 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/10/2006 6:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for this, Tom.
Read this...and think about what I said yesterday...
The Psychology of Belief, Part 2: The Myth of Pure Evil
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/05/psychology-of-belief-part-2-myth-of.html
Violence usually comes from DESPAIRING PEOPLE in some kind of PAIN.
Sound familiar, Tom?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/11/2006 6:33:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 6:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom.
Loved our talk yesterday.
Are you still enjoying the rabbit hole?
Remember what you heard...and what you will now hear.
From Beck
What then do we learn from all this? Namely this: You cannot both loath the sin and love the sinner. Why? Because LOVE AND DISGUST ARE NOT SEPARATE PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISMS: THEY ARE THE SAME MECHANISM. This is key. You cannot have BOTH love and disgust, as some would have us believe. No, you can only have more of one and less of the other.
And this means, if I'm right, you cannot both hate the sin and love the sinner. Psychologically, from where I stand, it's just not possible.
AND....
"Given the arguments of my prior posts, I think that one of the sources of this “profound tension” is the psychological dynamic I outlined in my prior post: You cannot, psychologically speaking, both loathe a sin (satisfy the holiness impulse) AND be passionate in seeking justice for the sinner (satisfy the justice impulse).
AND...
Thus, we cannot both loathe a sin and love the sinner engaging in that act. It is psychologically impossible.
What he is saying is accurate, from his perspective.
When people begin, for any reason, having socio-moral disgust TOWARDS PERSONS, it is impossible to, at the very same time, love them unconditionally.
Selah's disgust of Satan AS A PERSON (and corresponding inability to have ANY compassionate feelings towards Satan's state) is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of this!!!!!
(Not ribbing you, Selah. Just using this as an example)
But there is something to disgust. Something good.
It helps to keep us from things that are harmful to us. It's a helpful wiring that demonstrates the emotional response of God to things that are ultimately counterproductive to life.
Yes, we can (and do) attribute disgust to certain things that don't need it, like what Beck is saying. (I believe that we attribute disgust to PERSONS in a all-encompassing manner...which is unhelpful, like Beck is saying)
But that is NOT to say that we should never experience disgust. (Not even Beck, it seems, says that)
As a general metaphor, applied to all humanity, the purity metaphor functions humanely. That is, we can agree that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." If sin is "uncleanness" then we are all unclean; we are all polluted and, thus, offend a Holy God. So far, so good. But what is problematic is that the disgust/contamination/purity structure is deployed unevenly across the domain of sin behaviors.
It's just that whenever human beings have a STRATIFICATION OF DISGUST for stuff, then the JUDGMENT MECHANISM has a way of reallocating our natural disgust sensibilities towards some things that they should not be oriented towards.
This is why the Law, though good, was only really good for bringing the knowlegde of sin to the surface. All the law did was demonstrate to humans that they were in a state of despair...because of the the EFFECTS the Law had upon them. (Romans 7)
But the divine intent was always about using the "purity" metaphor to talk about how despair is a VIRULENT disease! Insofar as a person is NOT rightly related to God, that person becomes sick...and in their sickness and pain, they can CONTAMINATE others with their despair!
(Hence, God heavily telling people to avoid certain people in the OT. So that the despair within IDOLATRY would not "contaminate" the people!)
But it was never TRULY intended that people fundamentally identify themselves with the disease, such that the disease makes the PERSON totally unworthy or unlovable.
But this is exactly the way that Law had come to be used. Even though, God gave very good hints that holiness unto God was NOT ULTIMATELY a separating, judging function!
THIS is why Jesus came to FULFILL the genuine meaning of the Law.
Unlike what the Jews had learned, the true "purity" that God was seeking was a purity of heart towards God. (Purity of heart is to will one thing!) And Jesus was showing that. He was TRYING to show us. This is why he specifically hung out with the dregs of society that some people felt, for some reason or another, was unclean. This is why he kept talking about how it is what comes from INSIDE that "defiles" and nothing that is done outside. He was trying to show us how singlemindedness (purity of heart) towards God makes loving others a JOY...not a chore.
This is why the Law was a TEMPORARY thing!
