 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2006 7:13 PM (GMT -6) |   | This may be off...but what the heck. Let's see...
Here's the question...
Is it IMPOSSIBLE for God to hardwire the disposition of spiritual creatures such that right relationship to God and reality is the ONLY SOURCE for their ultimate aesthetic satisfaction and becoming?
The reason why this is "the question" is this. This dispositional hardwiring is the MAIN MEANS of how a form of post-mortem evangelism can actually end up in eventual universal reconciliation via the rock-bottom experience. In other words, once we say that God has placed this dispositional hardwiring in spiritual creatures, then we have a reason to say that there is something ESSENTIAL to spiritual creatures that always "hungers" for God despite the being's own self-disposal against God. It's the aspect of our spirits that make DESPAIR BEFORE GOD possible.
Once a person admits that it really IS possible for God to hardwire the disposition of spiritual creatures such that they NEED to be rightly related to God and reality for their ultimate satisfaction and becoming...then that person would have to eventually say that God INDEED HAS created us this way.
Why?
Because if it's an implication of God's NECESSARY perfectly loving disposition that God would not fail to choose enacting any creational plan that renders the genuine (and overwhelming) possibility of all spiritual beings being saved...
...and we have discovered AT LEAST ONE theological/metaphysical perspective where God could enact the salvation of all spiritual beings that involves the "dispositional wiring" I mentioned above...
...then it stands to reason that IF the perfectly loving God exists, that God would enact the salvation of all spiritual beings, even if ONLY by that one conceptual way.
As someone else shared with me, it has an "ontological effect".
One either has to argue that it's IMPOSSIBLE that God can create Creation (via certain dispositional constraints on spiritual beings) such that eventual universal reconciliation has an overwhelming probability of occuring...or one must accept that it is ACTUALLY the case that God HAS created Creation this way.
Does this make sense?
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/22/2006 7:18:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/22/2006 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I think this will prove to be a more fruitful way of arguing things.
When you say “God was able to hardwire us in such a way that…” I think a lot of people will think God was then able to hardwire us in other ways, ways compatible with our irrevocably solidifying into evil, but just decided not to. And this isn’t what you’re arguing. So the way to go about it is what you’ve got going here, to say that God, being the sort of being God is, couldn’t hardwire sentient, morally deliberating creatures any OTHER way. It’s just the very nature of sentient creaturely existence to be sustained by God and bear God’s image, if only in some minimalistic way that defines creaturely sentient existence qua creaturely sentience. And that just means you’re making a purely metaphysical argument.
I think what we said earlier about evil as privation will help too. Evil cannot have any independent existence of its own. It has to “ride” on the back of a host. So it stands to reason that no existing sentient creature can be so utterly and completely privated that the creature no longer bears God’s image in any way. So long as a sentient creature exists, there is SOME beachhead, SOME foothold God has to work with. God couldn’t hardwire that possibility out of sentient creaturely existence any more than God could hardwire a married bachelor. For evil to have so utterly consumed its host that the host becomes irrevocably evil is for evil to have annihilated the host’s existence. Hence, “irrevocably and utterly evil sentience” is a contradiction of terms. Where you have creaturely sentience, you have the sustaining presence of God upholding that existence in sentience, and where you have THAT, my friend, you have possibilities.
So instead of your question, perhaps something like: In what possible sense could sentient creatures utterly private themselves and exist at all? If this isn't possible, then doesn't it follow that all sentient creatures, just by virtue of existing, are redeemable?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/22/2006 11:08:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2006 10:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Ahhhhh...
Tom, you and I are meant to work together. You know that, right?
The next Dynamic Duo.
Remember Paul and Greg?
Remember Von B and the mystic lady?
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/23/2006 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I've heard many teachers and evangelists (who are not universalists, as far as I know) teach and preach that we humans can never find meaning and fulfillment except in God through Christ - they're saying that we're hardwired for such a relationship.
