Yes.  There are some things that we are fundamentally not agreed upon Namaste.  We'll certainly have to look at those.  For now...

 

When you say:

 

It seems to me that you have been saying that you believe that it's not possible for a human being to have an aesthetically satisfying relationship with God WITHOUT relating to other human beings. Is this what you've been saying?

 

I would say that you have basically hit the nail on the head.  I am saying that one cannot reflect the image of God more and thus be more beautiful and hence be fully satisfied.  Zenith point.  Maxed out.  What I am not saying is that one has to be in every possible relationship there is that exists or in totally healthy relationships or even in SPECIFIC relationships AT ALL with other human beings.  I am more GENERALIZING this.  We simply need to exist with other humans, that's all.  We need to exist with others of our kind.  The more healthier the relationships the better.  Yes.  I would say that.  That is, the better the relationships the better we reflect or mirror back the social trinity to God.  The more we are like Christ the more beauty we have and thus less "Orgeness."  The degree of the "Orgness" that resides within us is proportional to the level of satisfaction that we can have.  To say it another way would be that the level of satisfaction depends on the degree of "Orgeness" that no longer exists AS US.  I just don't think you can be a total orge and have complete satisfaction.  I don't think you can be a partial Orge and have complete satisfaction.

 

To Tom.  I don't necesarily want to get caught up on what you've been saying in terms of bad relationships directly affecting our relationship with God.  I agree with that but it's not my main point.  Let me say just for now that where we disagree on is IF the "world" and that would include such things as relationships and the environment affect our relationships.  I don't say that these can't stop a person from relating to God (though I'm not always sure of that--some things just break us and cause us to have a "crisis of faith."  To tell you the truth I don't know if I can blame people for walking away from God under such circumstances.  With Ruth Tucker, I respect those people because they are honest about their doubt), but they can hinder growth regardless (which is why we will ultimately need post-mortem santification?)

 

To me this is why "the powers" need to be transformed.  This is why not only my own sanctification is important but the sanctification of the powers is important as well.  Sorry, but I can't jump on board with saying:

 

Once we have valued them and acted in love, others can do nothing to hinder our finding ultimate aesthetic satisfaction in God.

 

In one sense I DO agree with this.  But in another I have a hard time with it.  McGrath said, "We change the culture, while at the same time we are being changed by it."  In the sense that we ARE changed by the culture is the sense in which the culture CAN HINDER our relationship and ultimate aesthetic satisfaction in and with God.  I don't think you appreciate "the system" like I do.  What it can do to us unawares.  You may think that your relationship with God is sooooo satisfying only to find out one Sunday morning while sitting under the Word and the Holy Spirit how ugly you truly are.  Don’t take that personally.  Cause I think you’re a hunk of a man.   

 

Anyhoo…I have to go pick up my kids.  Tmw I’m off and we’ll talk some more.

---

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/29/2006 5:20:26 PM (GMT-6)

 

 

 

 

 

Brandon:  Bingo!  THIS is what I'm saying.  And let's remember I'm not simply talking about Christians.  NON-Christians can reflect both individually and corporately the image of Christ to an extent such that one can say that one doesn't need a **PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP** with God in Christ to do this.  For example, on a corporate level regardless of whether one thinks that civil rights have been handed down via federal fiat is a good thing or not, the fact that it HAS improved relationships between people is a good thing. To the extent that it has improved relationships with others it is also the extent that Christ is reflected in society at large.  This is just common grace at work. On an individual level for example, say you have a lady on welfare.  What was suppose to give this lady assistance and help her become not only a self-sufficient individual but in the process humanizes her ends up DE-humanizing her.  In such cases the system is broken and needs to be fixed and thus begin the process of humanizing others (her) again and thus reflecting Christ in their (her) own life.

 

Ultimately, this is why I don't think that we can be fully and completely maxed out, zenith point, beautified and thus satisfied in THIS world.  Total depravity my friend.  Sin touches everything and works against the purposes of God for us and humanity.  To say differently would be like having an over-realized eschatology.

