how does this work?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have to dispute that there is any place/dimension/state-of-being which is, or could be, absent God’s presence...
And yet, here we find ourselves, outside of Eden... at least, for the time being.

what honest person really has a clear comprehension of the word “eternity”?
I'd hazard a guess that only those who have experienced it ...[text shortened]... understanding, whether or not hell turns out to be metaphorical I do know I won't be there![/b]

And yet, here we find ourselves, outside of Eden... at least, for the time being.

Well, that whole thing is rich with possible meanings. I have tended to read it allegorically and psychologically. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich read it existentially. I think Augustine and others may have read it ontologically. It could be read relationally...

My point is about the omnipresence of God, however one understands that (and I admit that I am peering through my non-dualist spectacles; but a panentheistic view, which seems to be more where the Eastern Orthodox folks are at) would come to the same conclusion. I am reminded of the Zen story in which the child-fish asks his mother: “So when are you going to show me this ‘ocean’ you’re always talking about.”

Interesting take on it. I have thought of God as the man in the ditch, and us as either one of the three or one of the robbers. I'll mull over your view and get back to you.

I always thought of it in the plain sense, wherein we are to behave like the Samaritan even with regard to people we don’t like—and Jesus turned the tables on the one who asked, “Who is my neighbor?” by presenting the parable and then asking, “Who was a neighbor to the man in the ditch?”

I don’t know how I thought of the other “take,” but I first suggested it to lucifershammer, who then said that a theologian friend of his told him that that may have been the earliest understanding of the parable in the church. Like all parables, I think it operates on more than one level.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I didn't say she would be happy with his choice, any more than God can be happy about our rejection. In your world, apparently force is the only way: she should have forced her son to accept God's offer of salvation for her happiness. That's not true happiness. True happiness is not dependent upon another--- the only exception is the obvious one ...[text shortened]... f absolute worship, total awe. Any worship or awe directed toward any other being is a lie.

so in heaven i walk round all day, not really doing much apart from singing praises about god and spending all my time worshipping him... and you call this heaven?

dont you think you're portraying god as some kind of hero-worshipping , arrogant, self righteous being..? basically, you're saying his attitude is "believe in me or get out"..... most human beings behave with more dignity than that... who really is the god here..?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I didn't say she would be happy with his choice, any more than God can be happy about our rejection. In your world, apparently force is the only way: she should have forced her son to accept God's offer of salvation for her happiness. That's not true happiness. True happiness is not dependent upon another--- the only exception is the obvious one ...[text shortened]... f absolute worship, total awe. Any worship or awe directed toward any other being is a lie.

also, you said true happiness is only dependent on god... how about buddhists..? they claim to have found enlightenment yet follow no god

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I didn't say she would be happy with his choice, any more than God can be happy about our rejection. In your world, apparently force is the only way: she should have forced her son to accept God's offer of salvation for her happiness. That's not true happiness. True happiness is not dependent upon another--- the only exception is the obvious one ...[text shortened]... f absolute worship, total awe. Any worship or awe directed toward any other being is a lie.

Heaven is the most selfish place ever created, i.e., it is all about God. There is no contradiction, however, as He is the ONLY being worthy of absolute worship, total awe.

But if God is all about God, what is the basis for this worthiness? Absolute power? I can see being awed by absolute power; I can see “worshipping” it out of terror. But what does that have to do with “being worthy?”

And if one says, “Well who are we to judge God’s worthiness?”—then I have to respond, “If we cannot judge God’s worthiness, then you are again worshipping only an absolute power whose worthiness isn’t even addressable.”

So, if you are asserting that an absolutely egocentric being is somehow worthy of worship, I think you have a bit further to go in explaining why, unless it’s your view that absolute power, coupled with pure egocentricity is worthy of worship in a divine being (and, of course, the selfish gratitude of one who is “saved” while his/her loved ones are condemned).

In the circumstance, I choose to end up in hell with my beloved wife, rather than in heaven worshipping the being that decided she belonged in hell—and of course, you will say that that is my choice. But, quite frankly, I think that is right in line with the radical agape espoused in the NT; it is how I “place my soul” (psuche; John 15:13). [See my prior posts on agape, and how I view this “me more” notion...]

