So We All Love God...

[KT45]

It's your best day that you ever had with your significant other. It's the highest bliss and the most perfect ecstasy you have ever known. When you are genuinely in love with someone you naturally flow into your next experience. When you say "I do" to the one you want to marry, at that moment you're not thinking what's the future going to be like, etc. I have heard it said that the word worship actually means "to kiss toward."

Amy, I just think it's funny that no man would describe his relationship with god quite like you do. Well maybe some would but they would probably be kicked out of church

[Antlerman]

I guess I should thanks. I am not generally used to getting compliments from non-Christians!

I give compliments based on the merits of the individual, not the affiliation. I am finding these conversations refreshing because I am hearing what sounds like your own thoughts, rather than simple parrot speak from an army of would-be apologists. Exchanges of thoughts are one of the highest pursuits in the human experience, IMO.

 

Anyway, my picture of Heaven and the New Earth is rather humanistic in a sense, since God has changed the desires of humanity from self-serving to God-serving, which means they will also serve their fellow man with loving respect.

I believe in a sense you and I are seeing the same thing as the ideal, except using a different language to describe it. Bear with me for a little while.

 

In being human we are two things: 1) We are biological animals with the primary goal of individual survival; 2) We are social animals that need other humans to aid in the pursuit of our individual survival. In the interest of strengthening that society, each of the individuals participating in it contribute of themselves to create collectively an “organism” of sorts that serves them each individually. Humans find through cooperation, the individual is best served.

 

Instincts for individual survival that do not work with others to benefit that collective community which is able to benefit everyone, are frowned upon and discouraged by the social order as they work against it. They create a language of words that demonize it, that carry extreme negative reinforcements against such self-interested behaviors that weaken the society that others desire to benefit from. Words like greed, selfishness, evil, etc take on connotations that reflect the depth of disapproval of the society. Mythologies are created that have anthropomorphic symbolism for these words. They become gods, like Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Evil, etc. The language reinforces the agreed upon standards of any given society to preserve order for itself, for the benefit of the majority.

 

Likewise, “God”, is such a symbol. God is a word that embodies the higher values of that human society that work in its best interest. Consideration of community weighed against individual interests; Peace; Love; Patience; Understanding; Compassion; etc, all of which serve the community, which in turns serves the individual. A language is created to extol these attitudes and consequently actions as virtues. The anthropomorphic symbol of God puts a face for humans to connect with these values. God is the incarnation of human values.

 

So back to what you said, “Anyway, my picture of Heaven and the New Earth is rather humanistic in a sense, since God has changed the desires of humanity from self-serving to God-serving, which means they will also serve their fellow man with loving respect,” those desires are already taking place now. If they were not there would be a breakdown of society altogether. I wonder if what you are saying is that you feel that this idea of Heaven would be one where man no longer needs to struggle to police itself as it does today?

 

If so, which I suspect is the real heart of this, isn’t this itself a language used that is reflective of that struggle society has today in keeping order, where it feels powerless at times with that inescapable conflict that is present in being human? Isn’t it the cry of that anguish to be more than human?

 

We want this collectively upheld symbol of the values of society that we imbue with absolute power for us, this “God” as we call “Him”, to be our police force for us? To accomplish what we toil endlessly towards? Heaven is a mythical symbol of our own desire as a society for the goal we struggle towards daily, and our dream of it is an expression of our feeling weary of our labors in the endless tasks of self-policing.

 

These are real places and beings that we create in our minds to inspire us to continually struggle forward for the collective good of human society. Heaven and God are a language of human aspirations.

 

When a person truly loves God, and no one does fully, they would be humble, serving others ebfore themselves, and helpful when they could, since that is what God commands from humanity. However, this would all be done because they love God fully, which is a very subtle, but meaningful, distinction when they are perceived by the outside world. When a person truly desires God's will over their own, it will make the world a better place, but that is more often than not the case because most people, Christians included, do not desire what God desires, which lead to various problems, both big and small, but all important.

A thought just occurred to me to try here. Substitute the words “their community” every time you see the word God above. Of course no one can love fully their community because we have greed naturally as part of being a human animal, as I mentioned above, but the goal of considering others for the benefit of the community is of great value to self. Being “civilized” to me means being able to recognize that it is in the best interested of myself to have other’s interests in mind also.

 

What I hear as a potential problem with the heaven myth is that perhaps it is better to not demonize being human, but to recognize it for what being alive as a human is, and to work with it ourselves in a positive manner, rather than to view what is normal as wicked, bad, and evil. We should love ourselves, and forgive ourselves for actions that work against the community we are participants in (those values which of course we ourselves have agreed are correct ones as opposed to ones we disagree with on philosophical grounds – another discussion).

 

As for your last comments, theology will, in fact, be shown to be very incomplete, since God is infinite, there is an infinite amount of information to understand, which is not even close to being complete at the present moment, nor will it ever be close to being complete. As for dogmatism, it will be a thing of the past, since the ignorance of humanity will be seen as very humbling, but aslo as a great gift because there will always be the knowledge that there will always be more to study. So, arrogant assertions based out of ignorance will be a thing of the past, since we will be humbled by the things we don't know, rather than bolstered by the things we do know. Hope this helps...

Theology is simply a framework for mythology, which is a framework of language for understanding and communicating abstract concepts of human ideals. This crosses into where I have a problem with religious institutions and schools of thought that cling to ideas as absolutes.