We now know enough to understand that what is truly "disgusting" to God is the dispoiling of God's beautiful creation, including God's precious "little images"
It's not like God doesn't understand WHY it's going on...but the UGLINESS that is created in our despair is seriously repulsive.
But the people were SO LOCKED IN to their socio-moral disgust of NON-Jewish people...it was hard to break them out.
So what does God do to get the point accross, in a healthy way, in a manner that people of that time coud understand?
Hmmm..
He sends a "suffering servant" to effectively do a BLOOD TRANSFUSION.
God takes all of the "impurity" out of us...and places it upon Godself though the Incarnated Word...and then declares that he has "cleansed" ALL, Jew and Gentile.
Surely, THIS will work...right?
I mean, if these people understand that they were ALL living in despair and creating ugliness in their despair...that ALL have fallen short of God's glory...and that God has forgiven them ALL for that willed choice into despair (and from that, ugliness)...
Surely this will work itself out in how people RELATE to each other.
Surely people will display GRACE to one another, now.
Surely, this is the way God's reconciliation of humans to himself was SUPPOSED to affect human relationality with itself.
Anyways, here's the deal.
God has made a way for our DISGUST mechanisms to be directed where they need to be: towards the UGLINESS that we create from our SICKNESS. The disgust mechanisms are NOT to be directed at persons.
Remember the categories, Tom.
Beautiful---Ugly
Wellness/Wholeness---Sickness/Disease
Accuracy---Inaccuracy.
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/11/2006 6:41:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2006 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: "Wow. That person must be REEEEEEEALY deeply troubled for them to think that violating another person in that way is OK. That person is demonstrating symptoms of despair. I'd better pray fervently for them! And in their despair, they are creating a VERY UGLY state of affairs...
Tom: What would you experience AFFECTIVELY upon consideration of that UGLY state of affairs (not the person, just the sort of world they turn the world into)? What would you feel for it? Disgust and revulsion, right? Right. Not at the PERSON. Agreed. Persons are substantial and valuable and loved. But the SIN (the "ugly state of affairs," the pain it brings, the privation of good it is, etc.) is not a substantial think, not valuable, and not to be loved).
So it looks to me like you're just loving and valuing the person but revolting at the sight of the sort of world coming from the person. That's cool. And this is all "loving the sinner but hating the sin" has ever meant (regardless of how poorly Christians have actually applied it). But Beck says this is impossible. You CAN'T love the PERSON and hate or have disgust for the ugly state of affairs coming from them. I'm wondering if you really follow him (or if I do?). Mephi: What he is saying is accurate, from his perspective. When people begin, for any reason, having socio-moral disgust TOWARDS PERSONS, it is impossible to, at the very same time, love them unconditionally. Tom: I agree we can't direct both love and disgust toward the SAME OBJECT, i.e., the PERSON. But in loving the sinner and hating the sin we're not direction love and disgust at the same object. We're directing them at DIFFERENT objects. And I think Beck is missing this. Beck doesn't say loving the sinner and having disgust TOWARDS PERSONS (i.e. the SINNER) is impossible (which of course would be right and I'd agree with him). Beck says that loving the SINNER and having disgust TOWARDS SIN (i.e., the ugly states of affairs they produce) is impossible. He's denying that we can "love the sinner and hate the sin." But for his argument to work you have to conflate "sinner" and "sin." But why conflate them? We ought to distinguish between them. If we make the distinction, then it is possible to love one and hate the other. Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/11/2006 7:39:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: What he is saying is accurate, from his perspective. When people begin, for any reason, having socio-moral disgust TOWARDS PERSONS, it is impossible to, at the very same time, love them unconditionally.
Tom: But he doesn't say loving the sinner and having disgust TOWARDS PERSONS (i.e. the SINNER) is impossible. I agree loving the sinner and having disgust for the sinner isn't possible. Beck says that loving the sinner and having disgust TOWARDS SIN (i.e., the ugly states of affairs they produce) is impossible. He's clearly denying that we can "love the sinner and hate the sin." I think he's conflating "sinner" and "sin" and THEN saying you can't love one and hate the other. But if you don't conflate them, it's perfectly possible to love one and hate the other.
He's operating from the motif where it's functionally impossible to separate, in any meaningful way, a sinner from their sin. Such that the disgust ends up being TOWARDS PERSONS. The socio-moral disgust motif that he uses ASSUMES this.