The only argument I can think of (non-metaphysical) is that people do find happiness and meaning without God in their lives. People fine a lot of happiness and meaning. BUT...what they don't find, I believe, is permanency in their state. They only find what they have, apart from God, for a short time. So ultimately, yes, we would be hardwired to find our completed sense of meaning and purpose in God.
Tom,
Question for you about good and evil...
If evil is the corruption and feeding-off, of good, then if a person is "evil," he is feeding off his own good or someone else's. I'm assuming that you believe that someone is never beyond redemption because of the good that is still in them, the image of God, per se. However, could a person become solidified in eating off their own good? Could a person become such that though the image of God remains, the person is solidified forever in feeding off that image in order to sustain evil? If not, why?
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2006 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: I've heard many teachers and evangelists (who are not universalists, as far as I know) teach and preach that we humans can never find meaning and fulfillment except in God through Christ - they're saying that we're hardwired for such a relationship.
Tom: Me too. That’s why it’s probably not such a good approach to begin by saying “We’re hardwired to only find permanent satisfaction in God.” Everybody (including proponents of eternal conscious torment) will say, “Well, yeah. Sure. Duh.”
What’s needed is some way of showing that God couldn’t create sentient beings who could irrevocably solidify in evil. And Starkman asks about this:
Starkman: If evil is the corruption and feeding-off, of good, then if a person is "evil," he is feeding off his own good or someone else's. I'm assuming that you believe that someone is never beyond redemption because of the good that is still in them, the image of God, per se. However, could a person become solidified in eating off their own good? Could a person become such that though the image of God remains, the person is solidified forever in feeding off that image in order to sustain evil? If not, why?
Tom: Good question. We’d be irrevocably as privated AS POSSIBLE, which isn’t annihilation (cause we’d still exist), but we’d be irredeemable.
I guess what comes to mind is:
(1) Leaving sentient creatures in such a state could not be the just consequence of any finite sins committed during this lifetime.
(2) If such existence is possible, it would have to be consciously chosen for its own sake. The agent would have to, with “eyes wide open,” irrevocably choose conscious torment for its own sake. She couldn’t choose it under the mistaken perception that she’s somehow getting something in exchange, even if it’s just to “stick it to God” or the satisfaction of knowing she’s deprived God of something he wants. No deceptions allowed. The choice would be both fully and accurately informed AND utterly irrational. Is such a choice possible? I’m not sure. I’m thinking not. But you never know!
(3) It would ruin the party (for me at least). You’d have this huge slice of creation cursing God forever. I guess like Bill Craig says, God would have to give believers a lobotomy so they could really enjoy heaven. Wow.
(4) I don’t see why God shouldn’t under such circumstances just annihilate such persons. They’re irredeemable, right? Holding them eternally in punishment isn’t a just consequence of ANY sin I can imagine a person committing while on earth. I think God would just poof ‘em out of existence.
(5) Most importantly though, I don’t know how we’d explain the irrevocable nature of the solidification given the existence of creaturely sentience that bears God’s image. To posit a sentience that reflects God’s image is to posit what such sentient reflection of God IS and DOES, and that seems to mean positing POSSIBILITIES with respect to God. How would that be shut up irrevocably under some higher kind of character solidification and hold out possibilities with respect to God? If the person is an irreducible sentient center of possibilities with regard to God, then by definition it can’t also be that the character is irrevocably privated up to the borders of this sentient center of possibilities. If the privation is irrevocable, there would by definition be no future possibilities to speak of. But if creaturely sentience irrevocably bears God’s image, it always faces possibilities with regard to God. So I think the sort of irrevocable privation you described is self-contradictory.
I honestly feel like I’m in water over my head. I don’t understand process metaphysics well enough to work out the nuts and bolts of this stuff. But I’m kinda feeling it.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2006 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
As to the "question" -- I think it is fact. But you must add to that free will, tradition seems to say. Free will and predestined "hardwiring (of) disposition (so that) spiritual creatures (must have) right relationship to God and reality is the ONLY SOURCE for their ultimate aesthetic satisfaction and becoming" does NOT negate free will.
