STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity - 6/30/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1068

6/30/2006

As I have intended, I am to begin the study of Theology to some degree, though I intend to keep such fairly lite until I feel my years have brought some level of wisdom and perhaps greater insight. This quite simply, as such a subject warrants at least such consideration from my personal perspective.

I will begin in noting things I have observed through my personal experiences and do what I can to express my opinions and insights to date - this, without having had any schooling or overly implied structuring pertaining to such subject matter. For this I am quite grateful seeing that it was all too possible along the path of my life for several ideologies to have been forced onto my existence - though thankfully enough, those around me saw fit and were wise enough in their own lives to refrain from such forced dispositions.

Simply as a reference point for myself, I will attempt to express my initial perspective on such, in general. ~

From my own perspective when considering the idea of "Theology" and "Religion," it first occurs to me that such "structures" were initially developed in the human want and effort to understand more about our existence and relationship(s) with that "phenomenon" we have referred to in many different ways. In considering it on the whole, I see where such "belief" structures immediately support my perspective of "proximity" and resulting effects as per - which I am sure to address through out this body of notes.

Initially, as I think back from "their" prospective "future," I can see a progression of sorts, obviously. This "progression" transpiring in several different facets - then appearing to be cyclical within those facets, as well.

The first type of "progression" within this body of different structures which I see as quite notable and obvious, is that pertaining to the changes which then seem to become cyclical to some degree in regard to "meaning" and "usage" of said structures. For instance, initially such structures were devised for that purpose of understanding. Then as such became common place and even mundane, said structures had then progressed into a state of being a topical "tool" of sorts for the purpose of regulating the movement of societies.

This seems to have transpired in all of the major "belief structures," and as I mentioned, appears to have done so in a cyclical sense.

This "cyclical sense" being more in depth than simply the extremes in opinion of "it is real" and "it is mumbo jumbo" meant only to control the populous.

In my personal opinion it seems that such structures would be most efficient sans either of those extremes and then approached as per that means for understanding.

As a side note here, it is rather interesting that within our modern social directions, it has become much more pronounced within that cyclical pattern, that both extremes are quite common within even the larger structure pertaining to "belief," itself. Something perhaps which is attributable to the modern advance of said social structuring and social engendering, which then makes for a type of "fuel" to actually maintain healthy movement within society.

This then seems to become problematic in the sense that ur tendency as creatures, is simply as I have described in other writings/notes - in other words, "why understand when it obviously isn't necessary to fulfill those topical and immediate wants?"

This seems as though it would eventually approach a form of the automated ignorance which is similar to that "consumer mentality" approach I have described pertaining to our modern society in the United States.

When I then consider what little I know about early human established "religion," it is then obvious as per the similarities in "distribution" within that larger process I have observed.

Most all early structures of that sort (being "religious"), related to said understanding through the use of several deities as representation. This was done in several "different" though quite similar ways - something about this I find great interest in was the manner in which the Roman Empire "procured" and mimicked the Greek structure of religion - which is something I will research more in depth as my studies progress, knowing immediately that it is a form of aposematic mimicry on a large scale, though I have yet to surmise for myself what reasons beyond the common understanding of the Roman method(s) may have been contributing factors. (Roman methods being akin to keeping anything "out" which they had not conquered). I suspect I may find great similarities in said development and the more modern example of such proximity mutation as per gestative aspects, as I have noted pertaining to Catholic religious beliefs, and several cultures it has been introduced to.

In those earlier structures, as I have mentioned and is quite common knowledge, there were several representative dieties - yet another consistency in those structures was hierarchical division. This even being present in the more "primitive" examples of religious structures.

As humans "progressed" and societies changed, this type of structure was then condensed into fewer representative deities, but maintained the "hierarchical" aspects - perhaps as much for the reason of convenience as anything else.

In this period as I consider it from my rather limited perspective at the moment, there seem to be two distinct directions - one of which was the "condensed version" of representation, and the other was an extreme effort in said condensing. Meaning that the "normal" progression seems to have been a process which began with multiple deities, and then progressively became fewer and fewer, while the other most pronounced (and rather unique in comparison to the consistencies) structure as per reference "extreme," looked to focus more from a less diverse focal point. This "extreme" version is essentially one focal point and all else was then inconsequential.

