In various parts of the world today, there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction with existing political and social systems. Many countries experience cultural tensions, political polarization, and constant debates over the direction of their institutions. In some places, these processes develop slowly; in others, like Cuba, the ruptures have been more abrupt and evident. Yet, the underlying pattern remains similar.

For more than a century, successive Cuban generations have attempted to rebuild the country from scratch. Each rupture produced new political projects, new constitutions, and new promises to reorganize society. Nevertheless, the cycles of crisis have continued.

This suggests that the problem has not been solely political. It has been a deeper issue: A PROBLEM OF FOUNDATION.

The various attempts at national reconstruction in Cuba relied on ideas typical of their time. At different moments, appeals were made to nationalism, progressivism, socialism, or other ideological currents that promised to reorganize society and correct its injustices. But ideologies change with the intellectual currents of each era. When ideas change, so do the national projects built upon them.

A society that constantly shifts its intellectual foundation ends up entering cycles of permanent reconstruction. In many contemporary debates, the history of the West is often viewed as a model of institutional stability. However, even that historical development was more complex than is sometimes acknowledged. Many modern nations were not built exclusively on biblical principles. Over time, those foundations merged with the ideas of the Enlightenment, which centered human intellectual autonomy as the source of truth and progress.

The Enlightenment introduced a growing confidence in the human capacity to understand and reorganize society through knowledge, reason, and intellectual systems. In itself, the development of human thought produced significant advancements in many areas. However, when these ideas began to function as a cultural foundation, they also transformed how societies understood the human being.

In practice, this blend produced a form of cultural Christianity that progressively drifted away from the original moral framework of the Bible. Although many Western societies continued to use religious language and Christian symbols, the cultural center of gravity shifted toward a reliance on human projects as the primary engine of history.

The result was a civilization that preserved part of its biblical heritage but began to depend increasingly on ideologies, social theories, and political projects as the foundation for organizing society.

This type of system possesses a particular characteristic: it tends to generate its own detractors from within. When a society bases its stability on shifting intellectual currents, new generations inevitably begin to question previous ideas. Each new theory promises to correct the errors of the last, producing continuous cycles of reform, crisis, and reconstruction. The system eventually finds itself forced to reconsider itself constantly without ever establishing a stable foundation.

In this way, many societies enter a permanent process of searching for new solutions without ever resolving the core problem.

Here, we find a vital observation that runs through the history of civilizations: societies do not change through politics first. They change first through anthropology—through the idea a culture holds regarding what a human being is. When a society adopts a specific vision of human nature, that vision eventually reflects in its institutions, its politics, and its social structures.

At this point, we can distinguish between two major traditions that have profoundly marked modern history:

• On one hand, a tradition places the redemption of the human being in knowledge and intellectual projects. According to this view, moral and social progress is achieved primarily through ideas, systems, or programs capable of reorganizing society. From this perspective, social change occurs fundamentally through structural and political transformations.

• On the other hand, the biblical tradition starts from a different anthropology. According to this view, the human being is created in the image of God and possesses an intrinsic dignity that does not depend on political systems or social theories. At the same time, the Bible recognizes that human nature exists within a moral reality that requires truth, responsibility, and internal transformation.

From this perspective, real societal change does not begin in political systems. It begins in the moral formation of the individual. When a culture adopts a mistaken view of human nature, it inevitably builds institutions that reflect that error. For this reason, many political projects that promise to redeem society through systems or ideologies eventually fail over time: they attempt to resolve at an institutional level what is actually a problem of moral foundation.

The biblical tradition proposes a different order: first, the transformation of the human heart; then, the moral life arising from that transformation; and finally, the social structures that emerge from a culture formed by those values. Political institutions, from this viewpoint, are not the starting point of civilization. They are the result of the moral culture that exists within a society.

From this outlook, the Cuban case could represent something more than a national problem. Precisely because its crises have been more visible, Cuba could become a clear example of a question that many other societies face less evidently.

While in other countries the cycles of ideological change develop slowly, in Cuba, the ruptures have exposed more clearly the consequences of building national projects on shifting intellectual foundations. For this reason, the Cuban case could offer a rare opportunity: the possibility of reconsidering the very foundation upon which a society is built. Nations rarely have the chance to rethink their cultural bases from the beginning. When they do, the decisions they make can influence not only their own future but also serve as a reference for other peoples facing similar challenges.

Ultimately, the future of a nation does not depend solely on its political systems or its constitutions. It depends on the moral foundation upon which it decides to build its culture. If that foundation is based on human projects that promise social redemption through shifting ideologies, the cycles of crisis tend to repeat.