We're not negating free will here, B. Basically what we are saying is that the health and pleasure of spiritual creatures, metaphysically speaking, has a direct relationship to their right-relationship to God and reality. It can be no other way. Isn't the flower created to glorify God by leaning towards the light of the sun...just as WE are created to lean ever towards the light of the True Light of the One and Only Begotten Son? Just like the human body needs water...spiritual beings need to be rightly-related to God and reality.
However...
Just like a person can CHOOSE to go without water and dehydrate...
So also a person can self-dispose against themselves...curving in on themselves...
And turn away from their true Joy.
Free will is intact, brother.
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2006 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Most importantly though, I don’t know how we’d explain the irrevocable nature of the solidification given the existence of creaturely sentience that bears God’s image. To posit a sentience that reflects God’s image is to posit what such sentient reflection of God IS and DOES, and that seems to mean positing POSSIBILITIES with respect to God. How would that be shut up irrevocably under some higher kind of character solidification and hold out possibilities with respect to God? If the person is an irreducible sentient center of possibilities with regard to God, then by definition it can’t also be that the character is irrevocably privated up to the borders of this sentient center of possibilities. If the privation is irrevocable, there would by definition be no future possibilities to speak of. But if creaturely sentience irrevocably bears God’s image, it always faces possibilities with regard to God. So I think the sort of irrevocable privation you described is self-contradictory.
You're on the right track, Tom.
If spiritual beings are TRULY irreducibly centers of prehension and appreciation...which, given the dispositional ontology, they would be...
for privation to be irrevocable..
a spiritual being would have to will itself to a point of having NO CONCEIVABLE possibilities dealing with God or reality...
It would have to will itself into UTTER negative prehension of all possibility.
But that is METAPHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
Dispositions, by their very nature, are created to be MEDIATIONS between possibility and actuality. The relation relating to itself in the relation!
(Just check Doc's book)
So, if dispositions, BY DEFINITION, are mediations between prehensions of possibility and actuality...then it can never be the case that a spiritual being can EVER fail to prehend SOME possibilities related to God and reality..not even by it's OWN self-disposition against itself.
Thus it is METAPHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a spiritual creature, once created, to self-annihilate.
So, only GOD can put a spiritual creature out of existence...by withdrawing God's sustaining providence from said creature.
It's either annihilationism or eventual universal reconciliation.
One of the two.
But wait...doesn't God want all people to be saved?
And doesn't God want to maximize God's experience of beauty in Creation?
Wouldn't annihilationism work against both of those teloi?
I think so.
I guess there's only one choice left then.
Tom, I think we can call it a day.
This was the Golden Ticket we were looking for.
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/23/2006 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2006 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Starky Baby: The only argument I can think of (non-metaphysical) is that people do find happiness and meaning without God in their lives. People fine a lot of happiness and meaning. BUT...what they don't find, I believe, is permanency in their state. They only find what they have, apart from God, for a short time. So ultimately, yes, we would be hardwired to find our completed sense of meaning and purpose in God.
Brando Baby:This might be getting off track...but as I see it, this kinda goes back to our discussion on the James Smith thread. I wonder if God HAS wired us such and created reality such that we can find ultimate aesthetic satisfaction and meaning without God period. If what Namaste means by being "rightly related to reality," then I can go along with that, hence the flower analogy. Much like a "fish outta water" would not find ultimate aesthetic satisfaction, the fish would be "less of a fish" because of it's existence outside of it's environment in which it naturally exists. So in other words, it seems to me there has to be something about our "earthiness" in which we find ultimate aesthetic satisfaction in God through fulfillment in earthy things. Hence my Adam and Eve thingamijigger. None of this would seem to necessitate that we don't need to be "rightly related with God" for we are not ONLY earthy creatures but spiritual as well. But the two, it seems should not be spherically divided, such that we somehow locate the body on a lower metaphysical level and the Spirit above i.e. gnosticism. That is, as I relate to God I relate to God in my finitude AND earthiness, not simply as spirit to Spirit.
