The Mobility Routine.

Blanket Flower

       "In the post meal window." This is a direct quote from a man who looks like an Aardvark advising me through a computer screen that long walks are better than short walks. And here I think my point is this : who needs faux professionalism from the set defined as first world self appointed witch doctors who call themselves influencers. Go ahead just call it dog do-do. No wonder we're doomed.

   Anyway, the post meal window is not the time to sit there wondering how many fungicides and pesticides the banana and grape jelly sandwich you've just swallowed has been subjected to. The Post Meal window is a moment of time when some sort of walking about in fresh air is essential for the health of your soul, to your socio economic sense of belonging, and as I understand it, defines where you stand on the swirl in a Double Caffè Latte and Craft Cheese Slices. 

    Now, take it from me, a person who once a year visits a big box bookshop to marvel at the prices of new books, it's a two hour drive from here, it has an egg-stained woolly sweater and runny nose feel to it, it has a busy espresso and sticky bun shop attached to it, and you do not denigrate the wonderfully ill-tempered, in the classically Italian tradition, barista or barman, by asking for a cup of coffee. They will look at you as though you might have crawled out from under a cowpat, and the world begins to feel like the civilization you know and love, so you smile warmly and sparkle.

     Then if you ask what their head office expects a lowly customer to understand by 'Protein' and whether "Caramel Protein Latte" has any coffee in it, the "have a nice day" of corporate barbarism returns, as if from a dentist a detailed explanation emerges, your toes curl and you slowly begin to understand that your "mobility routine" is to just stay home and wait to die. 

The Running Dogs

Moonflower, a white morning glory

   The Past is an invention of the present and so is the future. Oh sure we have an oral and written history, some of it documented, and there are dreams and a lot of plotting around our future.

    But what was the actual experience of something like Feudalism. It wasn't a hierarchical triangle with a king at the top, better to think of it as a constantly flowing movement of agreement and disagreement around a series of mental constructs or definitions which can be illustrated by a triangle with a king at the top and a host of peasants along the bottom.

    Same today as it was in the time of King John, or Charlemagne.  But there is a difference between now and then. Back then, outside the drama, the system was based on personal relationships, regional custom and practice, long held local traditions in one location, go ten miles north and things were done differently. These personal relationships in Europe were increasingly informed by the Christian Church, which was more like a single institution with a shared belief system that was both taught and written down. 

    Overtime, as the size of a society increased, personal relationships as a basis for unity were increasingly thought of as unreliable. You get a sociopathic war lord becoming a megalomaniac who makes a habit of ignoring tried and true custom and practice, you just don't wear sandals with white socks, rather than persuasion a tyrant reverts to force, which is both risky and expensive. The more successful stable systems, particularly with respect to wealth creation developed institutions that encouraged individual initiative in free and equal associations, along with a rule by law, not by passion or wealth or who you knew and/or could bribe. The successful stable system has agreed upon and enforced standards of behavior that apply to all, not a random collection of dos and don'ts, depending upon who your uncle might be.

    The dream of course is one thing, the reality another. An agile mind can detect unfairness, and into the fore comes some such thing as Critical Race Theory to set so many hearts to furious blistering, and those blisters go back in time and place to the power of personal relationship, that moment of like that sees an unshared entitlement being taken away from the souls of the self chosen ones and freely given to the unworthy other.

    Here in the USA we are currently in danger of losing our myth of free and equal association to a coterie of retarded wolves the Chinese Revolutionaries once referred to as the Running Dogs of Imperialism. Of interest too is the origin of the Chinese reference to Running Dogs. The dogs were used to hunt, their fate was certain, an old saying Mao enjoyed went this way: "When the rabbits are killed, the running dogs are boiled."  

For the love of it

Cornflower

    Maybe not for Physics, but the idea of time for us people does contain a past and a future. These two states, the past and the future, comprise an understanding of the present which is different for each one of us. As the stories of the past coalesces into straighter and straighter lines, more of us share a similar past. This similar past becomes an origin, or a genesis which informs a present and provides the data for an interpretation of a future, which as the lines straighten we people also begin to share.

    For Christianity the shared past is usually described as a fall, the shared present is described as a search for salvation, the shared future, while it remains mysterious does seem to be a reunion with paradise for the obedient and redeemed and some sort of snake-pit for the disobedient and irredeemable.

    For Baxter and I the Christian understanding stops at the philosopher Epicurus, were rules for a good life are a salvation from unhappiness and begins to flounder when it reaches expressions like "Total Depravity" to describe the original state of the human condition.

   True, whether it be the sails of Viking Marauders hell bent on plunder and maidens, or that pervert Uncle Sprat back from whatever he does on the Mainland, the future can lurk in an often irredeemable, totally depraved manner. But when contemplating the future a mind does have a number of possible directions to take, not all of them horrible.

    Epicurus was born on the Athenian Island of Samos around the time Plato died (348 BC). He was a very wealthy man who had lost his fortune to a shipwreck. His followers, they paid no fee to hear him speak, saw their teacher as a guide who offered Salvation. He was less "getting a law degree and passing the bar exams" he was more an eye for "good conversation and positive attitude."

     His cure for Anxiety went this way: Don't be afraid of the Gods. Don't worry about Death. What is Good is easy to get. What is Terrible is easy to endure.

    The question for both Epicurus and Zeno, the founder of stoicism, both of them earth bound thinkers long settled into the polytheist story of a cadre of jealous Gods occasionally dabbling in human affairs who preferred to remain safely in their heaven while the souls of mortals were destined to a class bound underworld where nothing special happened, has to be : "Did Epicurus and Zeno, Plato for that matter, preach redemption and salvation."

