The first is to pacify God and tame Him through that subjectivity. There is a difference in recognizing the other individual (God who has a character) as someone outside of you and to be given respect as another individual being, versus compelling God to function within the realm of our subjectivity. This leads to the idea of a safe God, that God becomes God in so far as He is within my realm of experience and understanding of who God is. For example, if our view on Truth is, for example, love, then we cease to recognize the irrational love and zeal of God for all of mankind, and somehow try to justify His wrath or His justice (which we don’t understand either.) Whether making God into the god of America with justice for all or a god for all people to live in peace and harmony, we cease to seek God outside of what we understand within our own subjective mindset.

The second is to make this subjective relational experience something only to be understood by an individual. It is true that we all see God through our own lenses and through our own subjectivity, yet there is a powerful and mystical thing called communication and communal experience that allows us to enter into that relationship with God together. Though I have never encountered God when I had lost all hope in my life, I can, of course not fully, but to the extent that communication is covered by mercy, enter into that sense of despair and the amazing grace that touched that person when he or she encountered God.

Love your neighbor as yourself, that is subjective, yes. But when we live in an accountable community, though full of faults, people that seek to walk with Jesus, there is a certain responsibility and expectation for what loving looks like. It’s not alright to say, well, I am following the commandment that Jesus spoke of because I am loving my neighbour like I am loving myself, when that love is a binding or a hurting way to love. The neighbour can say, the way you are loving yourself or loving me is not a freeing love, and I want you to be healed and changed so that we can be more like the one that gave us love to start with.

I believe that Jesus, who is the Truth, is subjective, contextual, and relational. However, this relationship ought not be something that fragments us, but bring us together as the body of Christ. Christ also is the way and the life. The way to the Father, but also the way between us through the reconciliation brought about through the cross, and life given abundantly through that.

It is at that point that I reflect upon the Word of God that “all things are created IN HIM and BY Him (continue or) have their being in Him.” (paraphrase).

It is at that point of quantum physics–the discovy of nothingness–that faith must and does kick in. At this point one must consider that we are “no more” (nor less) existing because the Creator wishes us (or thinks us) to exist. We are his thoughts–or thoughts within His thoughts (if we have free wills). And some decide they think they can eternally or momentarily exist outside His thoughts, without His thoughts, or despite His thoughts. But even the q-physicists can tell you, outside what is there is only “nothing;” death.

And so, as theoretic as all this might be, it shoots the crap out of Darwinianism, because it is non-organic–sans matter. It is all about faith and some other essence of “being.” And the Supreme Being takes us (His wandering thoughts?) on and loves us and beckons for us to be reclaimed and become “friends”–that is, have relationship.

Mind blowing really.

Or is that too far out? LOL

Here’s my beef with many Christians: they think that “biblical” truth isn’t nuanced. They believe its an object that is transparent through all time. Perhaps they are right on the last count, but they must realize that their arguments do not come directly from God, but rather from a careful and intentional philosophy including anthropology, metaphysics, and politics.

Realization that Christian arguments, especially moral ones, is a contextual idea doesn’t make what many people say totally wrong if it has this many layers of context. Certainly, people should be striving to include a supreme context in their morals and metaphysics before they begin to even guess on such grave matters. Context is good. After all, we are in a context: our locations, positions, ideas, motives, actions, etc. This is exactly what theology and philosophy does. It provides the context for our existence, which is more complicated than any of us could venture to question. This includes the laws and morality of our Christian tradition. These are always held in tension and reverent consideration. Moreover, another element easily overlooked is reason and rationality, two things Christ must have had if he truly was human. Thus I say, contextualize away! Because it is examining the whole contexts of our situation(s) that we discover truth, which is very complicated and not easily discovered nor easily dismissed.