Does any of this make any sense or am I talk'n outta my butt?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/25/2006 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
This might be getting off track...but as I see it, this kinda goes back to our discussion on the James Smith thread. I wonder if God HAS wired us such and created reality such that we can find ultimate aesthetic satisfaction and meaning without God period. If what Namaste means by being "rightly related to reality," then I can go along with that, hence the flower analogy. Much like a "fish outta water" would not find ultimate aesthetic satisfaction, the fish would be "less of a fish" because of it's existence outside of it's environment in which it naturally exists. So in other words, it seems to me there has to be something about our "earthiness" in which we find ultimate aesthetic satisfaction in God through fulfillment in earthy things. Hence my Adam and Eve thingamijigger. None of this would seem to necessitate that we don't need to be "rightly related with God" for we are not ONLY earthy creatures but spiritual as well. But the two, it seems should not be spherically divided, such that we somehow locate the body on a lower metaphysical level and the Spirit above i.e. gnosticism. That is, as I relate to God I relate to God in my finitude AND earthiness, not simply as spirit to Spirit.
Hmmm...
If human beings are primarily SPIRITUAL BEINGS, and if we use SK's idea of despair (sin), then it wouldn't MATTER how much a human being enjoys Creatoin if they are in despair before God. The idea the a human can be ultimately aesthetically satisfied without Creation would fly in the face of the idea that God is the supreme telos of all things.
What does it matter that a person gains the whole world and loses their soul...right?
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/25/2006 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | But then what do you mean by, "... right relationship to God **and reality** is the ONLY SOURCE for their ultimate aesthetic satisfaction..."? In one sense reality being that sphere that is not God (the differientiation between Creator and created). In another sense, is there any part of reality that is not imbued with God's presence?
See, I don't think I disagree with SK's idea of despair as you guys have articulated on these boards. But I don't THINK it contradicts what I'm saying. The question is finding ultimate aesthetic satisfaction not, "Would I still exist in despair before God?" (of course I would). Can this be done without God? If not, then how is it that I'm reading in (especially Reformed circles) in which we are "more human" when we are in relationship with others such that if we were NOT in relationship with others and were on some island in the Pacific isolated from community, we would in some way be "less human." And it seems to me if we are less human (in isolation from others) how is it that God is the ultimate aesthetic satisfier?
See, I understand that we are spiritual beings, but I don't know if I want to say PRIMARILY spiritual beings, (That's a mighty big "IF" Namaste). At least not at the expense of the physical. Could our spirituality (and worship of God) not be exemplified in and through the tangible? I mean I think of this in terms of work. God created us to work. Work is very spiritual cultural activity. And it seems to me that there is something askew when we don't find our work to be fulfilling. That makes for a miserable life. I could work such that I feel sooo satisfied that I think, (wrongly so) I have no need for God. But would I not be in some sense worshipping (and idolizing) my work at this point such that we end up worshipping the created and not the Creator?
It just seems to me that if God said to Adam that it was not good for him to be alone (and Adam had God's immediate presence!) then there has to be something other than God (at least ONLY. That is, There is something other than ONLY God, could it be reality?) that we can find ultimate satisfaction in as well? However, our worship rightfully belongs TO God.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/25/2006 6:33:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/25/2006 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
Let me try something.
Adam did not...I repeat...did NOT have the Holy Spirit within him.
Jesus had it. (Descent of the Dove)
Jesus breathed it on the church. (Pentecost)
So, in Christ, our relationship to God is WAY BETTER than Adam's ever could have been.
Post-Christ humanity has a better situation going on than Pre-Christ humanity.
Luke 7:28
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Before Jesus, the Holy Spirit only came UPON people...
...with the possible exception of David...
1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity.
10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will turn back to you.
14 Deliver me from bloodguilt, O God,
you who are God my Savior,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
15 Open my lips, Lord,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
18 May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.
(David was a mystic)
But John the Baptist was better than even David...