 

People create these ideas out of needs which present themselves. Nothing in this world, especially in human society is ever static. It is nice to elevate the symbols to “divine” status as representing the highest of human aspirations, but people created these symbols for themselves, and serve these symbols so these symbols can serve them. Because the world changes, and society changes, these symbols must be allowed to change also. Otherwise they will fail to speak to the society that needs them, and instead become an anchor around their necks. This describes institutional religion versus human spirituality.

 

I am seeing in all these things you are saying, nothing really different than what I am saying, except for my not using mythology as a language to describe it. The differences I see are that I remove notions of absolutes, though I can’t say I necessarily am hearing you speak that way. We may also different on some ideas of what are truly unhealthy for society or not, but getting over making "God" some sorce of authority supporting your ideas is what I mean by abandoning dogma. At best if some is going to use God as the authority, they should soften it some by saying, "as I view God saying...", and being open to seeing things from the other persons point of view - which really, ultimately, is all we will ever have.

 

I look forward to your response. Maybe next post won’t be so long, but then again…

[LostOrFound]

Just a bit of an aside:

 

I find the terms "worship God", "glorify God", "give praise to God" and other similar terms as empty and meaningless as the word "God". They lack any kind of coherent definition. They (obviously from the things said on this very thread) mean different things to different people.

 

Even if we (or any group of people) could agree on definitions, we would still be left with the question "why?" I think the typical answer is "because he is worthy"... but what does that mean? Ask 10 different people and you'll likely get at least 8 different answers.

 

For goodness sake, how can people agree on what it means to worship God when they can't even agree on who or what God is?

 

Oh well, just thought I'd toss these ideas into the mix.

[Thackerie]

... I find the terms "worship God", "glorify God", "give praise to God" and other similar terms as empty and meaningless as the word "God". ... Even if we (or any group of people) could agree on definitions, we would still be left with the question "why?" I think the typical answer is "because he is worthy"... but what does that mean? ...

 

I did ask "why?". The response boiled down to "worshipping God would result in the greatest happiness a human being can feel, if all human selfishness were obliterated" which I find to be a very non-satisfying, non-answer.

 

Aside from the fact that I have yet to meet, or hear of, a god worshipper completely free of all human selfishness (and my belief that a little self-interest can actually be a good thing), I don't think an all-knowing, all-powerful deity would need worship or anything else from us mere mortals.

 

Also, what's god got to do with it? I don't think a god is at all necessary to inspire us to be good, loving people who strive to achieve our full potentials, in art or literature or whatever realms we participate in. In fact, it seems to me that a fixed belief in the nature of god or in some religious doctrine in actually an impediment to human achievement.

 

And, if one wants to call the creative force or the energy, or whatever it is, that is in all humans "god," that's fine with me -- but I don't see what that has to do with the god depicted in the bible or with christianity, unless one engages in a "leap of faith" so broad as to obliterate all rational thought.

[Piprus]

Quickened Pariah, I can't fault one for envisioning The Perfect World, whether from a christian perspective or some other. But what comes to mind is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with god substuting for soma. In the end, it fails because of human nature.

[Checkmate]

Sure there are men who use romantic language to describe there relationship with the Lord. In places like France and Spain the word Soul is in the feminine gender, so the Soul was often called "She." Men had no problem believing Jesus was married to the soul, thus the union with Christ being spirit to spirit or spiritual.

 

You'll find a lot of this type of language in Catholic mysticism, especially writings on the Song od Solomon.

..........

Allow me...

 

[Guest Quickened Pariah]

I suppose I will admit that erotic art is not necessarily wrong, but I would admit it should be judged on the basis of its purpose.

Where would you draw the line? No matter what line you draw there are always ways to push it as long as people have creativity

Song of Solomon is a fairly erotic book, and it is God glorifying, so I will concede that erotic art is not always wrong.

Look at the two pictures I posted. What do you think about those? Would they fit in your christian society?

However, in terms of a perfect, Christian society, ie. New Earth, erotic art will really be nothing of the sort, since there will no longer be sexual attraction, at least in the normal sense.

Why do you assume this? Do you get this from the scripture about no marriage in the afterlife?

But that is not to say erotic art still won't exist, it just won't be "erotic." Thank you for reminding me of the Song of Solomon and its content.

your welcome. There are more christan sexual scriptures in the bible. Look at the book of Esther when she tries to please the king to replace the queen who wouldn't dance for him.

 

PS. It is very curious to hear an atheist say something is wrong with, as least what appears like, such vehemence. Anyway, thanks again for bringing up Song of Solomon

Humans are all passionate whether they are religious or not. All artist, atheist or religious should be passionate about art and artist expression. So no need to be surprised

 

 

The line is, in the current state of affairs, a very relative and nearly impossible to draw, at least when it comes to being "fair." In Heaven, such a thing will no longer be the case, since humanity will have only purity and righteousness in mind. When that comes to the appropriateness of a certain painting in Heaven, it will not be offensive, but I really have no clue where the line should, or will, be drawn, or how that will be manifested.

 

As for your two images, I cannot honestly say if they would be allowed in Heaven; it's really a coin toss. If they are acceptable, that will be fine, if they aren't, that will be fine with me, too.