A Genesis of Baptists and Motivation

Moon. 9.32 am US Eastern Standard Summer Time

     In my opinion Religion can be thought of as Motive Management in an Eternal Department overseen by a Taoist Celestial Master. The system has to be flexible enough to maintain a willing commitment without losing sight of a profit defined in terms of a genuinely and acceptably sensible future rather than a series of threats.

    Let's look at where the Baptists are, and here I'll risk the hay-baler and declare that the Baptists were an English speaking reaction to Calvinist Extremism that arrived in England via the Arminianist Interpretations of Jacobus Arminius, an understanding that was blossoming in the the early 1600's in the Netherlands. A Golden Age for the Dutch.

    "Sounds like an extremist minority opinion!"

    Calvinists have, or in the 1500's had, their five point plan, or TULIP, to guide them through the vicissitudes of such things as earthly election seasons. 

   T is for Total Depravity - Adam and Eve sinned, there is no hope in any of us people, so just remember that!

   U is for Unconditional Election - For Calvin, God chooses individuals for salvation based solely on His sovereign good pleasure. It has nothing to do with foreseen or preordained human faith, merits, or good works.

   L is for Limited Atonement - Christ died specifically for the elect, not for everyone.

   I is for Irresistible Grace - Because there is no hope in us people, God through the Holy Spirit works a miracle to put a person's soul back together before he or she is even able to become a believer. Once the Holy Spirit has done the work, there's no rejecting your soul, you might sell it, but you can't have it removed. Then, if you don't behave in a willing, able, sufficiently grateful, soul-worthy manner, you need to remember that having a soul isn't and never will be a free pass into heaven.

   P is for Perseverance of the Saints  -  God doesn't make mistakes. Those who God has truly saved, not the heavenly equivalent of a clerical error that sent the Holy Spirit to regenerate the wrong soul, they will be Believers to the end, they cannot lose their salvation. They have to chose salvation. They have to be motivated. They have to ignore the devil.

   "Parts of that sound a little bit mean."

   "Karl Marx would have agreed with you. He thought it mean and unsustainable."

  A Dutch Theologian called Jacobus Arminius wrote several critiques of John Calvin's thinking. Calvin was clearly a dangerous fanatic and time came for the Reformations most ardent reformers to have a synod, they chose a place named Dort to formally call a spade a spade, do away with paddling around, collect the nuts and bolts and sort stuff out.

   One of the upshots of the meeting at Dort was the realization that Calvin's Five Points, his entry level set of convictions for his supporters, once written down and signed for revealed what many thought a horrifying failure to grasp most of the New Testament.

   Fortunately The Synod at Dort also had a chance to have a strong look at Jacobus Arminius' critiques of Calvinist thought and they came up with a theological comprehension which modified and expanded upon Calvinism and produced  an understanding called Arminianism.

    The Arminiasts had their own five point program that addressed their disagreement with Calvinists on the three subjects of Human Free Will, Grace of God, and Salvation.

    Conditional Election: God predestines individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to believe in Christ, rather than by an unconditional decree from on high.  In other words, God looks at you mewling a puking and because he already knows everything there is to know he is able to decide whether you'll believe that his only son Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. This Calvinist thinking pattern had to be agreed upon because God knows everything. The however comes next in the idea of unlimited atonement.

   Unlimited Atonement. For those in doubt "atonement" is church speak for "making amends." For Jacobus Arminius the ultimate atonement was Christ’s death on the cross, God the Son making amends for some of his father's many flaws and for some of the less than polite things he did to us people in his rather needy efforts to get us to respect him. But, and this is very typical of the One God, while the saving benefit for humanity by Jesus' crucifixion was there for everyone, it was only ever given to those who "exercise faith." An ill-define term as any Baptist will endeavor to tell you

  Prevenient Grace: This is another important difference with Calvin's understanding of a chosen few. Prevenient is a way for the Pulpit to say that Grace comes first not after twelve dozen twirls around a catwalk. We people when we come into the world are already fallen, sinful and totally depraved, just awful. All the same, God's Prevenient Grace is given to all people so they can overcome their spiritual deadness and are awake enough to freely respond to the gospel, the Word, or the Message or the Good News. The operative words here are "Freely Respond."

     Resistible Grace: This too is a big difference for the followers of Arminianism, we people have genuine free will and in our purview we are able, of our own free will, to accept or reject God's offer of saving grace.

    Finally, the fifth point of clarification, is Conditional Salvation or Perseverance and Loss. True believers are called to persevere and remain in Christ. That much was and probably still is certain. But when something like this list of five Arminianist points was presented to the Dutch equivalent of the Parliament or House and Senate, there were disputes about whether a believer who willing chose to suddenly misbehave or was discovered behaving in a disgracefully ungodly manner could fall away, lose his earned salvation and have to rot in hell.

    The Dutch Arminiast disagreements with Calvinism set a bonfire under three English speaking males. They were John Smyth, Thomas Helwys and a man called John Murton, English religious reformers all of them. Unlike John Locke and other Calvinist Liberals hell bent on individual responsibility and limited entry into heaven, these three religious reformers had during their time on earth engaged more closely with the Beatitudes than for example with Genesis and the Lot conundrum (19), Deuteronomy (29), a goodly number of Psalms, Isiah (30 and 34), Ezekiel (38) ...... there are not shortage of Historical accounts of the old testament God in action.

    The point of it all for Baptists, when and if you were baptized you had to know what was happening and why it was happening, otherwise it had nothing to do with free will. If god in three persons were decent sort of chaps, if they meant us to have free will, they meant us to willing participate and to willingly participate you had have some clue what Grace was, and you had to agree that in a participating and responsible society of individuals salvation was a worthy pursuit.