Why?
Because John was FILLED with Holy Spirit BEFORE BIRTH.
(Read Luke 1)
So, that's interesting...
John was filled with the Holy Spirit.
But WHY was John still not as cool as people in the Kingdom of God?
Simple.
Because after Jesus' death, the Holy Spirit became the mediator of Christ's PRESENCE and TRUTH. And the Kingdom of God involves living in the Spirit of CHRIST...having Christ formed IN us, individually AND as an organic, collective whole!
"If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. Anyone who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."
...
"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
...
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and God's provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.
...
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
So...
Because of Jesus' work, we have the ability to truly have CHRIST living IN us through the HOLY SPIRIT...the seal of the Living God.
Growing in this is what THEOSIS is about.
We have the capability of theosis because of the Spirit of Christ!
John didn't have that.
David didn't have that.
And Adam SURELY didn't have that.
So, I would disagree that Adam had God's "immediate presence".
We, God's sealed/Body of Christ, have the immediate presence!
What do you think, Brandon?
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/25/2006 7:37:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/25/2006 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh. And ultimate aesthetic satisfaction can ONLY occur if the God-shaped void in spiritual beings is filled.
And that only happens when despair is removed.
Coherence with NON-GOD reality may intensify a person's sense of despair (which at LEAST means that some sense of self is being created)...but it NEVER removes it.
Yes, human connectivity is better than NO connectivity...because we have been created to 1) be relational 2) seek intimacy and 3) be sexual.
(Makes sense if we are trying to populate, right?)
And yes, humans can have some measure of DIVERSIONARY HAPPINESS away from their despair.
But it is not helpful to say that human beings can be completely aesthetically satisfied without God.
For only God has the ability to fulfill the longings of the human heart.
Only God is worthy of being the Absolute or Ultimate Concern in our lives.
(This is why there was soooo much ado about IDOLATRY and ADULTERY in the OT.)
Once we understand that...and we allow God to satisfy us...as we utterly glorify God...
Then we are FREE from our own despairing, narcissistic tendencies...
FREE enough to truly love yourself...and every other person on the planet.
They LOVE GOD with all that is within them...and because of that, they are LIBERATED from themselves enough to genuinely love and honor EVERY OTHER PERSON they come into contact with...
just like they genuinely love and honor themselves.
THIS is what a New Human is to do.
Remember Babel.
Humanity coming together without God...is a breeding ground for DESPAIR and UGLINESS in a fallen system.
On the other hand....
humanity coming together IN God...well, that's just heavenly...isn't it?
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/25/2006 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | |
Namaste: Post-Christ humanity has a better situation going on than Pre-Christ humanity.
Brandon: I'd say that Post-Christ humanity has a better situation going on than Pre-Christ humanity, but not better than what was going on in the Garden or not better than Pre-Fall. I'd say that the coming of the Christ event and Post-Christ humanity are basically the beginnings of a RESTORATION of Garden like conditions and intentions. That is, what God intended for man Pre-Fall is now being restored or "becoming."
Secondly, what seems to have set the Israelites apart from their neighbours was not the law (that is they were given the law). What set them apart was that God's presence dwelt among them and manifested Godself among them in ways that weren't your everyday, "God is the sovereign God of the universe" type presence.
And this is what is strikingly different between both testaments. God's presence is such that God DOES "take his presence from me" (David). NOW that isn' so. The presence of God through the Spirit among his people it seems to me is significant in that it is lasting. (I see too much of an individualistic streak in what you are saying, though that has a place as well).
Lastly, I'm not trying to draw a distinction between human relational connectivity and no human relational connectivity but only in the sense that if human connectivity is what makes us "more human" and thus reflecting the image of God more and more than THIS is very important to ultimate aesthetic satisfaction.