 

You are correct in thinking that I draw my assumption from this, as well as other Biblical truths which I see are applicable in a perfect, Christian society.

[Guest Quickened Pariah]

I guess I should thanks. I am not generally used to getting compliments from non-Christians!

I give compliments based on the merits of the individual, not the affiliation. I am finding these conversations refreshing because I am hearing what sounds like your own thoughts, rather than simple parrot speak from an army of would-be apologists. Exchanges of thoughts are one of the highest pursuits in the human experience, IMO.

 

Anyway, my picture of Heaven and the New Earth is rather humanistic in a sense, since God has changed the desires of humanity from self-serving to God-serving, which means they will also serve their fellow man with loving respect.

I believe in a sense you and I are seeing the same thing as the ideal, except using a different language to describe it. Bear with me for a little while.

 

In being human we are two things: 1) We are biological animals with the primary goal of individual survival; 2) We are social animals that need other humans to aid in the pursuit of our individual survival. In the interest of strengthening that society, each of the individuals participating in it contribute of themselves to create collectively an “organism” of sorts that serves them each individually. Humans find through cooperation, the individual is best served.

 

Instincts for individual survival that do not work with others to benefit that collective community which is able to benefit everyone, are frowned upon and discouraged by the social order as they work against it. They create a language of words that demonize it, that carry extreme negative reinforcements against such self-interested behaviors that weaken the society that others desire to benefit from. Words like greed, selfishness, evil, etc take on connotations that reflect the depth of disapproval of the society. Mythologies are created that have anthropomorphic symbolism for these words. They become gods, like Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Evil, etc. The language reinforces the agreed upon standards of any given society to preserve order for itself, for the benefit of the majority.

 

Likewise, “God”, is such a symbol. God is a word that embodies the higher values of that human society that work in its best interest. Consideration of community weighed against individual interests; Peace; Love; Patience; Understanding; Compassion; etc, all of which serve the community, which in turns serves the individual. A language is created to extol these attitudes and consequently actions as virtues. The anthropomorphic symbol of God puts a face for humans to connect with these values. God is the incarnation of human values.

 

So back to what you said, “Anyway, my picture of Heaven and the New Earth is rather humanistic in a sense, since God has changed the desires of humanity from self-serving to God-serving, which means they will also serve their fellow man with loving respect,” those desires are already taking place now. If they were not there would be a breakdown of society altogether. I wonder if what you are saying is that you feel that this idea of Heaven would be one where man no longer needs to struggle to police itself as it does today?

 

If so, which I suspect is the real heart of this, isn’t this itself a language used that is reflective of that struggle society has today in keeping order, where it feels powerless at times with that inescapable conflict that is present in being human? Isn’t it the cry of that anguish to be more than human?

 

We want this collectively upheld symbol of the values of society that we imbue with absolute power for us, this “God” as we call “Him”, to be our police force for us? To accomplish what we toil endlessly towards? Heaven is a mythical symbol of our own desire as a society for the goal we struggle towards daily, and our dream of it is an expression of our feeling weary of our labors in the endless tasks of self-policing.

 

These are real places and beings that we create in our minds to inspire us to continually struggle forward for the collective good of human society. Heaven and God are a language of human aspirations.

 

When a person truly loves God, and no one does fully, they would be humble, serving others ebfore themselves, and helpful when they could, since that is what God commands from humanity. However, this would all be done because they love God fully, which is a very subtle, but meaningful, distinction when they are perceived by the outside world. When a person truly desires God's will over their own, it will make the world a better place, but that is more often than not the case because most people, Christians included, do not desire what God desires, which lead to various problems, both big and small, but all important.

A thought just occurred to me to try here. Substitute the words “their community” every time you see the word God above. Of course no one can love fully their community because we have greed naturally as part of being a human animal, as I mentioned above, but the goal of considering others for the benefit of the community is of great value to self. Being “civilized” to me means being able to recognize that it is in the best interested of myself to have other’s interests in mind also.

 

What I hear as a potential problem with the heaven myth is that perhaps it is better to not demonize being human, but to recognize it for what being alive as a human is, and to work with it ourselves in a positive manner, rather than to view what is normal as wicked, bad, and evil. We should love ourselves, and forgive ourselves for actions that work against the community we are participants in (those values which of course we ourselves have agreed are correct ones as opposed to ones we disagree with on philosophical grounds – another discussion).

 

As for your last comments, theology will, in fact, be shown to be very incomplete, since God is infinite, there is an infinite amount of information to understand, which is not even close to being complete at the present moment, nor will it ever be close to being complete. As for dogmatism, it will be a thing of the past, since the ignorance of humanity will be seen as very humbling, but aslo as a great gift because there will always be the knowledge that there will always be more to study. So, arrogant assertions based out of ignorance will be a thing of the past, since we will be humbled by the things we don't know, rather than bolstered by the things we do know. Hope this helps...

Theology is simply a framework for mythology, which is a framework of language for understanding and communicating abstract concepts of human ideals. This crosses into where I have a problem with religious institutions and schools of thought that cling to ideas as absolutes.

 

People create these ideas out of needs which present themselves. Nothing in this world, especially in human society is ever static. It is nice to elevate the symbols to “divine” status as representing the highest of human aspirations, but people created these symbols for themselves, and serve these symbols so these symbols can serve them. Because the world changes, and society changes, these symbols must be allowed to change also. Otherwise they will fail to speak to the society that needs them, and instead become an anchor around their necks. This describes institutional religion versus human spirituality.

