alwmjohnson
New member
A Theology of Separation is a wants-based theology. A wants-based theology has human interaction with an ultimate source in an endless petitionary role. I want ---> I petition; I am in trouble ---> I pray; I desire ---> I seed faith money. A wants-based theology is a dependent theology based on a patriarchal ultimate source. A wants-based theology is not open to questions related to its dogmas and doctrines ---> in fact it fears such questions. What was most important for Confucius, Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed is not so much what you believe, as much as how you behave. Bjorklund felt that, “the issue with someone who is outwardly religious and yet strongly focused spiritually elsewhere may often be described as hypocrisy. What a person says he believes, and what is revealed by the person’s behavior about his or her belief do not come together.” (1983) I view a Theology of Separation as discouraging people from behaving according to their true intentions. A Theology of Separation is non-supportive of taking a journey in life where we deeply experience our sexuality, love, morality, emotions, and consciousness.
Gulley and Mulholland refer to a "theology of separation." (2004) We live in a dualistic world of borders, and boundaries. I postulate that a wants-based theology of separation is a theology of exclusion. A Theology of Separation can’t advance beyond the historicity of a dualistic double-edge sword exhihited by the major religions. That is, most religions can exhibit great kindness to fellow believers, but often manifest great cruelty to those who have different beliefs. Such a theology discourages a healthy skepticism, and opposes objective scientific investigations. Such a theology won’t admit that up to this time in history there is zero scientific evidence of a supernatural being (God). Huberman stated, “the religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.”(2007) Such a theology can’t accept theological evolution and understands that as we know more about Nature, and human nature religions should and must change with that new knowledge. Authoritarian dogma means little. Doctrines are man-made ideas and these ideas must change as we learn and experience more of human existence. Thomas Hobbes argued in Leviathan that ethics must be freed from authority. For Elaine Pagel, "the purpose of accepting authority is to learn to outgrow it. When one becomes mature, no longer needs any external authority." (1979)
Gulley and Mulholland refer to a "theology of separation." (2004) We live in a dualistic world of borders, and boundaries. I postulate that a wants-based theology of separation is a theology of exclusion. A Theology of Separation can’t advance beyond the historicity of a dualistic double-edge sword exhihited by the major religions. That is, most religions can exhibit great kindness to fellow believers, but often manifest great cruelty to those who have different beliefs. Such a theology discourages a healthy skepticism, and opposes objective scientific investigations. Such a theology won’t admit that up to this time in history there is zero scientific evidence of a supernatural being (God). Huberman stated, “the religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.”(2007) Such a theology can’t accept theological evolution and understands that as we know more about Nature, and human nature religions should and must change with that new knowledge. Authoritarian dogma means little. Doctrines are man-made ideas and these ideas must change as we learn and experience more of human existence. Thomas Hobbes argued in Leviathan that ethics must be freed from authority. For Elaine Pagel, "the purpose of accepting authority is to learn to outgrow it. When one becomes mature, no longer needs any external authority." (1979)