This is why he comes to the conclusions that he does.
He does have a point in how the socio-moral disgust motif HAS traditionally worked out, though. A very good point.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2006 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, then I'll have to disagree with the idea that we can't functionally separate 'sin' and 'sinner' in a meaningful way. Do you think it's impossible to meaningfully separate them? If you can't separate them, then you have NO way to reject sin affectively since sin only privates persons (only shows up and does its thing THROUGH persons in despair).
Surely, Mephi, we ought to FEEL something towards racism, child abuse, exploiting the innocent, etc., when we meet these in the real world. And surely that something we ought to feel isn't LOVE. But surely we are to LOVE the persons responsible for racism, abuse, and exploitation. But Beck says this is impossible.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/11/2006 7:53:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2006 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Beck is saying you can't EXPERIENCE disgust (forget what you 'call' it) at that pollution and still love the polluter. I think that's crazy.
The reason WHY he says this, Tom, is because a dysfunctional INTERPRETATION of the holiness/purity codes basically says that a person who is polluted is FUNCTIONALLY EQUATED with the pollution. So in order for the POLLUTION to be expunged, the PERSON must be expunged.
Unless...there is a SIN OFFERING...or PURIFICATION RITES...
Do we see how God was TRYING to counteract the effects of the dysfunctional interpreation?
He was TRYING...TRYING VERY HARD...to let the people know that persons were NOT to be equated wholly with their sin. That sin COULD BE FORGIVEN. That even NON-ISRAELITES PEOPLES could be ok, in the eyes of God. That God could have mercy on whoever God wanted to.
But it was hard for them to get. Remember Jonah?
Just like it was HARD for Habbakuk to understand how God could use "defiled" people to judge his PURE people.
Get it?
This is why Paul says what he says about how the Law is USED to FREE us from the Law to live to God.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/11/2006 8:01:14 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Earlier when I said I try to love even people like Osama, you misunderstood this to be my conflating him with his offenses. But I really wasn't doing that. I was just confessing that some offenses make it harder to keep the distinction there.
So I hear you saying that there are some disgusting activity that comes from despairing people is SO DISGUSTING or it happens SO OFTEN...that makes it very harder to love them unconditionally.
Is this what you are saying?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2006 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Sure. But isn't this self-evident? If we were perfectly alligned and oriented with God as our center, sure, we wouldn't struggle. I'm just confessing that I find it functionally easier to distinguish between 'sinner' and 'sin' when the sinner is a 15 year old cheating on an exam and not Hitler gassing millions of children. Do you really feel the SAME thing affectively in both these situations? I don't. Not sure if I should, but I don't. There are 'more and less' beautiful or privated states. The less beautiful/more ugly a person makes the world the harder it is not to conflate the person and the situation. I agree this tendency in me is my finiteness and frailty coming through, but that's where I am.
But somehow I think you're gonna tell me I'm still not getting it!
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/11/2006 10:13:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/11/2006 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
Perfect example.
If I see someone on TV (reality TV) physically violating and assaulting another person, it is NATURAL for me to experience feelings of REVULSION at that.
But if I don't take the time to understand WHY that response is there, I will end up just localizing the source of my revulsion as being the PERSON THEMSELVES.
What if I say this:
"Wow. That person must be REEEEEEEALY deeply troubled for them to think that violating another person in that way is OK. That person is demonstrating symptoms of despair. I'd better pray fervently for them! And in their despair, they are creating a VERY UGLY state of affairs where the other person will probably be traumatized. I'd better pray just as hard for them too! Man, this situation is so disgustingly ugly!"
Now, doesn't that seem a more HELPFUL description of affairs? But usually this is what we do...
"What an evil, reprehensible, miscreant of a human being to DO such a thing! Hurting that poor, defenseless innocent like they are! Jail would be TOO GOOD for that person!"
And we leave it at that.
THIS is why people don't want to pray genuinely for the healing of ENEMIES. Because they are "impure" and just need to be eliminated.
Hmmm...