 

I am seeing in all these things you are saying, nothing really different than what I am saying, except for my not using mythology as a language to describe it. The differences I see are that I remove notions of absolutes, though I can’t say I necessarily am hearing you speak that way. We may also different on some ideas of what are truly unhealthy for society or not, but getting over making "God" some sorce of authority supporting your ideas is what I mean by abandoning dogma. At best if some is going to use God as the authority, they should soften it some by saying, "as I view God saying...", and being open to seeing things from the other persons point of view - which really, ultimately, is all we will ever have.

 

I look forward to your response. Maybe next post won’t be so long, but then again…

 

 

I will agree with you that certain human aspirations do indeed manifest themselves in certain ways, including symbolic representations, which can even include religious mythologies. With that in mind, I would then disagree with you that the true God is a manifestation of these values, for reasons that go beyond the subject matter of this thread, although I wouldn’t mind a discussion on this point at a later time and thread. Instead, God, and I, naturally, am meaning the Christian God, instilled humans with these values when He created us. Therefore, these instilled, and common, values would manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including mythologies.

 

As for your second point, although Heaven may be viewed as a means of self-policing, I do not view it, at least entirely, in that way. Instead, Heaven is the place where the evil a Christians struggles with their entire life is finally extinguished, and they can at last worship God without our sin getting in our way. Heaven, for the Christian, is not a culmination of perfect relationships with each other; it is the culmination of humans finally having a perfect relationship with God. Heaven, ultimately, is merely a place, rather than an ideal, it is an abode, not a manifestation of a contrived human notion of perfection. God is the ultimate desire of a Christian, a personal, communicating Father, and we do not think of Him as a mere symbolic representation of the “good” values found in humanity. He is the source of these virtues, but He is not identical to them, which I believe is a necessary distinction to make.

 

There is just one problem, that I see, with you substitution. Christians, and I would say general humanity, do not see “their community” as a personal, loving Father, which Christians do. God is personal, involved, and interested in our own personal ideas, motivations, lives, etc. Whereas a “community” is ultimately an impersonal way of saying a collection of human individuals interacting with each other, which is wholly different from the Christian concept of God. The selfish instincts, which manifest themselves in a great variety of ways, of humanity are, ultimately, a perversion of God’s original creation, and imperfections are never, and, in my opinion, should not, tolerated in a painter’s art or an engineer’s machine. What is always natural or normal does not mean it is always beneficial or good, which I believe we can agree on. That being said, I sincerely hope and desire my own imperfections and faults to be wholly obliterated, and not merely tolerated or perceived differently.

 

Ah, I think I am seeing what you are saying. I believe that humanity should change themselves into God’s standards, rather than God change to our standards. Of course, that is a belief that I will not see becoming a reality for a long time to come, in my opinion. Society and culture can, and will, change, but, as I am sure you would agree, there are certain things which rarely, if ever, change. This includes the perceptions of certain actions as generally noble, like charity or forgiveness. Thus, these actions show evidence of continuity among the changes of human culture, which I believe can also be valid in saying God’s standards can act in much the same way. They are things which never, and cannot, be changed, although the environments around them most certainly do. I certainly hope that makes some sense. However, in the Christian worldview, God Himself will be the One we change around, and we will not ask Him to change for us. However, unfortunately, the standards of God which are so present in the human heart can, and are, corrupted into selfish gain and dogmatic rule. This does not, however, mean the standards themselves are evil, just that good, when used in conjunction with human selfishness, can be used for evil, or, in this case, dogma.

 

Just a bit of an aside:

 

I find the terms "worship God", "glorify God", "give praise to God" and other similar terms as empty and meaningless as the word "God". They lack any kind of coherent definition. They (obviously from the things said on this very thread) mean different things to different people.

 

Even if we (or any group of people) could agree on definitions, we would still be left with the question "why?" I think the typical answer is "because he is worthy"... but what does that mean? Ask 10 different people and you'll likely get at least 8 different answers.

 

For goodness sake, how can people agree on what it means to worship God when they can't even agree on who or what God is?

 

Oh well, just thought I'd toss these ideas into the mix.

 

There is a great deal of truth in your words. I personally believe these things will only be finally settled when God reveals Himself. However, I suppose we could debate on these things in the meantime.

 

Quickened Pariah, I can't fault one for envisioning The Perfect World, whether from a christian perspective or some other. But what comes to mind is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with god substuting for soma. In the end, it fails because of human nature.

 

I believe any utopia established, if that could ever happen in the first place, by humans will ultimately fail because of evil present in human nature. Which is why, in Heaven, God will remove our sinful tendencies, so that we may truly live in accordance with Him and His Law.

[Taphophilia]

Quickened Pariah,

 

I know you don't mean to be condescending to us when you painstakenly explain Christian beliefs as though we don't know anything about them.

 

We used to be Christians.

 

Thanks

 

Taph

[KT45]

nothing of the sort, since there will no longer be sexual attraction, at least in the normal sense.

Why do you assume this? Do you get this from the scripture about no marriage in the afterlife?

You are correct in thinking that I draw my assumption from this, as well as other Biblical truths which I see are applicable in a perfect, Christian society.

 

Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

How do you know that this doesn't represent polygamy where everyone is married? Why do you feel angels won't have sex?