I'm attempting to say NOT no human connectivity vs humanity connectivity, but human connectivity and connectivity with God is such where ultimate aesthetic satisfaction will find fulfillment. You, it seems to me wants to say, "It's only through connectivity with God and God alone." And I don't know if God has hard-wired us that way.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2006 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Lastly, I'm not trying to draw a distinction between human relational connectivity and no human relational connectivity but only in the sense that if human connectivity is what makes us "more human" and thus reflecting the image of God more and more than THIS is very important to ultimate aesthetic satisfaction.
I'm attempting to say NOT no human connectivity vs humanity connectivity, but human connectivity and connectivity with God is such where ultimate aesthetic satisfaction will find fulfillment. You, it seems to me wants to say, "It's only through connectivity with God and God alone." And I don't know if God has hard-wired us that way.
I'll try to explain this.
We have our own form of ad intra life. This "ad intra" life is where we, as individuals, relate to OURSELVES and GOD intimately. My idea is that whenever we get to a point where Kierkegaardian despair is decreased or removed...there is a state where we are...
1) relating WELL to ourselves (Self-love and self-acceptance that COMES FROM internalization of God's love for you)
2) willing to be oneself (Refusing to be ANYTHING ELSE but what God has gifted and called you to be)
3) rest in God (when we are "most satisfied" in God; in other words, when our ad intra needs for relationality, expression, intimacy, significance, etc ALL have God as their primary locus...receiving all those things from God and no one else.)
It's not like this only happens between you and God. God can AND DOES use human relationships to further this process! Yes, there is silence and solitude for the individual that helps the process...but it's ALSO the iron-sharpening-iron life of COVENANT COMMUNITY that helps this process for everyone in that community. it is a BOTH/AND of individual and corporate pursuit of God. For me, personally, my covenant community has been ABSOLUTELY INSTRUMENTAL in my spiritual growth!
As this occurs, one finds themselves getting LIFE (meaning, significance, intimacy,etc) from GOD ONLY. This removes TONS of dysfunctions that come from "idolatry of other people" or "idolatry of oneself" When a person is able to say that God is the ONE and ONLY THING that satisfies them in life...
"You are my desire...nothing else will do...help me find a way...to bring me back to you...
YOU'RE ALL I WANT...YOU'RE ALL I'VE EVER NEEDED...YOU'RE ALL I WANT...HELP ME KNOW YOU ARE NEAR..."
...then they are getting to a place where all dysfunctional self-orientation is being ROOTED OUT.
They can then be LIBERATED to FREELY love.
Just like GOD freely loves.
See, Brandon, the reason why God can have a TRULY FREE contingent expression of God's ad intra life, is because God is FULFILLED within Godself because of the INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP with Godself that exists ad intra. Because God needs nothing else, God can FREELY give grace, mercy, and love to Creation without expecting Creation to try to fulfill some NEED in God. Love can be genuinely UNIDIRECTIONAL!!! In like manner, when WE become fulfilled by God, we have MORE emotional resources and energy to FREELY exhibit UNCONDITIONAL love to ourselves...and everyone else we see.
This is a description of the PROCESS that I'm experiencing right now. The more time that I spend with God, the more God heals me from past hurts that have caused me to fall into different levels of despair (like my very, very painful childhood experiences). And it's NOT LIKE I try to spend time with God for that. I just spend time with God "just because" he is so beautiful and lovely! But something DIFFERENT has been going on. The more God, in his grace, heals my despair, the EASIER and MORE NATURAL it is for me to genuinely see all human beings as creatures of beauty who are worthy of UNCONDITIONAL love and honor...because they are made in the image of the Beautiful One, Christ. Because I'm not warring with myself over trying to get life from people (because I'm being more and more fulfilled by God ALONE), I can truly be a beautiful person to others FREELY.
It's been REVOLUTIONIZING my relationships at work, at home....everywhere!!
Not only that, but God SHOWS me opportunities to SERVE these beautiful beings that I call my fellow humans. God is on MISSION, yo! God doesn't bless people JUST for themselves...but so they can SPREAD this mind-boggling unconditional love and honor to all people that we can.