But if a society returns to a solid foundation—one that simultaneously recognizes human dignity and moral responsibility—then the institutions arising from that culture can acquire a much deeper stability. In that sense, the Cuban case could show something that many societies have yet to see clearly: that the true starting point for a nation’s future is not found in politics first.

It is found in the truth upon which it decides to build its future.

Author: William Salazar.

A Universal Challenge.

There is no creature on Earth more difficult to direct than the human being. This tendency toward divergence is not a failure of the modern system, but an intrinsic characteristic. Even in the theological account of the Universal Kingdom, the Creator Himself faced rebellion and discord. If schism emerged within the realm of the Absolute, what hope for total control can earthly rulers have?

History teaches us that there is no corner of the world where resistance has not sprouted in some form. The human being possesses a spark of autonomy that defies any attempt at forced homogenization.

The Recourse of Divinization.

When governments enter crisis and see their dominance threatened, they often resort to an ancient strategy: the sacralization of power. Pagan kings, especially as they witnessed the twilight of their domains, understood that physical fear was not enough; they required control over the soul.

In secular antiquity, it was common to fabricate myths where the king was “adopted” by the gods. This act was not a mere religious whim, but a precise political tool:

• Divinization: The ruler ceased to be a mortal peer and became an extension of the sacred.

• The Edict and the Image: Monuments were erected and decrees issued demanding public worship.

• The Paradigm of Submission: These gestures created a social pressure so strong that even those who knew the myth was a lie ended up surrendering to the power structure in order to survive.

The Evolution of Control.

Following the victory of monotheism in the most influential parts of the world, primarily through Christianity, rulers hit a wall: they could no longer directly self-deify without being branded as blasphemers. In response, earthly power adopted a more subtle but equally dangerous modality: not seeking to be God, but manipulating the religion built around Him.

In modern times, this strategy consists of “hijacking” sacred language to validate oneself. It is no longer about building a golden statue, but about attempting to make the religious structure serve the interests of the throne. The ruler seeks to present himself as the sole interpreter of the divine will or the indispensable protector of the faith, thus ensuring the subject feels that opposing political power is, in some way, betraying God. This is the ultimate assault on intimacy: using an individual’s own faith to shackle their will.

“For those who truly interact with God, any substitution of His figure by a political deity or a false expectation is, in essence, a grave betrayal: idolatry.”

Liberty as an Act of Faithfulness.

For the individual who maintains an authentic relationship with the transcendent, politics regains its legitimate place: that of a temporary and limited service. The true tragedy occurs when the ruler seeks to occupy the throne of the conscience.

History is a cycle of rulers attempting to penetrate human intimacy through religion or myth. However, the essence of monotheism reminds us that there is a part of us that belongs neither to the State, nor the king, nor the system, but solely to the Eternal.

Are we witnessing new forms of “divinization” in public discourse today? The answer to this question defines our true freedom.

Author: Liber Aguiar (based on lectures by G.K. Wilson regarding Daniel 3)

The Reformation is recognized as one of the most important historical events of the modern era, praised in many fields, not only religious but also political and academic. And indeed, they are not wrong.

For many, in a positive sense, they view this period as an event permitted by God Himself to liberate “the church” from the clutches of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman “empire.” In this essay, we will demonstrate that there was actually more human influence than divine, although some important steps were made regarding religious freedom, causing drastic changes within society and Catholicism itself.

It is important to note that this work does not aim for a deep or exhaustive analysis of the topic; we will only attempt to connect some lesser-known and less-evaluated points, mainly by the general Christian religious community. To carry out this analysis and outline paths to other conclusions, we will touch upon another period that influenced those centuries, the Renaissance, and finally, focus on our main topic.

As has been shown numerous times in Way UP, one of the greatest damages done to the church has been the separation of politics and religion. Similarly, when evaluating the Reformation, its supporters only consider the religious consequences without understanding that it is necessary and obligatory to extend the analysis to all possible social spheres. Because, as in all of human history, nothing happened overnight, but rather through various processes. In this sense, the Reformation also occurred as a consequence of a process that had already been brewing in Medieval Europe.