[All Gods Fail]

However, due to the effects of sin in the human heart, our sexual desires have become perverted and distorted, which lead us into a world of problems; adultery, pornography, premarital sex, etc. This is why erotic art and such would be "wrong," because it would potentially lead others into sin. However, sex, in the normal sense, will be extinct, in my opinion, in the coming Christian Kingdom.

 

Ah, now here I have a problem. The sin of the human heart and definitions of 'perversion'. These are all artificial limits created by religious abstraction and theology. It brings to mind several questions:

 

1) What exactly is 'perversion', and if it is practiced by consenting adults why is it bad?

 

2) Who decides what is perverted/distorted and what is not?

 

3) What should happen to those practicing 'perverted' sex with their adult partners in the 'coming xtian kingdom'?

[Open_Minded]

However, in the Christian worldview, God Himself will be the One we change around, and we will not ask Him to change for us.

Quickened... you really need to think about that statement.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm

• Currently, there are over 1,200 Christian denominations in North America.
  
  
• According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world.
  
  

Christians (and humans in general) have been expecting God to "change for us", since the dawn of human self-awareness. We consistently create God in our own image - and then we expect others to accept our image of God as actual fact. This causes untold amounts of human suffering and violence.

____________________________

 

However, due to the effects of sin in the human heart, our sexual desires have become perverted and distorted, which lead us into a world of problems; adultery, pornography, premarital sex, etc. This is why erotic art and such would be "wrong," because it would potentially lead others into sin. However, sex, in the normal sense, will be extinct, in my opinion, in the coming Christian Kingdom.

Ah, now here I have a problem. The sin of the human heart and definitions of 'perversion'. These are all artificial limits created by religious abstraction and theology. It brings to mind several questions:

 

1) What exactly is 'perversion', and if it is practiced by consenting adults why is it bad?

 

2) Who decides what is perverted/distorted and what is not?

 

3) What should happen to those practicing 'perverted' sex with their adult partners in the 'coming xtian kingdom'?

 

I agree completely AGF.....

 

Who exactly gets to decide these things?????

 

I'm not sure Quickened's "paradise" would be much better than the Taliban's.

[Alice]

A thought just occurred to me to try here. Substitute the words “their community” every time you see the word God above. Of course no one can love fully their community because we have greed naturally as part of being a human animal, as I mentioned above, but the goal of considering others for the benefit of the community is of great value to self. Being “civilized” to me means being able to recognize that it is in the best interested of myself to have other’s interests in mind also.

 

What I hear as a potential problem with the heaven myth is that perhaps it is better to not demonize being human, but to recognize it for what being alive as a human is, and to work with it ourselves in a positive manner, rather than to view what is normal as wicked, bad, and evil. We should love ourselves, and forgive ourselves for actions that work against the community we are participants in (those values which of course we ourselves have agreed are correct ones as opposed to ones we disagree with on philosophical grounds – another discussion).

 

Wow Antlerman - that really gives me food for thought. It fits in with a recent discussion I had with a friend about adopting an attitude that all actions are probably positive, even the ones we see as as wholly negative, when viewed from the position of the one who took the action.

 

There is just one problem, that I see, with you substitution. Christians, and I would say general humanity, do not see “their community” as a personal, loving Father, which Christians do. God is personal, involved, and interested in our own personal ideas, motivations, lives, etc. Whereas a “community” is ultimately an impersonal way of saying a collection of human individuals interacting with each other, which is wholly different from the Christian concept of God. The selfish instincts, which manifest themselves in a great variety of ways, of humanity are, ultimately, a perversion of God’s original creation, and imperfections are never, and, in my opinion, should not, tolerated in a painter’s art or an engineer’s machine. What is always natural or normal does not mean it is always beneficial or good, which I believe we can agree on. That being said, I sincerely hope and desire my own imperfections and faults to be wholly obliterated, and not merely tolerated or perceived differently.

 

Quickened Pariah - I think you are right that many do not 'see' community in the way many christians 'see' God. Its a big leap from 'seeing God as a loving personal Father' to deciding that he is a loving personal father!

 

If we routinely responded to our communities 'as if' the community was loving and personal wouldn't that improve life considerably?

 

Ah, I think I am seeing what you are saying. I believe that humanity should change themselves into God’s standards, rather than God change to our standards. Of course, that is a belief that I will not see becoming a reality for a long time to come, in my opinion. Society and culture can, and will, change, but, as I am sure you would agree, there are certain things which rarely, if ever, change. This includes the perceptions of certain actions as generally noble, like charity or forgiveness. Thus, these actions show evidence of continuity among the changes of human culture, which I believe can also be valid in saying God’s standards can act in much the same way. They are things which never, and cannot, be changed, although the environments around them most certainly do. I certainly hope that makes some sense. However, in the Christian worldview, God Himself will be the One we change around, and we will not ask Him to change for us. However, unfortunately, the standards of God which are so present in the human heart can, and are, corrupted into selfish gain and dogmatic rule. This does not, however, mean the standards themselves are evil, just that good, when used in conjunction with human selfishness, can be used for evil, or, in this case, dogma.

 

I hope you can see that Gods standards have changed!! So much so that there is a whole new testament and acres of theology describing the shift from the Law to Grace.