My laptop is down. Crap! I HATE that! Anyhoo...I haven't read all of this thread, but I will say that this is why Modes said years ago that ALL of us are victims. And if this is the posture that we are suppose to be taking? I don't see how conservative evangelicals and conservative poltics helps this. I'm with you on this Meph Man, fo sho. Mouw's hermeneutic of charity over a hermeneutic of suspicion. Go Tigers! 
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2006 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | What I mean, Mephi, is that my failing to respond affectively in perfectly approprate ways is possible because I'm finite, i.e., peccable. Can human nature get to the place where it's perfectly tuned in and appropriately responsive on the affective level? Yes. Jesus demonstrates that human nature can get to that.
But tell me Mephi:
(a) Do you agree that divine beauty gets reflected in relatively greater and lesser ways? Don't you think stealing a candy bar is less a privation of beauty than gassing people to death? Or do you think all beauty and/or absence of beauty is equally qualitatively intense?
(b) If you agree that beauty gets reflected in the world to greater and lesser degrees of intenstity, then wouldn't you agree that what is an approprate affective response (not to the PERSON, but to the states of affairs persons are responsible for) ought also to vary in intensity? I do.
(c) Are you at the place in your life where you think your affective responses are unfailingly appropriate?
Tom
Am I OK? Well, we're doing our Missions week at NCU and we have internationally recognized authorities in to speak to us all day long about world hunger, poverty, AIDS, and human/sexual trafficing. I'm a wreck. I'm absolutely immobilized by the sheer stats. 36,000 children die of hunger every day. Sure, I've heard the stat before. But now I'm ready to hear it (I think). I'm in a frame of mind to let the world in. But this all just confirms to me that the reflection of divine beauty in our world is best viewed as falling on a continuum of qualitative intensity that calls for a continuum of appropriately affective responses. It's not an absolute either/or, as it there's either 100% perfectly intense reflection of divine beauty or no reflection at all. I am 'more' or 'less' affected by what's going on in the world. This is why I was interested in Beck. On his view there's no continuum of affective response and no distinction between sinner and sin. I don't have ANY idea how even to begin doing my faith and affections given his view.
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/11/2006 4:12:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
(a) Do you agree that divine beauty gets reflected in relatively greater and lesser ways? Don't you think stealing a candy bar is less a privation of beauty than gassing people to death? Or do you think all beauty and/or absence of beauty is equally qualitatively intense?
Let me speak from the perspective of God's "feeling." Creation is relatively meaningless to God, but in grace, God chooses to embrace and interact with the beauty brought forth from God's contingent expression.
Meaning that on one level, God would feel all of the beauty in Creation (or lack thereof) EQUALLY because the main source of God's aesthetic satisfaction is God's relationship with Godself. But on another level, God would be freely and empathetically engaged with Creation.
I believe that it's possible that a person created in God's image to do something like this, too.
*************************
Tom:
(b) If you agree that beauty gets reflected in the world to greater and lesser degrees of intenstity, then wouldn't you agree that what is an approprate affective response (not to the PERSON, but to the states of affairs persons are responsible for) ought also to vary in intensity? I do.
If the primary source of happiness that we have is Christ (so much so that our union with Christ absolutely "satisfies" the longings and desires of our souls on a day to day basis), then on one hand, the appropriate affective response will always be in tune with what needs to be...but nothing more than that.
Tom:
(c) Are you at the place in your life where you think your affective responses are unfailingly appropriate?
Of course not. I'm just striving to be satisfied by God alone. And, from there, I believe that the loving empathy of God will flow in my interaction with my fellow human brothers and sisters. That's all.
*********************************
Tom:
Am I OK? Well, we're doing our Missions week at NCU and we have internationally recognized authorities in to speak to us all day long about world hunger, poverty, AIDS, and human/sexual trafficing. I'm a wreck. I'm absolutely immobilized by the sheer stats. 36,000 children die of hunger every day. Sure, I've heard the stat before. But now I'm ready to hear it (I think). I'm in a frame of mind to let the world in. But this all just confirms to me that the reflection of divine beauty in our world is best viewed as falling on a continuum of qualitative intensity that calls for a continuum of appropriately affective responses. It's not an absolute either/or, as it there's either 100% perfectly intense reflection of divine beauty or no reflection at all. I am 'more' or 'less' affected by what's going on in the world. This is why I was interested in Beck. On his view there's no continuum of affective response and no distinction between sinner and sin. I don't have ANY idea how even to begin doing my faith and affections given his view.