In the Middle Ages, a period historically placed after the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church, Europe experienced significant changes due to the Crusades to reconquer the Holy Land, bringing development in fundamental areas such as the economy and politics. During these military campaigns, European leaders identified a great source of income through the existing trade routes between Europe and the Mediterranean, greatly developing relations between the two regions. Although the matter is not as simple as this, and we know that there were many conflicts, such as military invasions not only by the Crusaders in the Mediterranean but also Ottoman invasions of Europe, all this contributed to a drastic change within the sociopolitical organization of Europe, feudalism. In it, the clergy and nobility held absolute control and power, but the aforementioned economic boom led to rapid growth in many social areas. With the growth of economic power, military power also increased, and with it, political power expanded, making social, political, and religious reform only a matter of time. And this is where the Renaissance comes in.

The Renaissance is usually defined as a cultural movement in Medieval Europe around the 15th century. It has been called this because it is assumed there was a rebirth of classical ideas, particularly concerning logic and reason, based mainly on the teachings of Aristotle. However, we have indications that these ideas were never completely eliminated or banned, except in the lower social strata. It is known that the University of Paris in the 13th century used Aristotle’s teachings. We have the example of Thomas Aquinas, a great Catholic teacher and philosopher who became a fundamental figure in France and Italy. These two regions would later be essential because they would give rise to two of the most influential thinkers who marked this era, namely Niccolò Machiavelli in Italy and René Descartes in France. It is therefore logical to think that Aristotelian teachings never ceased to exist in the ecclesiastical peaks of the Catholic Church. They were simply limited in their use. There is therefore a question to be asked at this point: if the Renaissance is the supposed rebirth of Aristotelian ideas, but at the same time we see that they never really stopped being present within the Catholic leadership and very possibly within the political and social peaks, what really reborn?

Before answering this question, it is important to consider other elements. Many historians position this Renaissance period from the discovery of America. This means that by this point, the development resulting from all the aforementioned factors, economic expansion, infrastructure development, and cultural growth stemming from the spread of Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on Aristotelian reason and logic, were creating a mindset that began to fragment and crack the system established for so many centuries. Inevitably, the process began that included various schisms within European society. All this would also be reflected in the technological development that in turn allowed the rapid expansion of communication and information regardless of the distances. The creation of the printing press and the growing democratization of information also helped in many ways to the independence of individuals who could now share their ideas to regions unknown to them.

Undoubtedly, these processes were exerting an influence on the common European individual never seen before. Each person now had more opportunity to be informed, to know beyond their functions, and even more, to exert some influence even if they did not hold positions defined by nobles, kings, or ecclesiastical leaders. The possibility of mass mobilization took on another level, being useful to reform any old system like feudalism, which limited the potentials that new technologies and their consequences were showing, resulting in gains for those who saw these processes as an opportunity to rise within the closed European society thanks to the purchasing power that expanded to men outside the social peak. Therefore, and trying to answer the previously posed question, we can say that what was reborn was not precisely Aristotelian ideas, but the social impulse that due to an evidently necessary and perhaps even caused “awakening” gave rise to Aristotelian teachings, creating human independence without the need to depend on clerics or nobles.

The gradual development of all these Hellenic ideas gave rise to what we know today as humanism, which in turn created all kinds of social movements. This development can be seen clearly by simply comparing the two aforementioned philosophers. Machiavelli, with his rise in the early 16th century, and Descartes in the early 17th century. Both are clear examples of this development of ideas. Let us compare only the schools of thought of both philosophers, and we can perceive the rapid evolution in ideas and the complexities that were also created in just one century. On Machiavelli’s part, we can see that he developed within classical realism and republicanism. While in the case of Descartes we have a list: rationalism, Cartesianism, mechanism, innatism, foundationalism, conceptualism, Augustinianism, indirect realism, theory of truth, theological voluntarism, among others. As we can see, the competition of ideas grew incredibly.

It is precisely in this tumultuous century marked by humanism that the religious sphere would not escape its consequences. A radical change would take place at the peak of the leading religious movement in Europe: the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church. Now, one might think that the so-called Reformation began with Martin Luther in Germany with his 95 theses; however, it is known that several religious teachers had already exposed similar ideas much earlier. Such as John Huss and John Wycliffe. If Luther’s ideas, his courage, and bravery in posting those 95 theses in Gutenberg were what caused the diametric change, as many Protestants and evangelicals today quickly assume, why did Huss and Wycliffe not have the same “success” as Luther, being highly recognized teachers throughout Europe? The answer lies precisely in all the complexity explained so far.