 

 

I believe any utopia established, if that could ever happen in the first place, by humans will ultimately fail because of evil present in human nature. Which is why, in Heaven, God will remove our sinful tendencies, so that we may truly live in accordance with Him and His Law.

 

Now you've lost me - Why can't the creator who created us with these 'evil' tendencies do this now - what is he waiting for if its going to be up to him to do the removing eventually anyway???

[NotBlinded]

So we all love God...well... wonderful!!! How about if loving God were something like this and even better:It's your best day that you ever had with your significant other. It's the highest bliss and the most perfect ecstasy you have ever known. When you are genuinely in love with someone you naturally flow into your next experience. When you say "I do" to the one you want to marry, at that moment you're not thinking what's the future going to be like, etc. I have heard it said that the word worship actually means "to kiss toward."

The love you are speaking about here is one of the ego, Amy. It is a love that can, and does, diminish or it can be lost. True love is in this saying, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Notice he didn't say to love your neighbor as you would love yourself...he said to love them as if they were you because we are all one. This love is one that eminates from yourself whenever you interact with anyone. It can never be lost. It doesn't matter if they love you or not because the love you have, when recognized (by you), has no limitations. When you find yourself giving to someone you don't even know for no reason that you can think of, this is true love. When you find yourself helping others for no reason, this is true love even if you never see this person again. It is not an emotion. It is a love for all humanity and all of creation. It eminates from you every day of your life to people you know and people you don't know. You just can't help it because you recognize "yourself" (your true essence/God/Divine) in everyone and everything. You love them 'as' yourself.

 

What you have posted above is love that is from ourselves (false self/ego)...our own emotions to satisfy our own desires. You are speaking about bliss and just sounding giddy. Although this love feels real, this is not the kind of love that lasts forever nor what is referred to in the bible, IMO.

[Antlerman]

I will agree with you that certain human aspirations do indeed manifest themselves in certain ways, including symbolic representations, which can even include religious mythologies. With that in mind, I would then disagree with you that the true God is a manifestation of these values, for reasons that go beyond the subject matter of this thread, although I wouldn’t mind a discussion on this point at a later time and thread. Instead, God, and I, naturally, am meaning the Christian God, instilled humans with these values when He created us. Therefore, these instilled, and common, values would manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including mythologies.

My mind is pregnant with thoughts, and I hardly have the time to organize them in the time I have. We’ll start with what I have time for.

 

I agree that where all things ultimately will come back to in our discussions will be in the overall worldview. You view existence, the world, and everything manifest as being designed within a top-down system, coming from a supreme, intelligent and willful being with a personality that looks very much human-like; and that a human’s knowledge and understanding of this God figure is delivered to them directly from Him through various agents (divine revelation). Contrastly, I view all that is to be designed through a “bottom-up” system that follows the predictable laws of a natural universe; and that ideas of gods begin with the humans themselves looking upward and processing information presented to them in ways their minds can understand it at the time they lived in, and with the knowledge they possessed.

 

For me it is a matter of consistency of the language systems with the knowledge and awareness we have available to us today. As a rational human being and as a former Christian, I find a naturalistic, materialistic, or a humanistic approach to be much more consistent a language of understanding humanity and the universe; where I see the language of mythology and ideas of gods ruling the universe to have be an effective means of perception to a large extent in the past, but it has a difficult time incorporating itself into a modern understanding of the world. Tribal gods work well, when the borders are defined and closed, but they do not in a cosmpolitan society. What I tragically see happening is a denial of credible knowledge in order to preserve outdated ideas of an ancient tribal world view.

 

I agree we should delve into this subject together. I’m curious though if you think there is a way for science and religion to live together as they are? My belief is there is, but not with fundamentalist religious views.

 

As for your second point, although Heaven may be viewed as a means of self-policing, I do not view it, at least entirely, in that way. Instead, Heaven is the place where the evil a Christians struggles with their entire life is finally extinguished, and they can at last worship God without our sin getting in our way. Heaven, for the Christian, is not a culmination of perfect relationships with each other; it is the culmination of humans finally having a perfect relationship with God. Heaven, ultimately, is merely a place, rather than an ideal, it is an abode, not a manifestation of a contrived human notion of perfection. God is the ultimate desire of a Christian, a personal, communicating Father, and we do not think of Him as a mere symbolic representation of the “good” values found in humanity. He is the source of these virtues, but He is not identical to them, which I believe is a necessary distinction to make.

 

Again, notions of sin are socially driven. If it works for the benefit of the individual and the society they participate in, it is effective and welcome and therefore “good” or “righteous” or “of God”. If it is detrimental to the society, and/or the individual then it is “bad”, or “evil”, or “sin”, or “of the devil”. These are connotation words, language by the society for motivational purposes. Think of the sound-bites politicians use at election time for a similar use of language, “For the children”; “God and Country!”, etc. These ideas of sin and good vary from society to society. This is why there are 30,000 variations of the Christian God alone! God is, in reality, a product of societies. Again to me it is much more consistent to understand what we have through it being a bottom-up product of evolution; in this case the evolution of ideas.

 

Now, what I failed to mention before as part of this equation that definitely bears discussion is God to the individual. God is as you say a personal relationship, because It represents “meaning” to the individual. It is again a language for the individual to communicate to himself a way of understanding his response to existence, or to direct his anxieties toward.