First of all, know that I will be praying for you. Truly, brah.
Next, I would never say that there is NO continuum of affective response. That makes no sense. I will say that one's perceived affective response can be affected by one's level of despair...and by one's "subjective form" as they interpret reality.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2006 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: (a) Do you agree that divine beauty gets reflected in relatively greater and lesser ways? Don't you think stealing a candy bar is less a privation of beauty than gassing people to death? Or do you think all beauty and/or absence of beauty is equally qualitatively intense?
Mephi: Let me speak from the perspective of God's "feeling." Creation is relatively meaningless to God, but in grace, God chooses to embrace and interact with the beauty brought forth from God's contingent expression. Meaning that on one level, God would feel all of the beauty in Creation (or lack thereof) EQUALLY because the main source of God's aesthetic satisfaction is God's relationship with Godself. But on another level, God would be freely and empathetically engaged with Creation.
Tom: But on the first level, Mephi, as you’ve said…we are meaningless. And if we’re meaningless to God on some level, then on that level we’re affectively meaningless to God. Viewed (relatively) from the unsurpassable satisfaction God gets from Godself, God doesn’t as you say “feel all the beauty (or lack therefore) EQUALLY.” God would simply not “feel” anything AT ALL regarding us. That’s what it means for creation to be "meaningless" to him. You can’t say that on that level on which we’re meaningless to God, God also “feels” any contingent beauty or lack thereof ("equally" or otherwise). Come on now, where's the "J"?
To say God FEELS something regarding creation at all is to move OFF the level on which we’re meaningless to God and into that free and gracious choice of God to empathetically engage us. THIS is the only level on which God "feels" anything with regard to us. And on THIS level, God’s affective experience of the world falls along a continuum of intensity. It can't be uniform given the diverse intensities with which the world reflects beauty.
You seem to have God “feeling equally” all contingent beauty (or lack thereof) on one level (viz., “equally” because God’s own experience of himself is undisturbed) but God “feeling variously” on another level (that level on which God freely decides to let us mean something to him). But that's confused. It has us 'meaning' something to God on both levels. But we've agreed we are meaningless to God on the first level. On that level God's “feeling” anything with regard to us is out of the question since it’s on this level that we are meaningless to him. And wherein we are meaningless to God, God cannot engage us empathetically IN THAT SENSE or ON THAT LEVEL. It’s only when God decides to allow us to mean something to him that God engages empathetically. And once God does that, there’s no question that his affections vis-à-vis the world fall along a continuum of intensity—appropriate to the degree to which his beauty is reflected in the world.
So I can’t think of ANY sense in which, or ANY level on which, “the stealing of a candy bar” warrants an equally intense affective response from God than would “the gassing of children.” Out of the question. Our relative meaninglessness to God doesn't entail these two privations warranting an equal affective response from God. On the contrary, it entails our warranting no response from God. And I don’t think that a human being, appropriately aligned with and centered in God would “feel” the same thing about these two privations of beauty. On the contrary, the MORE aligned we are, the MORE appropriately gauged and measured will be our affective response.
Are we on the same page here Bro?
Can I get a witness up in HIYA?
Corey?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/11/2006 6:19:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/11/2006 9:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So I can’t think of ANY sense in which, or ANY level on which, “the stealing of a candy bar” warrants an equally intense affective response from God than would “the gassing of children.” Out of the question. Our relative meaninglessness to God doesn't entail these two privations warranting an equal affective response from God. On the contrary, it entails our warranting no response from God. And I don’t think that a human being, appropriately aligned with and centered in God would “feel” the same thing about these two privations of beauty. On the contrary, the MORE aligned we are, the MORE appropriately gauged and measured will be our affective response.
Compared to the affective satisfaction that occurs within God due to God's inner relationality with God, ANY affect that arises in God from God's contingent expression is relatively meaningless to God. This is not to say that God doesn't "feel" the world. God does...and he always does so appropriately.
But...