This reform did not arise in any way just because Luther was a passionate and zealous person for the word of God, fervently wanting to expose the truth. He lived in an era where he knew how to use mass communication, that is, to the lower classes, while the growing humanism we talked about spontaneously did its work in those dissatisfied, mistreated, and at the same time hungry individuals who put into practice that humanist individualism of the time. Due to technology, all the political changes taking place across Europe, the growth of free thinkers, and the division of powers in all political and social spheres, Luther also saw the possibility of attacking the evident and abusive errors within the Catholic Church. This does not mean, nor am I saying, that Luther’s work was not of great merit, because even with all the moral support he might have received from the lower classes and some nobles who knew the various limitations imposed by the Catholic Church, he risked his life in it. Luther was condemned to death and rescued from his execution by an abduction by one of those nobles who supported him and knew that the change in the power of the Catholic Church was not only imminent but necessary.

Now, why did I start my essay comparing the influence of man with that of God in this whole process? Simply put, because today, four centuries later, the consequences have been that we have reached a point almost similar in the religious field to what the inhabitants of Europe lived in Luther’s time. How many deaths did the Protestant Reformation cause? How many wars between reformers and counter-reformers beyond the framework of healthy debate? How many conflicts among the same reformers that we still drag today? How many divisions were created? Did the Reformation solve the problem caused by the Catholic Church, or did it simply give many groups the opportunity to express their humanism in the way that seemed best to them in the religious sphere?

For my part, I believe, after four centuries of reaping the fruits of the Reformation, that we are very far from reaching the total reform that God really expects and wishes to influence. The Reformation, for what it was and how far it went, has been a political movement that had to happen in all social spheres due to the Renaissance and humanist boom of its time that also influenced it. Proof of this was Luther himself, who never intended to leave the ranks of Catholicism, even when he was aware of many of its inventions and the boot it placed on the heads of its parishioners, crushing them into the mud day after day, and keeping such an important region as Europe in complete obscurantism. Obscurantism that not only stayed there but extended to all continents they reached.

Today, we still live with the consequences of the Reformation. On one side, those who never accepted it but were forced to change many things within their ranks to confront that popular, strong, and democratic movement. And on the other side, those who, assuming the change, created a new Christianity that never returned to its historical and religious bases and that would ultimately be the most evident proof that they were not one hundred percent in God’s will. The latter, happy and content with the obtained freedoms, simply created another system with a little more openness, which would ultimately be one of the causes of ushering in the modern era we live in.

However, and to conclude, that famous response of Martin Luther to the question his mentor would ask him: “Do you imagine what would happen if every individual had a Bible in their hands?” Luther replied, “There would be more Christians.” Today, my opinion as a modern Christian after seeing the real situation we are in is that Luther was wrong in this, although it was a better answer than nothing for his historical context. Having more Bibles available does not produce more Christians because today they have them and do not read them or read them as they see fit. And all thanks to the humanization of ideas and, therefore, of the translations themselves. From my heart, I exhort you to take this complex issue more seriously and realistically, not to assume what is popularly said without considering all the tangled things seen here in a rather superficial way. If we were to delve into each of these points, we could really find the true path needed to walk toward the “Total Reformation Under God’s Guidance.”

Author: William Salazar

Throughout the evolution of human thought and its constant quest to understand the world, we have gone through periods of change in how we think and perceive reality. From the Renaissance to modern challenges, we have witnessed influences in philosophy, theology, and the entire Western culture. However, this journey has also confronted us with darker aspects of thought, which we could call “the assassins of reason.”

On one hand, the humanism that emerged during the Renaissance advocated for an individual-centered view and the exploration of the world from that perspective. However, by the 18th century, it began to decline, influenced mainly by the rise of relativism. This philosophical current questioned the existence of absolute truths, leading to widespread pessimism in areas such as science, philosophy, and theology. This pessimism is attributed to the absence of God in the humanist equation, which led to the search for alternative “absolutes” in an increasingly relative world. This resulted in a constant struggle for the supremacy of thought, where an elite would decide the direction of reason and the thought of the masses.

Alongside humanism, existentialism emerged, a current that places the individual at the center and bases judgment on one’s own perception or reasoning, regardless of the surrounding reality. This approach influenced movements like the hippies and Eastern religions, altering modern society’s perception of reality and its relationship with the individual. Simultaneously, part of the church, criticized for its silence in the face of the advance of humanism, seemed to remove the divine from the equation, giving rise to religious liberalism. This current reinterpreted religious teachings without considering the supernatural, favoring a society where human ethical and moral values prevailed over divine principles. This paradigmatic shift has brought with it contradictory and often illogical consequences in modern society, where each individual has their own truth, separate from the absolutes established by God and based on their own limited perspective. For example, while some vehemently defend the right of animals not to suffer, they advocate for the right to abortion, ignoring the right to life of the developing fetus. In another example, some promote the adoption of abandoned animals from the streets but feel no desire to help the homeless, treating them worse than animals.