Immediately it is obvious through such efforts, that the ability toward "understanding" is then limited to some degree - this as per imposed limitations rendering an immediate perceived efficiency while removing some aspect of depth in understanding.

This transpiring to one degree or another, in both "condensed" versions as they progressed.

This isn't to say that said "understanding" is then unattainable within the condensed versions - only that it becomes less available - it limits the scope of said understanding and tends toward a more topical sense. Then when the "automated" aspect of such structuring is added, it becomes even less efficient with the tendency for its "topical" use in that limited manner.

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

As another observation, it seems that in both examples of that transformation - those earlier and separate representations are still present though they have been regulated to less than divinity in many instances. The major difference between the two developments and directions, is that one of them still permits "divinity" in more than one main focal point.

Even in early Asian directions, a person can see several distinct and different representations - and again those different representations then being condensed into fewer.

A further problematic area I can see within that tendency toward condensing and extreme focal point, is in allowing if not promoting the perceived idea of an omnipotent being as an individual - This immediately places incredible limitations on the idea of such a concept, itself - if only through the human tendency I have described. This much in the same manner as limiting the "area" and idea of "perfection."

This isn't to say that said "larger body of influence" shouldn't be considered as a whole, but only that in promoting the topical understanding in such a manner as has transpired, so much about it is instantly limited in extreme ways, if not lost entirely. ~

As another direction of observation, the "progress" has even produced directly contradictory opinions (much utilized, as stated, within the modern form of social governing) - which in turn serve to keep it "fed" so to speak. Insuring its own existence with said contradictions for which ever "direction" they may lead it.

Unfortunately it would seem that said efforts are predominantly derived from a want to combat that "misunderstanding" - more so a "perceived" misunderstanding of the given point in time - that limited idea of an omnipotent being then serving only within the dynamic of said efforts, to keep misconception alive as it were - if not even to further it.

In so many words, those efforts to combat what is their "misconstrued" perception of that larger process, which is - immediately, through said mutated perceptions translates into claiming that which actually is, which humans have attempted to understand for eons - actually isn't because they find personal fault with that limited, misconstrued perception of something which was put forward (in my opinion) and representative for the purpose of understanding.

Essentially, within their limited scope in contradiction - they attempt unknowingly to negate the entirety of human existence in that regard. A cross cancellation effect that is un-intentional.

Laughably, the tendency within such efforts has been as much an emulation of that misconstrued understanding, or even more so than those following said directions as belief, in the tendency to lump everything they don't entirely understand into one "label" as it were - with no further effort to understand that which slips their immediate and topical grasp. Most of such efforts don't even see themselves as "fuel" in that sense, for misconception and then relatively the larger movement within even understanding itself.

I hesitate to say "misrepresentation" simply because it is more a lack of understanding in perception, than in the effort at representation which promotes the problematic results.

As a note; This also indicates that larger motion in process, as well. Though it does so through illustrating the effects of established structures within the effect of said process and existing social aspects. In that attempt to maintain a rigid structure, it still becomes something else within the motion and influence of all aspects of that larger process. In some cases this is noted then as "progress" while in others it is recognized as diversion and other forms of "undesirable" mutation. Many examples socially, in history and modern social dynamics, of a migration effect can be noted within this phenomenon as well - given that it is obviously more preferable to be part of a more successful understanding (and thus perceived progress) than to remain a part of perceived mutation. This then renders other proximity effects through the analidic aspects of such tendencies to even "take over" in some instances, those areas of success which are more desirable - then further rendering a cycle of regression being introduced into that larger process.

Further as an entertaining thought - in some social circles I could be condemned as a heretic for these simple explorations, and simultaneously targeted and labeled as a religious zealot. In some social circles within our modern day, if you are not prepared to vehemently hate a misconstrued perception and representation (most times put forward with grotesque lack in their own understanding), or blindly promote a given example of such mutation - you are quite simply cast aside.