 

Namaste:  Also there is a sense in which saying a human being can be completely aesthetically satisfied outside of any relationship with any other humans can imply that said human being can be PIOUSLY INDIFFERENT to the suffering of their fellow human beings, individually and societally. What does this mean emotionally to say that a perfectly loving person can be completely "OK" while other people are suffering around them? Or worse, when people can be completely "OK" while they are, knowingly or unknowingly, contributing to social ills that hinder a truly "soul-making" environment.

 

Brandon:  Well, I'm NOT saying that one can have bad relationships with others and NOT have a satisfying experience with God.  One CAN have bad relationships with others and have a satisfying experience with God.  It just won't be a fully maxed out, zenith point beautified and satisfying experience that's all.  I'm also saying that one may possibly have a satisfying experience with God though it would not be maxed out even when they don't have specific/direct relationships with others AROUND THEM. For an example, what happens somewhere in Iraq ultimately affects my relationship with God because of the whole of the connectivity of humanity with each other and with our environment--the cosmos (Federal headship stuff? Hmmm....).  This would be categorized under "the system" (which is in part why we should be concerned about what happens on an international level in politics).

 

Namaste:  All I've been trying to say, Brandon, is that it is POSSIBLE for a human being to reach a state on earth where the God-shaped void is progressively filled more and more...and the person becomes more and more despair-free. The filling of the God-shaped void is when the soul basically says this...

 

 

Brandon:  Well, I do believe that it can be progressively filled, I just don't think it can be maxed out in this life and possibly in the next, which in turn makes me wonder about the nature of the God shaped void.  If we're always learning about God ("KNOWING from the heart") then it makes me wonder if we can exist TOTALLY despair-free.   Really, I think we will exist totally despair-free on the other side of the eschaton? I just don't know if the God shaped-void is even possible of being maxed out.

 

Regardless, what I've been saying is that Scripture seems to indicate that that when God saw Adam alone, that there was something about Adam's existence (his "God-shaped void") that even God could not satisfy.  That somehow that void has to include not only the God-human relationship to "fill it" (if that can be done) but that without the human-human relationship it would NEVER occur.  So, it makes me wonder about God's ultimate telos in terms of finding complete satisfaction in God as the sole source of satisfaction.  I don't think Christian theology has really thought through the implications of the possible incoherency of God's ultimate telos (finding complete satisfaction in God) and Christian anthropology (it was not good that man is alone.  Thus God's presence wasn't "enough" for humanity).  I know this kinda freaks some people out (of course, you're pretty good about doing that kinda thing yourself Namaste), but thats the way I see it. I see this in the beginning chapters of the Bible and in the last book of the Bible.  That the God-human relationship even on the other side of the grave is such that we will still REQUIRE human-human relationship.  Not only because this is the way that we are wired or the way reality is (such that we have to exist in relation to others like ourselves.  That there is some sort of metaphysical disjunct between the God-human relationship that can only be "bridged" via the human-human relationship. That we NEED some sort of incarnation of God and the reflection of God-albeit, work, creativity, loving others, marriage, etc), but also because this it what God would desire.  God's ultimate telos is community.  That community would not only included the "ad intra" life of Godself and not only the God-human relationship but the human-human relationship as well such that if you had the God-human relationship ONLY that "God-shaped void" COULD NOT be fulfilled.  If everything I experience is a window into God's beauty, could we not say that human-human relationships are and will be the windows (the incarnation?) through which we experience God's love for us as well?  I mean I see this in our present existence through common grace.

 

Namaste:  The depth of one's experience with God SATISFIES the longing of the heart. And because of this, a person can more adequately attend the the needs of themselves and their fellow human beings. This process of satisfaction in God (resting in God) empowers one to love FREELY...and more effectively engage the "powers" of this world for transforming possibilities.