In conclusion, the journey through the development of modern thought confronts us with these “assassins of reason,” currents of thought that have challenged our ability to discern the truth and have sown discord in society. Reflecting on this journey leads us to the task of reconciling our beliefs and values in a world where truth seems relative and reason is threatened.

Author: Mesac Mora

In ancient times, there were numerous individuals who, in one way or another, made significant contributions to the development of science and the modernization of society up to the present day. Although not all of them were Christians, they all lived within the frameworks of thought created by Christianity.

Many of these scientists made important discoveries for their time. Some examples include: Galileo Galilei, a physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who determined the movement of the stars and supported Copernicus’s theory of the Earth’s rotation around the sun. Blaise Pascal, a mathematician, writer, and inventor of the hydraulic press, worked with arithmetic and the equilibrium of liquids. For him, humanity was of utmost importance since Jesus had agonized on the cross for its cause. Other important names include Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Michael Faraday, just to mention a few.

It is said that scientists of the 17th century were interested in the how of things, but not the why. However, this statement is partially incorrect, as for them there was no problem concerning the why, since they started their analysis from the premise that God exists and is personal. He is a moral absolute who had created the Universe, and therefore, there was great interest in the Bible as it contained His revelation, and it had been a gift to humanity. A significant number of these scientists would have been confused by anyone obsessed with the how without starting from the premise that the why had already been revealed.

Interestingly, for these pioneers of modern science, humanity is not alone, and the biblical teachings regarding history and the cosmos were taken seriously. God, as the creator of humanity, gave people the capacity to develop in the arts and science itself. This gave a strong impetus to creative changes in science, not to be something merely transient, but continuous. God Himself had benevolently given dominion over nature to humans, and for Francis Bacon, for example, science was part of this. Investigating the world was valid for all of them because it meant exploring, that is, pondering over God’s marvelous Creation.

Just like any coin has two different sides, the modern scientific era has been the opposite side of everything mentioned above. Here, science has been the result of relativism, where these other scientists did not see an ordered universe based on the creation of a moral and absolute God, but rather a world of cause and effect. Humanity and nature were at the center of everything, and God had been forgotten. This led to numerous atrocities in society, with a new type of humanist scientist arising who established that the fittest among humans should prevail. This favored the emergence of figures like Adolf Hitler, who, in attempting to create a superior human race, led to the murder and extermination of millions of human beings.

Thus, everything has resulted in a modern man for whom there is no marked limit between what should and should not be done, and therefore, does everything he can do. Any moral duty is only what is sociologically accepted at that moment. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where if you disagree with all these libertine trends, you are considered odd, where it doesn’t matter if your principles are God’s principles. It’s like the law of the jungle where the strongest prevails. A purely humanistic world where man is manipulated to try to change God’s creation and alter his way of thinking, seeing himself as his own God.

Today, we often hear the phrases: “You can do anything,” and: “You can be whatever you want to be if you set your mind to it.” I would call this: “The big lie.” We must understand that without a biblical foundation, without a moral absolute that is God, nothing would be achieved in this world. How clear those early developers of science were, who based their advancements on the Creator God of the universe.

I would like to recommend the documentary: How Should We Then Live?, in its episode 6 (The Scientific Age), based on the book of the same name by writer and lecturer Francis Schaeffer. This will help delve deeper into the topic we have discussed here.

Author: Julio Hernández

The word inspired by God, the Bible, not only empowers us to strengthen our spirit but also nourishes us with teachings and phrases capable of filling us with encouragement and hope. Its 613 commandments offer human beings guidance towards God (before the messianic arrival) and laws for living together in society (even more so now that we have Salvation and the Spirit).

A society that places God first and governs itself by His decrees will have strong values and a perfect system of laws to sustain itself.

In a historical period, the Protestant Reformation in Northern Europe emphasized that the Bible was the ultimate authority. Although common citizens were liberated from arbitrary governmental power, it is important to note that these people did not place God first, which meant that this part of society was gradually incorporating values based on its humanistic view of life and the philosophical thoughts that governed society, moving further away from the Creator and the precepts and statutes He gave us in His word.

Samuel Rutherford’s work, “Lex Rex” (1644), provided the people with a basis for political control over their sovereign, a freedom without chaos, rather than arbitrary human government. This work significantly influenced the American constitution, and unfortunately, today many have forgotten that influence and have moved away from the absolute morality that God offers us in His law.