THIS is what completely confuses me about the individualism problem. Just because I say that the ONE THING that we should will is LOVING GOD with all that we are...doesn't mean that I'm saying that the process by which this happens is ENTIRELY individual. I'm just saying that our TELOS is ultimately about UNITY with God...and THROUGH THAT UNITY WITH GOD, unity with OURSELVES and the entire organic whole of HUMANITY.
I sure hope that this helps things.
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/26/2006 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Seriously, I feel like giving up on this conversation. Maybe let what you have said sink in. But at this point, no it doesn't help.
See, I tend to think that each of your three points can be fulfilled without putting God in the equation or Godspeak in the equation on a relational intimacy level. This is NOT to say that God is not involved in the process, because it is ultimately God who extends who God is into human connectivity and relationality. God DESIRES community. Whether we realize it or not, we "image" this connectivity and relationality and sociality. Christian or not. Thus, to the extent that we image this, we are reflecting the social Trinity.
THUS, if we DON'T exist in an "I-Thou" relationship WITH OTHERS we are not reflecting God's image and we are certainly NOT "more human" because of it. We can have all the intimacy with God, but if I am not loved by those closest to me i.e. not loved as a child, then it seems to me that all meaning and significance goes out the window. As a matter of fact, I tend to believe that when a child is loved by his parents then God is involved in THAT process by which God roots out all dsyfunctional sefl-orientation such that we can love ourselves and others properly. This is not to say that we don't need God in the equation. It is to say that we don't necessarily need to be "rightly related" to God for this to be fulfilled.
This is why I tend to think that IF I had a crisis of faith? It would be over something like this. Seriously. Because it seems to me that sometimes (and I know you want to say that this is NOT what it comes down to i.e. benefits from believing) but it seems that if we got rid of all of the Godspeak, we would essentially be saying two words, "Human flourishing" and this happens in how we ultimately exist along side of each other. Hence, "the brotherhood of man." Isn't all theology essentially anthroprocentric? That's what I would be saying in my crisis of faith.
But I believe God is intimately involved in the process and our lives. I've experienced God. At least God has given me space enough to BELIEVE that it is God.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2006 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Would you agree that there's a potential beauty to YOU that can be acheived ONLY in relationship to other humans? I think this is all Brandon wants to hear you say.
Yes, I would agree with that. Just like that is a potential form of beauty that is ONLY acheived by God through God's contingent expressive acitivity with CREATION. But also, like God, I would say that the beauty that we get from other humans is aesthetically pleasing (very MUCH so!), but NOT aesthetically SATISFYING (satiation of desire).
Only GOD can do that.
********************
Tom:
But Brandon, Namaste's saying yes to this doesn't undermine what he's essentially been trying to say. For even the beauty that's available to reflected by ME only in relationship with other humans can only be maximized when I'm intimate with God. It requires the ME-GOD relationship as well. That's still the CENTER.
Thank you, Tom. Exactly!
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2006 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
This is why I tend to think that IF I had a crisis of faith? It would be over something like this. Seriously. Because it seems to me that sometimes (and I know you want to say that this is NOT what it comes down to i.e. benefits from believing) but it seems that if we got rid of all of the Godspeak, we would essentially be saying two words, "Human flourishing" and this happens in how we ultimately exist along side of each other. Hence, "the brotherhood of man." Isn't all theology essentially anthroprocentric? That's what I would be saying in my crisis of faith.
This is what I'm discovering about THEOSIS and what it means. Jesus really did come to bring us a NEW WAY of HUMAN EXISTENCE. Not a new religious belief. Jesus, with his person, permanently raised up humanity into the divine life of God. A more full way where we fully actualize the divine and human authority we have as being in God's image.
God has created things such that creaturely becoming and flourishing can ONLY be maximized and the DESIRE for creaturely becoming and flourishing can only be FULFILLED in loving, honoring relationship with God AS THE CENTER.
God has created the ultimate "both/and"
"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 love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
| 104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:01 PM (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 |
|
|