Rieff, Freud and us

Rjak, we could become friends. I was glad to see USC win, almost as glad as I was last year to see UT take the Rose Bowl and National Championship. And even though one of my grandchildren went to OU for awhile and another is destined for glory there I was pulling for the little guy last night.

When you referred to the Oneness Christian I had to smile. Few Christians and even fewer people know about them. For the unknowing the Oneness Christians believe that the only ones going to Heaven have been baptized in Jesus name only. That's emersed in water and no mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus' name only because Jesus said so. Everyone else is Hell bound no matter how good of a person or Christian they might have been.

Without a God, I exist without any special purpose, which means I may give myself any purpose I like. Even if I elect to give myself a noble purpose, it is still essentially my own, and not something to which I am obliged.

Rjak, what is the difference between you as a Christian and your neighbor who isn't? Isn't it knowledge?

Your behavior is based upon your knowledge about your faith. Your faith-knowledge is the regulator of your behavior.

I'm no different. That's why people assume I'm a Christian all the time. I share their enthusiasm for life and I'd like to think I'm a good person and my demeanor reflects it. So Christians automatically assume I'm a Christian because they see the same morality and feel the kindred spirit.

Like you my behavior is regulated by knowledge-faith. This is true of everyone btw. Knowledge is the force that regulates our emotional impulses.

Christianity, by contrast, speaks to me in terms of "must" and "ought." God has a will for me, and I must follow it, deviating at my own peril. For me, I didn't truly embrace this (indeed, in truth I haven't fully embraced it even yet, but even St. Paul called himself "chief of sinners") until I was brought into submission to the Catholic Church. To accept that authority and bow my proud head before truth proclaimed infallibly was the most humbling experience of my life and I still sting from the blow.

Knowledge is the great humbler. I'm sure you've heard more than once, "the more I learn, the less I know." That's a paraphrase but a reality for all of us. Just like you I too become smaller as I become larger.

It's about realizing that there's something above and beyond you, yet at the same time deep, deep inside you. It's about the humility that conquers continents. It's really indescribable, frankly. Perhaps the best I can say in terms of why religion has such strong motivating power is to speak from my own life.

Now you're talking. It's what I've been trying to get Gretchen to say instead of falling back on quotes.

I'd like you to consider something. Look at others who are where you're at and they've arrived there without the benefit of the Catholic Church or even a belief in Christ.

The Dali LLama shares the peace and confidence of purpose that we see in the Pope and other holy men. Sages of all stripes reflect that same peace that comes with acceptance of place and purpose.

The big commonality is the acceptance of place and purpose. Look at people who reflect peace and happiness and you will see if you focus that they're happy because they accept their place and it has purpose.

Isn't that what your faith in Christ gives you?

Could it be possible that I'm there also?

Thanks again for the great replies. I especially appreciate your responses because they bring out the best in me. I like that.>

Obsess much?>

Remember, though, in terms of what I'm saying about the power of religion to motivate, I am not neccessarily arguing for its truth. That's why I say any creed, even the demonic creed of the Thugees, can motivate more deeply than post-modern relativism. That's why I fear a showdown with Islam.

I'd like you to think about something rjak. Isn't the failure of creeds their lack of relativism?

What you refer to as creeds work only in situations where simple black and white answers are acceptable. These situations are always situational and temporary.

Relativism works because it empowers the individual. It's about personal responsibility. It's about empowering the individual for life and all of it's challenges. Creeds don't do this, they're single focused and fail when the pressure isn't against that point of focus.

A classic example of this is Biblical teachings on child rearing. The Biblical answer to child rearing issues is "spare the rod and spoil the child" or as in Leviticus, "stone the little brat".

We know that violence begats violence and that beating the bejeezus out of the kids is counterproductive. The best and most successful forms of child rearing involve catering to the needs and personality of the individual. Every parent learns that from the get go. One child might react to a positive gesture and another might not. That's relativism in action, up close and personal, working.

You can extrapolate that to your relationships at work or even out to world affairs. Creeds fail because they're not designed to compromise, compromise is relativism.

Rod advocates creed for child rearing.

But he concedes to relativism at work and in his relationships with friends and family.

Why is that? Could it because he's forced to do so because he's dealing with equals? Isn't that relativism? Isn't it about negotiating because that's the only option available?

Now what is the best lesson Rod could give his children about life in the real world? Is it creed or would it be better to initiate them as early as possible to the rules and advantages of negotiating? Relativism?

Or even better, what would Rod want those nasty Iranian kids to be taught? Would he want them to be taught creed or relativism?

Good for the goose works for the gander and is especially benficial to the goslings alive and well.>