Individualism & the human spirit

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]I just thought I'd add this thought: Individualism implies separate personality, but personality, it seems to me, is not a matter of completely free choice. Out fingerprints differ, but we don't choose them. How do we come to have the personality that we have?

Not intending to sound dismissive with this one but if not the personalities that we each individually have then what others!??[/b]

For example something about you in this situation led to your asking this question. Perhaps you might not have asked it if your DNA and/or experiences in life had been different. What made the difference? Was it that teacher who encouraged you to examine things with some skepticism in third grade?

Originally posted by FMF
Spirituality is concerned with things of the spirit, which I take to mean our each and every human spirit ~ which, in harness with cognitive abilities, is the basis for our capacity for [or contribution to] abstract interaction and imagination.

This in turn, to my way of thinking, forms the basis for our uniqueness and individuality ~ for which others might ...[text shortened]... philosophy of individualism and how you see yourself relating to the society in which you live?

Great post and 'problem' to wrap our minds around, FMF.

As a believer, I am informed by Scripture when it comes to spirituality; even more so for the definitions of the vernacular.
I don't know anything about the spiritual life, except what I have learned through Scripture--- hell, the descriptions I've encountered outside of Scripture have been so esoteric-fuzzy-subjective as to render the label nearly meaningless.

Here's one on the topic of soul and spirit, from Hebrews 4:12.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I still have some uncertainty when it comes to distinguishing the exact lines of demarcation betwixt soul and spirit, but the Truth has no such problems.
That being established, the Bible also informs me that since the Garden, man is born spiritually dead: the closest thing to a zombie reality has ever experienced.
Yet we all have personality.
Call it logic, call it fuzzy math, but if everyone who has been born since Adam has had a personality, I can't help but conclude that personality is more a function of soul than it is spirit.

Originally posted by whodey
As the saying goes, "No man is an island unto himself"

Collectivism = power. Those that seek to change the world single handedly, under their own power, will be crushed by those who use collective power to promote change.

So your "individualism" plus "spirituality" tells you are not "an island" and that you do not/should not seek to change the world single handedly under your own power ~ if I understand what you're saying correctly ~ so, I ask you once again, how does your 'spirituality-individualism' affect how you contribute to concerted efforts to address threats and problems faced by the society you are a part of?

Originally posted by whodey
It is to spread the good news and give people hope. It includes giving money, food, time to those who need it.

How does your apparent ~ and often stated ~ aversion or opposition to "collective" efforts affect the efficacy and impact of these actions on your part?

For example, you say you give food to people who need it. Do you do this within a framework that involves other donors in an organized way who together conduct some kind of needs analysis and coordinate with each other in order that the food distribution is less haphazard or arbitrary than it might otherwise be?

Originally posted by FMF
So your "individualism" plus "spirituality" tells you are not "an island" and that you do not/should not seek to change the world single handedly under your own power ~ if I understand what you're saying correctly ~ so, I ask you once again, how does your 'spirituality-individualism' affect how you contribute to concerted efforts to address threats and problems faced by the society you are a part of?

If you are a Christian then you are part of the body of Christ.

How we function within that body largely is determined by the gifts we are given and our willingness to use those gifts.

For example, God chose Paul because he was intellectually gifted, more so than the 12 disciples whom he chose originally. He was an educated man who knew the Torah inside and out. Once converted, he provided a theology that is unsurpassed in all of Christiandom.

As for myself, I have my own gifts, even though they don't come close to the gifts of Paul. Then again, I don't have the guilt that I've helped kill Christians like Paul carried around with him either.

Originally posted by whodey
If you are a Christian then you are part of the body of Christ.

This is a declaration of your identity and self-definition within a collective or corporate entity, is it not? It is a shared belief system that you have in common with many millions of others. I am interested in how your "individualism" combines with this and how it informs or enables your joint action with others, including those with different beliefs.

Originally posted by whodey
How we function within that body largely is determined by the gifts we are given and our willingness to use those gifts.

Yes, this is what I am asking about. How does your "individualism" ~ in terms of your "gifts", if you choose to define it that way ~ combine with those of others to bring about concerted action to tackle the problems that the community or society has to deal with?

Originally posted by whodey
For example, God chose Paul because he was intellectually gifted, more so than the 12 disciples whom he chose originally. He was an educated man who knew the Torah inside and out. Once converted, he provided a theology that is unsurpassed in all of Christiandom.

But surely Paul's efforts were part of a collective effort and the spreading of the theology and the conversion of others was a collective effort to draw people into a shared, common set of beliefs and collective identity? Earlier you wrote "The issue is human free will, and how that free will is abused, which gave rise to the power of collectivists to suppress "bad" behavior." Were not Jesus and "the 12 disciples" a collective and were they not creating a "church" that was a collective? I find your suggestion that Jesus was somehow an opponent of 'the collective', and that stating this is somehow connected to "individualism" rather incoherent. Have I misunderstood you?

Originally posted by josephw
Live and let live.

Do unto others.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Etc.

This is the most sense you have ever made.
Seems you have a philosophy the same as mine!

Originally posted by josephw
God knows our every thought and heart motive.

2 Corinthians 5:11

... and then you go crazy again! 😞

Originally posted by FMF
But surely Paul's efforts were part of a collective effort and the spreading of the theology and the conversion of others was a collective effort to draw people into a shared, common set of beliefs and collective identity? Earlier you wrote "The issue is human free will, and how that free will is abused, which gave rise to the power of collectivists to suppress ...[text shortened]... tating this is somehow connected to "individualism" rather incoherent. Have I misunderstood you?

We all witness "bad behavior", and this behavior stems from free will.

So the question becomes, how do we deal with bad behavior?

Politically speaking, you have several choices. You can either punish them and/or coerce them into good behavior.

This was not the approach of Jesus, and nor should it be the Christian. Jesus came to not only show us a better path, but also give us the power to overcome the sin that seems to enslave us from the person that we wish to be.

So to answer your question, both approaches come from the collective. The difference is that the approaches are polar opposite. The collective of the body of Christ has nothing to do with the collective of the statist, which is why he did not participate with it.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, this is what I am asking about. How does your "individualism" ~ in terms of your "gifts", if you choose to define it that way ~ combine with those of others to bring about concerted action to tackle the problems that the community or society has to deal with?

The church I attend has a large outreach, both at home and abroad. They have such things as a free medical clinic, legal clinic, etc. and missionaries around the world.

Here is one of my favorite quotes.

"He that is kind is free, though he is a slave; he that is evil is a slave, though he be a king."

-- Saint Augustine

Originally posted by whodey
So to answer your question, both approaches come from the collective. The difference is that the approaches are polar opposite. The collective of the body of Christ has nothing to do with the collective of the statist, which is why he did not participate with it.

Is a Christian or Islamic or Jewish orphanage really the "polar opposite" of a government run or a secular orphanage? Are you suggesting that Jesus would oppose historical "collectivist" efforts made by governments to do things like eradicate diseases, provide education for people who can't afford it, clean up rivers, regulate industries whose activities are potentially dangerous to the community and so on and so forth?

Originally posted by whodey
The church I attend has a large outreach, both at home and abroad. They have such things as a free medical clinic, legal clinic, etc. and missionaries around the world.

And you give them some money every week? Do you help to organize their activities? Do these outreach activities not benefit from publically owned and maintained infrastructure and other government assistance or cooperation in the countries in which they occur? How is this "collective" action different from that conducted by a non-Christian NGO or aid agency?