John Witherspoon, president of Princeton University and signatory of the Declaration of Independence, was a faithful follower of Rutherford’s work. Although not all U.S. founders were Christians, what they fostered rested on the Protestant Reformation through Rutherford’s work.

Thomas Jefferson, another signatory of the constitution and its principal architect, adopted the Christianized and secularized teachings of John Locke, an English philosopher who emphasized inalienable rights, government by consensus, separation of powers, and the right to revolution. Locke, lacking Rutherford’s Christian foundation, built upon it and secularized it. He was the father of empiricism, a philosophical movement asserting that sensory experience was the only source of knowledge, and reason logically ordered what was perceived through the senses.

With all this philosophy created by human thought and based on what man can achieve on his own, without considering the Creator and the laws He had already given to man, every endeavor, whether individual or social, is doomed to failure. Simply put, man, in trying to prove he can do things as if he created himself, becomes utterly ridiculous in life’s situations, ignoring in his incapacity that he must rely on the One who created him. In summary, a man who believes he is sufficient in himself will only undermine himself and any society he decides to create.

The U.S. Constitution is considered by many as an example for the world, defending the freedom of its citizens with a compendium of laws that benefit them. However, it would be even better if this constitution had explicitly been based on the Word of God and had taken into account future changes, not only in social dynamics but also in society’s worldview. For instance, nowadays, although we know which God they referred to, its ambiguity is manipulated by those postmodernists who argue that it speaks of a universalist god with different names according to the culture, including the most pagan cultures, when it is clear that the God of the Bible rejects idolatry and does not accept that man develops such beliefs. How different the current situation would be if only this had been defined and the whole society clearly understood the social need to be guided by the one preexistent God, who created the heavens and the earth, and who revealed Himself through the people of Israel, culminating in His incarnation as their Messiah. How different would be man’s life in this world if we enjoyed the gift that GOD gave us in creating us, not as just another animal, but in His image, according to His likeness, and if we could truly say that we love Him, guided by Him.

Author: Efrén Martínez

Fragmentation is a phenomenon that spread across various spheres of social life at the beginning of the 20th century through art. This phenomenon gave rise to the possibility of representing truth, life, and even objective reality from an individual perspective. This fragmentation would come to define modernity and analyzing it could shed light on many crucial areas influencing modern man and his tendencies. As a spontaneous process, we will analyze what preceded it and why this phenomenon occurred, which has impacted up to our present day, then focusing on its analysis and consequences. For this, we will start from the late 19th century, where a new philosophical current in painting emerged called “Impressionism.”

Francis Schaeffer in his book How Should We Then Live? says: “Impressionism is therefore a renewing and innovative current, not only in technique but in the very essence of pictorial art. According to the impressionists, there is no object of a specific color; the color of an object depends on how it receives light, its intensity, and the refraction of neighboring colors. They painted what struck their eye.” (p. 60). Through this new trend in human thought that relied entirely on the “impression” of the author, a new period emerged that would be called: the modern era.

As we have seen, this modern era was no longer necessarily dependent on the reality of things, but rather on the inclination or viewpoint of the author or individual. Thus, the doors were opened to the redefinition and innovation of the world from an individualistic perspective. Shortly thereafter, this artistic impressionism was displaced due to its own development. What had begun as an impression regarding the light on an object soon became a tool for creating new realities based on each painter’s impression, analysis, or desire, even if the tangible and objective reality of the world was absent. Thus, impressionism moved from reflecting light on an object to a new stage where the impression began in the artist’s mind rather than based on a tangible or real fact.

This new stage was termed Post-Impressionism, where reality could be changed by the individual and their ideas, even reaching the unreal. Therefore, it was no longer necessary to depend on the objective characteristics of reality. In this way, many artists, realizing the consequences of the new trend, attempted to rediscover reality within the individual, thinking that this would be a solution to the loss of absolute values that had been developing in the intellectual world for centuries. However, that Post-Impressionism had penetrated so quickly into all spheres of thought that, as the street saying goes: “The cure was worse than the disease.”

The consequences of turning to particulars or individuals in search of reality resulted in Post-Impressionism extending beyond the boundaries of art to become the guiding line of thought determining reality. This influence has been so profound that we continue to experience it in the 21st century. Thus, constantly and absolutely relying on particulars opened the doors for everything to fragment into an infinity of particulars, including intangible things such as morality and everything that governed man up to that point.

