlier" religious belief structures were largely based on the multiple deities. Within those time periods, it is widely known that the Roman structure was essentially a mimic of the Greek structure. ~

Then of course, the Egyptian multiple deity structure as well - which is said to have met the beginnings of its "end" so to speak - with the introduction of said single point of focus, and of course the exodus of the Hebrew slaves. ~

This then, is where I begin to see some rather interesting "similarities" which "connect" as it were - "across" that line of perception. Perhaps even another example of a more direct form of aposematic mimicry. This being in the development of diversification among the populous instead of diversification in points of focus for said populous.

This diversification of course - is readily seen in the separation into the "houses of Israel."

This then, bears another similarity to the segregation aspects of the Roman diversification within the populous socially - this being a similarity "across" that line of perception as it were. With the Romans employing multiple deities which were accessible from which ever area of segregation a person may have been in.~

The Hebrew separation as well, could all access that single point of focus.~

Another similarity here, is that both types of segregation had to do with some sort of "station" so to say - a difference being the Roman segregation was a social hierarchy more so than the Hebrew separation into "houses" - each performing a given "task" or purpose as per that single point of focus. ~

Further still, this Hebrew version of said diversification - as with the different "manifestations" of Catholisism in application - then displays differences as per the proximity in representation to this "structure" - meaning that which is practiced in Russia for example within the Hebrew structure, differs (to which ever degree) with that of Central Europe for example. Further again, from those of Canadian and those of/from the United States versions, though in no real measurable amount of difference.

I do not see those differences as "inconsistency" per say. Personally I see such as a consistency itself, for reasons I have already put forward.~

That aspect aside then. ~

The similarity in said diversification into houses among the populous, can then, and is then similar to that early Greek structure in like ways as per the Roman emulation though obviously differing from it in its own ways. ~

I should note that I am not drawing direct comparisons as per a relation to any given deity or hierarchy of deities in said structures and similarities - only the diversification's.

This then, across that "line" is a sort of an inversion of previous social dynamics as result. Instead of "looking to" diversity in various combinations within/from "society" in those previous popular structures of Greek and Rome (and several others as well) - the Hebrew social structure "looked to" a less diverse point of focus, while embodying diversity (separation into house for example) within the populous/society. ~

As a note, this "series of similarities" in applied dynamic simultaneously, could then mean that the single point of focus could be represented with a person having multiple points of focus themselves. That peculiar hypothetical example, then lends an interesting light to modern social dynamics in regard to the celebrity population - many of which seeing themselves as some form of deity (in "cult" fashion, I presume), focal point.

Of course then, is the interaction of the "houses" as apposed to the perceived interaction of various deities and or individual perspectives - that is to say, the "diversification" within social interaction with the "houses" is a sort of mimicry and a filtration, simultaneously - where there was no filtration of the same derivative when an individual accessed deities themselves while interacting socially. ~

Then of course there is the "go between" being the figure of "Moses." ~

Again, currently it isn't my belief that the houses were meant to directly correspond to a given "deity" - only that there is an inverted similarity in structure there. If it were that said houses were to correspond to a given "deity" through said singular point of focus - it is then that they would need that point of focus to at least be afflicted with multiple personality disorder (as a musing). ~

In a larger sense when observing this sort of structure, it is then that within it socially, is again repeated said diversification. Meaning within a given example "house," is then repeated the base structure of diversification (perhaps in variations), and then again within those divisions is applied that base diversification per each "area" as before, again - rendering a rather interesting dynamic as per my current perspective. Especially given interactions and inter-relations of such a proposed dynamic. ~

I can see where - barring any specific cultural leanings - such a structure employed within society - even reintroducing singular points of focus as per each "diversification," could be a great tool in thwarting social stagnation. Conversely then, in other uses, it could very well bring about greater stagnation. ~

Again, this without actual study yet, in such directions - and only of my personal perspective and thought. ~

On further thought, such a social structure being reintroduced and further diversified within itself time and again, presents some interesting possibilities for "freedoms" and greater equalities - meaning that focus can be shifted from any to any other, at any point within any given area and time span - all others then being of the same "relation" to it as before - regardless of change in "social" direction. ~

Conversely again, in other approaches to such a structure, certain areas of it - even within and through said multiple diversification's - could be "enslaved" through applying said relation "across the line" to more segregated ideologies such as the Roman hierarchical structures - this through assigning the "slave class" as per the Roman structure for instance, with those "houses" said to be forbidden of certain ritual tasks and knowledge.

Thus promoting "segregation" as opposed to promoting diversification and social efficiency. Those being "forbidden" of certain ritual tasks, aren't necessarily forbidden of social right or freedoms in the optimum usage example - where the other, "across the line" in association and usage - does promote such boundaries and limitations as found in a slave class.

A "pauper" could sup with kings in the one example, but be limited to servitude, in the other. ~

And I might say, any sovereign worth their station would be embarrassed in being associated with the subjugation, within the segregation example within the modern day - and of course, within my own opinion. ~

Further then, it would seem (even as detrimental as it would be to itself), that any problematic element arising in the more efficient use - as per social integrations - would actually arise from desperation's produced from the other. Meaning within the one example, a "pauper" supping with kings is quite safe of mishap - where in the other, should such integration be attempted, the desperation in sudden perceived possibility would most likely result in similar desperate actions - not knowing other potentials or use of such interaction - "take what you can get while you can get it" in the result of said desperation, as opposed to " dinner was great, see you next week" as it were.

"Show me your stuff" on one hand so to speak, opposed to "March or die" on the other. ~

When I then consider the idea of Christianity, the sort of social result tends to be void of individualism when it is looked at from certain perspectives - many mistaking this lack of "special" recognition as something to implement in a misdirected fashion to squash any actual personal potential - when, from my perspective, such lack of "special" treatment is meant to be liberating to the potentials of everyone. Allowing the exercise of such potentials without them being seen as "better" than someone else - removing the need for envy or useless, self imposed competition due to personal insecurities arising from having been "out shined." Being just as much a contributor to your "best efforts" to do so, as those which may "tally more bushels" so to speak, within their best efforts.

Of course, modern mutated interpretations of such structures, tend to depend almost entirely on the implementation of such competition for attentions as a means for control. ~