Essentially, I would say that such is because there is no immediate profitability in any sense if it is that you are not of one extreme, topical perspective or another. ~

As yet another thought in regard to the motion of assigned meaning, and the hierarchical status of said representation of deities - The establishment and organization of the houses of Israel is/was representative of such, as well. Though very much from a rudimentary assignment.

That comparison is something that will be well worth exploration in itself. No longer was it several different "points of focus" as representation, but now - within that structuring, it was several different assigned meanings of "bodies" within human existence which stood as representative of various facets - though not entirely "deity" per say.

Rather interesting.

It seems as though such could be seen as an immediate inversion of sorts, though simultaneously representative of those multiple "deities," in the "multiple" sense - "real time" as it were, and "diffused" in a similar manner as per said distribution of previous deities, and within that structuring, is again a hierarchical aspect - which I am of the mind is really nothing more than as result of human perception and action within the larger emulation. This being in more respects than are topically available.~

To clarify my stance somewhat on my observation pertaining to the houses of Israel - regardless of whether or not such is purposefully assigned as it were - the effect of such a structure in comparison to previous structures utilizing individual focal points as representation per diety, is that in making such focal points, entire familial strains as it were - then such is a form of inversion and representation of the previous focal points - though again, not so much in the form of recognition as "deity" per say, but more in the form of representation as per emulation in some regard. This being "through" a consolidated point of focus, being the reference to a single source.~

Something occurring to me even further in such an application, is the similarity of it and that Roman mimicry of assuming the Greek structure as representative of their own deities and points of focus. In many ways, the representation through familial structure is very similar - again in said inverted manner.

Instead of points of focus for all to interpret as individual - independent "deities" - they then exist within each familial representation segregated as it were, then acting as a body on the whole. But again, in an inverted sense being that the representation is now in living form as per said segregations - from "within" said consolidated point of focus - where before such an introduction, as is widely known, such points of focus were "other."

I would be curious to know what of each "house" has been employed throughout the others over the years? As well, I would be curious to the effect of that technological amplification upon basic structure within those consistencies?

I am not claiming Jewish beliefs as better than others, only that an obvious consistency has been maintained - but again, perhaps only in so far as with all other examples.

It does differ though, from others - in that sense of structure and application.

Further it would seem similar to the Roman social structuring as per said "segregation."

In the "old testament," the houses of Israel were divided and distinguished using color schemes in many instances - patterns and colors of cloth. Each "division" had its primary purpose as per function.

This as well within the Roman social structure - being each social class remained as such, and as service to its purpose.

I will be interested to see further similarities in social dynamic - as well as differences.

The Romans set forward rules for the inter-mingling of social classes - even and especially in regard to propagation with different classes - slave classes especially. I will be interested to see the similarities of such Roman rules and those dictating the inter-breeding between the houses of Israel - if any exist.~

I look forward to more closely examining the progression and development of such similarities as well, given that the majority of Hebrews came out of Egyptian culture predominantly, after some considerable time there - where the Roman empire could be said to be no where near such influences of the time. This then perhaps indicating another aspect within that process and result of proximity as well as interactive connectivity.~

Something further I find curious, is finding the area and point within humanity that the idea of "slavery" began - immediately I could cite Egypt, but it seems slavery has existed since recorded history in one form or another, and even beyond.

It has only been in our modern existence that the idea of slavery has been frowned upon and consciously objected to. But in another sense, if it is that modern ideologies and social structures aren't minded and manned with such intent - it is very much that slavery continues - but in different forms and larger social cages.

As peculiar as it may seem - such usage of social architecture would in many ways negate the benefits of that brilliant stroke through the shift from "sovereign/power" to "commerce/power."

If it only results in allowing for different masters - then it would seem there is greater efficiency and even more freedoms in continuing the other forms as per development - this in maximizing the progress within that long established relationship between "slave" and "master."

Such would be much more efficient than the dynamic of former slaves becoming slave masters in a larger sense. Only ever having a slaves perspective from which to rule and lord over their own slaves.