It is also undeniable to note that fragmentation in different spheres of life brought much development. For example, this line of thought would aid in sciences and studies across various fields for a better understanding of all that sparked curiosity in man. From this emerged what is known today as different work teams, where by fragmenting a specific unit, they could take charge of one of those fragmentations more carefully and thus dedicate all the possible energy. And as a result, there has been great progress because each team specialized in an area leading to many conclusions allowing great advancement and development. And that is why we will see that everything from discoveries of substances, medications, diseases, technology, the economy, etc., will arise from there.

But what would be the problem with fragmentation? Because when you start to fragment everything without any limits, not only can you unlink each particular from its original unit or set, creating something completely new, but you also begin to divide the sense of responsibility and influence regarding the result according to the fragmented unit. That’s why, just as beneficial things can be created, new realities and conflicts can also arise from fragmentation. Trying to create a new reality from fragments of a unit does not guarantee that such reality can be achieved, but it could be creating an imminent disaster. For example, thanks to these fragmentations and investigations, man was able to create medicinal or aesthetic products, but if they are not connected to a complexity of structures and functions in which they unfold, they will lack the consequences of such inventions immediately, and their results can be as devastating as cancer or any side effect that only appears in the future when that set in which the particular is found begins to respond to its interconnection and in many occasions there is no solution.

Now, just as we have these types of phenomena in the material aspect, man began to use fragmentation for philosophical studies and analysis. The search for truth and the definition of morality, among other important aspects, began to fragment. In the same way, many advances were made regarding certain complex topics, but often forgetting the unity of such fragmentations began to create “realities” that contradicted the objective reality of the unit. Much more so if we consider that Post-Impressionism, due to that “impression of each author,” opened the doors so that reality did not necessarily have to be tangible, and this affected morality already weakened by the strong impact of humanism that had been on the rise since centuries earlier after the French Revolution. That’s why it led each individual to see himself as the center of everything and began to feed his egocentrism and individualism, and sadly, not only in the arts, but also in his daily life. Thus, a completely influenced individual and educated in an increasingly fragmented system began to emerge.

The consequences would be seen in practical social life, as each individual would bring that fragmentation to their morals and character, thus also fragmenting reasoning and decisions to be made. If each person is inclined to create their own reality apart from all objectivity, and furthermore creates the ability to fragment processes and decisions, then they will also be able to manipulate any situation and even avoid responsibilities for their actions and decisions, ultimately forming a society full of inconsistent individuals. This inconsistency would in turn become the common moral pattern in 21st-century Postmodernism, where we can already perceive that what we call inconsistency here is now common. In fact, today what is socially accepted inconsistency for the majority is called the “new man.” And when something becomes a common norm and is accepted by the majority, everything will be measured under that moral standard, especially when each person can create their own reality. It is the pinnacle of relativity and chaos. And in the world of relativity, it is better for inconsistency regarding objectivity to be accepted as “objective” so that everyone can do as they please without being judged.

Obviously, this would only point to chaos, because from the moment that individualism based solely on someone’s opinion is fostered, in their fragmentation of truth and the “reality” that depends on their own moral standard, then this individual will have no brakes when manipulating their “reality,” even when contradictions arise within their analysis. I am reminded of that famous quote by Machiavelli: “the end justifies the means.” For this character, fragmenting the process regarding a specific goal gave him the possibility to focus on the outcome even if the process went against his own moral standards in order to obtain the desired result. Thus showing a double standard, or rather one that is adaptable to circumstances. This is known as the essential part of what is called Moral Relativism.

It can be concluded that this fragmentation causes unthinkable harm because it creates a “new man” capable of forming a unique reality based on their perspective, needs, and personal goals, where each stage of their process can be justified through the fragmentation of morality that they can constantly manipulate as their own desires. With no moral absolute as a standard, man is free to fragment his reality and truth, therefore, the level of manipulation and cynicism will have no limits as long as that man has a determined interest.

Today, we are experiencing the consequences of this moral fragmentation. We live among men who no longer have integrity, who no longer know what is good or bad beyond their own interests, men without any discernment to call things by their name when necessary, men who can betray at any moment even when it is not understood as betrayal by them. Fragmentation opens the door to justify anything if there is no absolute guiding and moral standard. Modern Christianity has greatly fallen into this same moral fragmentation, and the double standard of life is evident among many “Christians.” Romanticism and the idea of a God determined by the perspective and impression of each individual are increasing. There is nothing more dangerous than believing in a God who accommodates you alone because it suits you. The 21st-century Christian must understand that God is real, and as real, He does not accommodate anyone, but we must know Him and approach Him as He is. Otherwise, we are creating a God who does not exist, and that has spiritual and material consequences.