 

Humans need to be able to define something in order to understand it. If I am presented with a nebulous blob of “something” that I percieve, the first thing I must do is to try to understand it. I will use concepts that have a frame of reference for me. I would say this blob feels like cotton candy, it smells like a bull, it sounds like a hawk, or anything that helps me process what I am exposed to.

 

God on a personal level is always about a perception of some abstract thought or emotion that is not easily identified with ordinary experiences. I look at the vista of a majestic mountain range and smell the fields of blooming flowers on a cool breeze, and respond spontaneously with an evelvated sense of my own being in the world, and thoughts that rise high above and beyond the mundane world of everyday life. Or I look at the cosmos and am awestruck at it’s magnitude, or I hear a piece of music that transports me to a higher plane of awareness, or, or, or… All these things become vehicles of the human “spirit” to use that word for it, to tap into a deeper sense of self.

 

Concepts of God are likewise, not only symbols of highest ideals of an agreed upon social order that inspires community and brotherhood, it also can be a symbol of the transcendent sense of self in response to the universe. God is poetry. Poetry is an expression of the human spirit. Mythology is poetry to take the human spirit to that place above the mudane where we can find renewed spirit and a more centered focus in our own being.

 

So as at the beginning, your description of heaven is very humanistic. I just remove the symbol God from the equation, because my idea of heaven would be to experience that higher sense of self and community with no more need for signs. God would be unnecessary. But since I do not accept or dream of an afterlife, this should be the goal now. And that marks one of my main disagreements I have with the Christian belief in an afterlife.

 

There is just one problem, that I see, with you substitution. Christians, and I would say general humanity, do not see “their community” as a personal, loving Father, which Christians do. God is personal, involved, and interested in our own personal ideas, motivations, lives, etc. Whereas a “community” is ultimately an impersonal way of saying a collection of human individuals interacting with each other, which is wholly different from the Christian concept of God. The selfish instincts, which manifest themselves in a great variety of ways, of humanity are, ultimately, a perversion of God’s original creation, and imperfections are never, and, in my opinion, should not, tolerated in a painter’s art or an engineer’s machine. What is always natural or normal does not mean it is always beneficial or good, which I believe we can agree on. That being said, I sincerely hope and desire my own imperfections and faults to be wholly obliterated, and not merely tolerated or perceived differently.

The other main disagreement I have with Christianity is that they call normal behaviors a pervesion. It is ineffective and unproductive to label and veiw things that way. If a behavior is detrimental – then we learn to control ourselves! Is going to the bathroom a perversion? Of course not. Is doing it in front of company during dinner? I would say it is undesirable behavior, or unacceptable socially. Is it a “perverison”? What if they are mentally ill? Are they then “perverts”? You see what I mean? What value is it to make the “God judges it X” statements?

 

“Community” the way I am using it is not an impersonal way of human interacting with each other. I mean community in the sense of “community” Brotherhood, human brotherhood. There is no God “out there”. All we have is ourselves and each other, and the sooner we recognize the value of *everyone* , the closer we will be to achieve that ideal of heaven the Christian believes you have to be dead first to get to realize it in your life.

 

Ah, I think I am seeing what you are saying. I believe that humanity should change themselves into God’s standards, rather than God change to our standards. Of course, that is a belief that I will not see becoming a reality for a long time to come, in my opinion. Society and culture can, and will, change, but, as I am sure you would agree, there are certain things which rarely, if ever, change. This includes the perceptions of certain actions as generally noble, like charity or forgiveness. Thus, these actions show evidence of continuity among the changes of human culture, which I believe can also be valid in saying God’s standards can act in much the same way. They are things which never, and cannot, be changed, although the environments around them most certainly do. I certainly hope that makes some sense. However, in the Christian worldview, God Himself will be the One we change around, and we will not ask Him to change for us. However, unfortunately, the standards of God which are so present in the human heart can, and are, corrupted into selfish gain and dogmatic rule. This does not, however, mean the standards themselves are evil, just that good, when used in conjunction with human selfishness, can be used for evil, or, in this case, dogma.

When I talk about religion allowing God to change… whew… this is going to be a longer explaination I will get to later. Suffice to say that it isn’t an arbitrary assignment of “new” values that becomes the face of God. It is the evolution of social values. To get you thinking along these lines, just look at how the face of God has changed throughout the ages, and across the culutres. Each face was a refelction of that culutre. Fundamentalsim will kill God by not allowing evolving belief to adapt God to it. It is not a bad thing, as God always is meant to represent the Good that a society upholds. That why they elevate it to the status of “God”.

[white_raven23]

So we all love God...well... wonderful!!! How about if loving God were something like this and even better:It's your best day that you ever had with your significant other. It's the highest bliss and the most perfect ecstasy you have ever known. When you are genuinely in love with someone you naturally flow into your next experience. When you say "I do" to the one you want to marry, at that moment you're not thinking what's the future going to be like, etc. I have heard it said that the word worship actually means "to kiss toward."

 

You've been single for a while haven't you Amy? What you have just described is a temporary condition in a relationship. The "romantic" period. The longest it can last is about two years.

 

http://www.relationship-institute.com/free...?article_ID=153

If the whole world were to love God I think it would be anything but boring. God made man in His own image and likeness. He would want us to create, to build, to discover new things. Maybe to love God would mean our lives would end up like the end of the final chapter in the Narnia Chronicles where every day was better than before.