 

Brandon:  What I'm questioning is that one's experience with God satisfies the longing of the heart (it doesn't seem to be so in Adam). What I am NOT questioning is that we can attend to others as we are more "in tune" with God.

 

Namaste:  I could be wrong...but it seems to me like you have been taking my description as some kind of standard that everyone SHOULD meet. What YOU probably want said is some acknowledgement that it's not necessarily the FAULT of individuals if they don't get to a point where they are not aesthetically satisfied in God from moment to moment. For some people their social contexts have beaten them down into "org-ness" and they can't do anything to help themselves. That's a great thing to acknowledge.

 

Brandon:  What I want acknowledged is that one cannot be aesthetically satisfied in God WITHOUT the human-human relationship PERIOD.  I realize that many of us can't really be aesthically satisfied because of the ogreness (I've been spelling that word wrong) issue ipso facto and the transformation of the powers is not complete (ipso facto. Obviously, we still retain "ogreness" because of the powers to some extent). I know it's not the fault in many cases of the individuals. So that's not a question to me.

 

Also, I'm not saying that we can't have a certain level of satisfaction. Cause we can.  I just don't know if it can be maxed out via the God-human relationship alone. And I know it can't be maxed out because we are ogres and because the powers greatly affect us being themselves infected by sin.

 

Namaste:  Are we about on the same page now?

 

Brandon:  Not totally. Some things yes.  But not everything.  I know we are made to worship God.  I know we are to reflect Christ. But we are also to REFLECT the SOCIAL trinity. That can only be done in relation to others (amongst other things). So in terms of God's telos and his being our only source of satisfaction.  It seems to me that maybe we have "set the bar too high."

 

What do you say?

 

 

---

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/30/2006 12:49:20 PM (GMT-6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless I'M misunderstanding as well,
Tom

---

 

Post Edited (TGB) : 10/30/2006 7:27:11 PM (GMT-6)

Mile 300: Point of having a "totally satisfied heart" in God

Responding to other drivers and people: "Loving your neighbor as yourself FROM having a "totally satisfied heart" in God.

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really.  Just one simple question.  How do you KNOW there ISN'T more to come?  How do you know it doesn't get better?  How do you know that when you are before God that God isn't gonna blow you away with God's finale?  How do you know that God isn't gonna be saying something like, "OK.  Namaste was blown away by that, but he doesn't even know that the best is yet to come. Wait till he sees THIS!"  And Namaste is going to say, "Daaaayam!" 

 

Nobody is denying that God gives you the grace and the Holy Spirit and the power for living.  And I can't buy into this idea that we cannot try something that we believe is impossible.  I never said that.  That's silly.  That's very similar to the warfare motif in which the war has been won but I don't see many BATTLES won. I believe that it's possible to win that war and that it is assured.  Yes, I see many battles won right now, but I also see many lost.  Has that FINAL battle been won now?  Is it all over and we can all go home now?  My eyes are set on that glorious city. They are set on the prize.  That's going to happen.  That's not impossible.  So I continue to fight the good fight. 

 

Tommy, where are you man?  What're thoughts on this?

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

Brandon:  Right.  I NEVER did say that God's ultimate telos is about the brotherhood/sista-hood of man per se.  But it seems to me that a part of our becoming divinized unto Christlikeness via the Holy Spirit is as we exist both individually AND COLLECTIVELY.  A part of what it means to participate in the divine life is to participate in it HARMONIOUSLY not just as individuals (being rightly related to MYSEL--my existance as a substance, the human person/being possessing an "it-selfness" a "presence-in-self") but as a human person/being possessing a "toward otherness"  not only with myself and God but ALSO with a "toward otherness" between other fellow human persons. 

 

Thus, I would define our personhood not only as substantiality but as one who lives in social solidarity with her fellow human beings and journeying historically through this material universe or cosmos toward her final supranatural destiny, in search of the infinite God who creates her.

---

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/7/2006 1:35:22 PM (GMT-6)