God's affect in relation to God's contingent expression NEVER falls into any state of INNER ANXIETY. This is because of the inner tranquility and joy created by God's self-relation. So, the main aspect that DEFINES God's emotional affect in relationship to the world is God's satisfaction in Godself...and this is expressed in relationally appropriate ways in God's contingent expression. God acts empathetically with Creation, but is NEVER OVERWHELMED by what God's experiences.
What would this look like in a human being?
You would have a responsible, open, watchful, purposeful anxiety-free being who's source of personal worth, significance, and love is completely satisfied by their knowledge of God (and the relationship with self and others that comes from that). You would have a human being who is a REALIST and knows the craziness and ugliness in the world...and never minimizes it. A human being who can enter and understand the pain of the world...but never get overwhelmed by it and fall into some form of despair. A human being who can truly navigate and understand reality, by living a wise life in the present...trusting the Holy Spirit to reveal more and more reality to them. This is because they have found a way to avoid all the idolatry-conducive traps dealing with some form of dysfunctional self-concern dealing with either fear, pride, or both. When a human being gets their total sense of worth from their communion with God, then you have a human being to whom wealth, power, influence, and external validation have little existential meaning. They no longer get "life" from ANYTHING except their unconditionally loving communion/relationship with God. They become free of despair. Internally, this human is an alien in this world.
Does this mean that the human is totally aloof to the things of the world? No way. Because God's images populate the world...and God is at work in the world. We are to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves as we strategically bombard the world with love, honor, and a sense of well-being. This human would live in discernment to see how she can "dance with God" and in so doing, love herself, and love all others.
She would be freely and empathetically engaged with Creation...and have appropriately gauged and measured affective response that is NOT tainted with anxiety!
She would realize that all human beings are beautiful BECAUSE they are in the image of the Beautiful Creator...including her. This would fundamentally ground her worldview.
And there would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Creation that would be able to lower or increase her self-esteem. Because her value comes from her relationship with God...and her inner reality with God is constant communion with God...then nothing can affect the way that she feels about her own worth.
And there would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Creation what that would be able to lower or increase her esteem of all others! Because she understands that all beings are created in God's beautiful image, she knows that all beings are innately beautiful and worthy of unconditional love, regardless of how privated their beauty is by ugliness coming from despair! This is not to say that she would respond to every human being the same. Sometimes the love and honor that comes from her has to be contextualized according to the environment she finds herself in. Sometimes, this may look like a soft word of encouragement. Other times, this may look like a painful, forceful action for the sake of healing a relationship. Still other times, this may mean being completely self-sacrificial. But the genuine unconditional love towards all beings is what's going on.
Most importantly, there would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that occurs in Creation that would lower or increase her esteem of GOD! Her faith and hope in God is based upon the PERFECT LOVE she constantly experiences in our her communion with God. This gives her all the proof she needs about how powerful and trustworthy God is. So whenever tsunamis, famine, or terrorist activity occurs, she NEVER bases her esteem or trust of God on those things. She believes in God's wisdom and love, in spite of "outward appearances"
This is a state I think that we are all striving for.
So, yeah. We are on the same page.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/11/2006 10:22:12 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/12/2006 12:41 AM (GMT -6) | | When we think of eternity...life really is beautiful.
We will be spending literally billions upon billions of years in the presence of God...completely aesthetically satisfied. Never against burdened by unfulfilled, anxiety producing desire. We will live where all persons are truly beautiful, WELL people.
The best of humanity...with the best of Creation...with the best of God.
The perfect existence.
After this vapor we call "life in civilization"
After the mission on this earth is completed...
"What will be well...is well already"
Tom, think of this.
Those 36,000 children that die of hunger every day...
(Those that the Kingdom of God is most like!)
What do you think happens to them when they "die"?
What do you think happened to all of the firstborn of Egypt that God killed?
What do you think happened to all the children that God commanded the Israelites to destroy?
Will they see the face of Jesus?
Will they exist in a state better than ANYTHING that they could have experienced on this besieged planet?
Yes.
When speaking about children dying from hunger, is it still extremely ugly that they died in such a way?
Of course!
Should we trust that God will work through us in God's own way to work against such ugliness?
Very much so.
But is our DESPAIR as great as it would be...if we didn't think about their ultimate destination?
That's the question.
Think about that when you see children killed.
Really.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's all-loving nature." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/12/2006 1:55:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:20 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|