It was a nice ending for a nice series. But real life and real people do not work this way. I used to think that art was entirely the result of abundant creativity. Then...in Florence as I looked at the religious art, I learned that MOST of the religious art in the building was devoted to socio-religious commentary. Mostly over the debate and disagreement in the church over the position of Mary and immaculate conception. Without deeply felt conflict, none of that art would exist.

 

People do not create when they are blissful and content. Their creativity actually atrophies along with their interest in things around them. They exist in a lethargic apathy. Just feeling bliss is enough.

 

We are just like animals in a lot of ways. A study was done where an electrode was wired into the pleasure center of a rat's brain.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happ...ula/4880272.stm

 

In studies during the 1950s psychologists James Olds and Peter Milner working at McGill University in Canada, found that rats would repeatedly press levers to receive tiny jolts of current injected through electrodes implanted deep within their brains.

 

When this brain stimulation was targeted at certain areas of the brain the rats would repeatedly press the lever - even up to 2000 times per hour.

 

In fact they would stop almost all other normal behaviours, including feeding, drinking and sex.

 

Based on what do you imagine human beings being able to overcome that to go create and build? Just by virtue of being human? Guess again.

 

In the 1960s, psychiatrist Robert Heath of Tulane University in New Orleans chose to use this same deep brain stimulation on humans.

 

He performed a series of experiments where he put electrodes deep into his patients' brains.

 

Bob Heath hoped to cure depression, pain, and addiction. But controversially he also experimented on gay men.

 

When a mild shock was administered to patients they felt good. When they were handed the controls they chose to press repeatedly - sometimes over a thousand times.

 

And before you compartmentalize, saying "oh only gay men would be like that" here's ANOTHER overlooked social group that wouldn't respond with uber-productivity if they were esctatic all the time.

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...eb1/krorer.html

 

That essay talks a lot about Ketamine, but it does go into why people take drugs in the first place. If people were as giddy happy as you'd like to imagine them being.....they would be totally useless in any other capacity.

[Eponymic]

He would want us to create, to build, to discover new things. Maybe to love God would mean our lives would end up like the end of the final chapter in the Narnia Chronicles where every day was better than before.

 

"He would want us..."

"Maybe it will..."

 

But is there anything mandated in the Bible about what you are supposed to do other than worship him, procreate, & basic survival skills?

 

Everything I'm hearing from you is conjecture & wishful thinking right now.

 

I believe any utopia established, if that could ever happen in the first place, by humans will ultimately fail because of evil present in human nature. Which is why, in Heaven, God will remove our sinful tendencies, so that we may truly live in accordance with Him and His Law.

 

So if we have this evil inherently in us, why did God put it there?

 

And if we are battling against our own nature in a forever losing battle, how is that really the display of a loving figure?

 

I'm all for struggling & earning your keep, but acting like this is pure sadism when it comes down to it.

[EdwardAbbey]

 

But what other purpose is there if you're devoting your whole life to God and he's not telling you to do anything except procreate & worship him?

 

Sounds like a God with an extremely full blown ego. I wouldn't have anything to do with such a creep; and I don't.

 

Such a God is myth.

 

The Gawd of the babble.

[white_raven23]

In my post I was addressing the idea that to worship God all the time would be boring. I believe one is also worshipping God when helping others. When I said building and creating I didn't mean just art.

 

I didn't either.

[Eponymic]

In my post I was addressing the idea that to worship God all the time would be boring. I believe one is also worshipping God when helping others. When I said building and creating I didn't mean just art.

 

And the idea of worshipping God being boring is not the point of my posting this thread. Nor does it answer my question which still stands.

 

Stop skirting around the real issues here. You're bringing your own viewpoint & ideas of how you'd like to see things be. Which that the Bible tells you to do nothing more than the basics. You're filling in all the rest of this stuff.

 

So either the Bible is fallible, or the end result if it is 100% successful is utter stagnation of self-actualization.

[Eponymic]

Whose skirting the issue? That was my first post here, what it would be like to worship God.

First things first. That line about skirting the issue was after your THIRD post, not your first. So don't try & sell me on your happy little misdirection, I ain't buyin'.

 

Now if Jesus happens to be your God and you want to talk about the Bible alright. The Bible says "we shall see Him as He is and we shall be like Him." "Our bodies will be changed in a moment." If you belief the resurrection story Jesus could appear and disappear at will. He could eat food. He had a body that could be seen and touched. Gravity didn't effect Him. There are many rooms in His Father's house. Revelations pictures trees, mountains, a city, a feast. A verse in Psalms says "there are pleasures at Thy right hand forever more."

 

Jesus isn't my God.

You know he's none of my Ex-Christian hommie's God.

So why go on with all this gobbly-gook?

 

The point of this thread is this: If you actively achieve your goal of everyone being perfect worshippers of God, then the world will have no reason to progress human thought & creativity, it essentially has no further purpose; because, as far as I remember from the Bible, the only thing God requires you to do is worship him fully. Once you have that, there's nothing left to achieve.

 

That is what you've been skirting. Maybe you missed the point. That's why I'm detailing it for you now.

 

If by worship you mean sitting around and playing harps all day I disagree.

 

Then what do you considering worshipping? Cause, as far as I know from the Bible, worship doesn't involve progress, creativity, or self-actualization.