The Christian must pause and reflect on the need to rid oneself of all influence from our increasingly fragmented humanistic society when it comes to moral matters. This distances us from God and His absolute morality. It is the task of every believer and lover of God to have clarity on this matter and to make others understand this reality that affects the modern church. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that is more than clear in His Word. The only reality that exists is the unchangeable reality of our God and Creator who created us to live and enjoy that reality with Him.

Author: Hr. William Salazar

What we know as the Renaissance marked a period of remarkable transformations that reverberated across various spheres. This phenomenon, which took place between the 14th and 17th centuries, revolutionized culture, the perception of the world, and human thought. We observe a resurgence of thought, with humanity striving to explain the world from its perspective, developing a more humanistic view centered on the individual.

In the cultural sphere, its impact was considerable, and its influence persists in how we understand the world today. In disciplines like art and painting, significant advances were achieved by perfecting representation with more realistic nuances. For instance, Masaccio stood out by portraying real faces in his paintings, something unique at that time. Individuals were depicted in a space, indicating that humans were situated in an environment subordinate to principles invented by the human mind and its harmony with the surroundings.

Observation of nature and its artistic expression allowed for a better understanding, evolving towards a more realistic representation with individuals firmly grounded. This symbolized a stronger connection to the surrounding reality, showing an evolution from earlier art where individuals seemed suspended in the air.

The detailed observation of natural events during the Renaissance facilitated a better understanding through the study of these events, many of which are still taught in contemporary universities.

Writers were also influenced by the Renaissance, manifesting in their works the dilemma between individual things and their meaning and values.

So, was it truly a rebirth, a transformation, or a rediscovery? The Renaissance did not resurrect something dead but developed something that already existed, discovering a way to explain the world from the human perspective.

At the start of the Renaissance, humans had their place in nature, but over time, they placed themselves above everything, becoming increasingly independent and paving the way for humanism with its currents that persist to this day.

The Renaissance humanist believed in reviving the pre-Christian era, the golden age of the ancient Romans and Greeks. Centuries later, Thomas Aquinas paved the way by emphasizing Aristotle’s teachings, as depicted in Raphael’s work “The School of Athens,” where the central figures are Plato and Aristotle. Plato points upward, towards God and the eternal, while Aristotle, with his palm downward, points to the earthly, the individual, nature, and man.

This dilemma between humanism, the Bible, and Christianity leads to a starting point that begins with man as an autonomous being, where truth is relative or, if there is truth, it comes from another source and must be absolute, pointing towards God.

The independence of human thought and the importance given to the individual over the whole lead humanity towards a state of degradation and fragmentation, resulting in the loss of integrity at the individual, social, and ethical levels. This leads to a loss of meaning and purpose that results in failure. The only viable solution leads us to God as the source of purpose and meaning in human life, as He gives meaning to the entire mechanism and functioning of creation.

Author: Mesac Martinez

The Roman Empire, with its vast expansion across Europe, the Near East, and North Africa, left a profound mark on the modern Western world. A clear example of its enduring legacy is Roman Law, which continues to be studied in law universities worldwide.

Despite its military greatness and its ability to subjugate other peoples, Rome lacked a solid moral foundation to guide daily life. The republic was based on the criteria of prestigious citizens, and the emperor, lacking a firm basis, often made decisions driven by his egocentrism. This lack of moral and spiritual foundations led Roman society to seek answers in limited gods, divine beings who shared human problems.

In the face of failures and social tensions, Rome sought refuge in its gods. However, these gods, besides being false, were limited and lacked the perfection necessary to guide society. The need for a solid moral foundation led them to accept an authoritarian government based on man himself, a lifelong dictator attempting to restore the system.

The Roman people began to venerate the emperor not only as a god but as the supreme being, granting him the power to govern and influence legislation according to his will. However, the worship of a human god remained a weak foundation. In contrast, those who embraced the gospel found in Jesus a moral absolute from the Creator, thus rejecting the worship of Caesar. This resistance was the real reason why Christians were persecuted and killed.

By accepting Jesus as the expected Messiah, Christians adopted a moral absolute that guided their lives. Meanwhile, Rome, devoid of solid foundations, sank into decadence. Despite the persecution, Christians found refuge in the catacombs, clinging to the guidance and hope that God provided them.

This narrative highlights the fundamental differences between those who have experienced radical regeneration, anchored in divine statutes, and those who, lacking solid moral foundations, suffer the consequences of their own interpretations of life. The lesson is clear: turning away from God and living based on human ideas leads to frustration and failure under life’s pressures. As the Lord said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing.”

Author: Efrén Martínez