Comments on: Don’t forget, Liberalism is bad.

By: Call them what you want, Individualism and Secularism are problematic. « Vox Nova

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:03:24 +0000

[...] bring this up because, in my recent writings against liberalism—here, here, and here—I think that endearment with or against the word has garnered more attention than [...]

By: The Charismanglican

The Charismanglican — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:34:19 +0000

While the world may have a dearth of love, I can think of rather obvious examples of Christians who do know how to love.

But cheers to you for discovering new insights from creation to challenge and help us fulfill Christ’s mission. If only everyone was as excited about studying.

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:41:38 +0000

When I gained knowledge about the physiological and psychological effects of physical and psychological violence and how these effects influence gene expression within the developing human being it became very clear to me why Jesus wanted Our Father to forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing. Now, I could go into a long dissertation on the mirror neuron system within the brain and how it wires the brain to react emotionally, cognitively and physically beginning in the womb and that this hardwiring becomes set around the age of 23-25 and the protein that secures emotional memory decreases by 90 percent at that time and makes it immensely more difficult to learn new emotional responses and consequently, new beliefs unless there is an epiphany through divine intervention.
Knowing these new discoveries creates new methods of problem-solving and conflict resolution. This falls directly in line with Christ telling how to love one another with an unselfish and sacrificial love which has been shown to create physical healing and rewiring of the areas of the brain that had been traumatized by violence.
Christ tells us in John 16 or 17 that He will be known by how we love one another. Obviously, we do not know how to love.

By: The Charismanglican

The Charismanglican — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:07:07 +0000

Do we need all the knowledge we have gained in the last decade about the neurobiology of healthy and harmful interpersonal relationships to stand against the powers of this world, or are St. Paul’s words in Philippians 2 and Jesus washing his disciples’ feet quite enough to drive a stake into the heart of competition?

He’s a humble king. As long as he is the image of divine kingship, then we don’t have to fear kingship.

By: samrocha

samrocha — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:11:07 +0000

Ronald,

I very much appreciate your challenge on the notion of power. I do disagree with you, but it is a fresh critique that I have not heard before and have to evaluate as such.

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:43:24 +0000

The thought I had about language is that you and I know to some extent the language of the bible but those who do not understand that language are then relegated to an inferior position. It is just the same with any language of science and the concept itself may be very simple but the language of science creates a disconnect between the scientist and the layperson. This is where the human relationship begins to deteriorate when there is a power differential. One is attempting to become equal and the other is attempting to maintain a superior position. The male amygdala is conditioned to remain superior and dominant and this is very evident in political, theological, philosophical, etc. arenas. Out whole social system is based on competition and the desire to raise our state of personal value.
Spiritual power is a power but I think we must get away from that type of expression due to the thousands of generations of power struggles in human relationships and how it has influenced gene expression in the amygdala to be hypersensitive to facial expression, tone of voice and body posture that may indicate a potential threat.
We are all born into a genetic history of violence and threat of violence. We must use all the knowledge we have gained in the last decade about the neurobiology of healthy and harmful interpersonal relationships and use the strategy that St. Paul used with the Greeks. If we don’t then we have what we have right now.

By: The Charismanglican

The Charismanglican — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:17:03 +0000

“It seems to me that we must develop a new interpretation and language that removes us from the language of traditional power to a language that appropriately reveals God’s Love.”

That’s a very interesting thought, for sure.

I guess, in addition to the ‘scripture-ness’ of kingdom language I would bring up that I don’t like the idea of divorcing ‘love’ from ‘power’. Love is probably best understood as a type of power.

Jesus confronts the powers of this world. To say that we should avoid kingdom language in favor of some theoretical language that appropriately reveals God’s love is surprising. My gut reaction would be that God has already revealed his love through the Word made Flesh. Jesus IS God’s language.

Yes it’s a different cultural context, but I’d be wary of thinking that anyone I know is in a position to come up with better language than Christ and the Apostles.

By: The Reign of God: A Sovereign Lover, the Reign of Love, and Ordo Amoris « Vox Nova

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:54:10 +0000

[...] of the most frequent commenters here, Ronald King, raised a critique of my earlier post, Don’t Forget, Liberalism is Bad, that I found surprising. He rejected the notion that as Catholics we should desire the reign of [...]

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:48:54 +0000

Charismangelican, I think that the language of scripture is the language of the human being who is inspired to write what God reveals and seems to indicate the level of the writer’s understanding God’s message.
It seems to me that we must develop a new interpretation and language that removes us from the language of traditional power to a language that appropriately reveals God’s Love.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:52:48 +0000

This is an outstanding piece of satire and very funny. I hope to read more from this amusing author.

By: The Charismanglican

The Charismanglican — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:29:41 +0000

I can agree with that: Christ’s law is love.

I’m hesitant to throw out language like reign, king or kingdom only because it’s scripture-language. But, yes, God is love. That is what I meant by a humble king whose rule is unlike the powers of this world.

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:32:03 +0000

I must be brief at this time. ES and Darwin Catholic, I am impressed with the depth of your discussion in such a limited space. Henry, I was drawn to the concept of the Latin definition of the individual as being open and not closed. That seems to be of critical importance to the proper understanding the relationship between liberal and individual. If the individual becomes fixed in a belief of self and remains fortified in that belief then that self is no longer and individual because she or he is no longer free. That person is now a system of beliefs and closed off from further investigation. That person has become conventional within that belief system. Sam, your point about Love being the foundation from which we must relate in community with one another can only come about through liberation from conventional systems which place ritual above Love.
As a Catholic I do not “desire the reign of God.” I am a Catholic because of God’s Love being revealed to me while I was in the process of individuating from the genetic and social history I was born into. As a Catholic I desire everyone to know God’s Love. The term “reign” denotes authority and thus it seems to contaminate Love with fear which results in something other than Love.
The individual must live in a state of alterity in which Love is the Mystery to be understood in every encounter with another person or system.