Originally posted by eatmybishop
also, you said true happiness is only dependent on god... how about buddhists..? they claim to have found enlightenment yet follow no god

In clear-mind, prior to making thoughts and opinions, just being-aware, there is no anguish. In that condition, or uncluttered way of being, just here-now, there is no disharmony—no fear or anger, for example. It is the natural “ground” of consciousness in which one realizes one’s non-separability from the ground of existence: like a wave (or a stream) in the ocean, that arises from the ocean, is of the ocean, and eventually returns to the ocean whence it arose.

In that, there is bliss: the simple bliss of being. Nothing extraordinary, only natural. When one realizes that, one can think, and act, and feel, and form opinions like everyone else—but one slowly (sometimes very slowly) learns the absurdity of trying to hold onto one’s “waveness,” let alone struggle against the ocean. “God”—as I (and I’m hardly alone, across religious expressions) use the word—is just another name for that ocean of being. Whether it is ultimately “personal” or not.

In Zen Buddhism, that “ground of consciousness” is called, among other things, Buddha-nature.

All of this can be put into “Christic” terms as well, and has been—especially in the east. But Meister Eckhart also comes to mind, and Julian of Norwich. It is the "perennial philosophy" that finds expression in just about every religion, and I would say, however it is expressed, grounds them.

I think that modern Christians (mostly in the West) have largely forgotten how to read the symbolism. Most of them disagree with me categorically on that, however...

EDIT: Iam not of the opinion that there is an individual "after-life"; but many Buddhists are (transmigration of souls, some kind of personal nirvana, perhaps). Sufis and Christians both use the word "love" (which includes eros) in describing the nature of that ground of our being; Hindus say sat-chit-ananda, being-consciousness-bliss; a Taoist might use a word like harmony, or coherence. Whatever: none of them view it/him/her as being so incongruously cruel as to create an eternal hell, which would seem to imply a kind of existential incoherence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who said that God failed at anything?
Kelly

Freaky.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Freaky.

Not true. God has never, will never, can never fail. Man's failure is not a reflection of God's effort; rather it is proof that he needs God to be good.

Originally posted by vistesd
And yet, here we find ourselves, outside of Eden... at least, for the time being.

Well, that whole thing is rich with possible meanings. I have tended to read it allegorically and psychologically. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich read it existentially. I think Augustine and others may have read it ontologically. It could be read relationally... ...[text shortened]... g of the parable in the church. Like all parables, I think it operates on more than one level.[/b]

“So when are you going to show me this ‘ocean’ you’re always talking about.”
A good way of viewing pantheism, perhaps, but not an accurate picture of the presence of God. While there exists no place in all of creation in which we could hide from Him, there is one place He can be denied, i.e., the soul of man.

Like all parables, I think it operates on more than one level.
Amen.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
so in heaven i walk round all day, not really doing much apart from singing praises about god and spending all my time worshipping him... and you call this heaven?

dont you think you're portraying god as some kind of hero-worshipping , arrogant, self righteous being..? basically, you're saying his attitude is "believe in me or get out"..... most human beings behave with more dignity than that... who really is the god here..?

so in heaven i walk round all day, not really doing much apart from singing praises about god and spending all my time worshipping him... and you call this heaven?
Of the industry or daily life of Heaven, I am not certain. I am certain that there will exist a consciousness of God's greatness threading through the thoughts of everyone capable of thinking.

dont you think you're portraying god as some kind of hero-worshipping , arrogant, self righteous being..?
Yes, no and yes.
There is one Hero upon which all of creation hinges: Jesus Christ, the God-man. He receives all praise and adoration because anything less would be untrue.
It is not arrogant to be loyal to the truth.
Only God is righteous within Himself, using Himself as the standard of the same. Nothing else makes sense.

basically, you're saying his attitude is "believe in me or get out"
Not really. Satan and the fallen angels believe in God, but have failed to place their trust therein. This is more of a 'speak the truth' proposition than any other.

most human beings behave with more dignity than that
No, they really don't.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
also, you said true happiness is only dependent on god... how about buddhists..? they claim to have found enlightenment yet follow no god

There is but one truth. On whatever level the protocols of religions agree, they have not forged new ground: they're simply agreeing with God. On whatever ground they have wandered away from God, they have wandered away from truth... enlightened or otherwise.

Originally posted by vistesd
Heaven is the most selfish place ever created, i.e., it is all about God. There is no contradiction, however, as He is the ONLY being worthy of absolute worship, total awe.

But if God is all about God, what is the basis for this worthiness? Absolute power? I can see being awed by absolute power; I can see “worshipping” it out of terror. But what d ...[text shortened]... i]; John 15:13). [See my prior posts on agape, and how I view this “me more” notion...][/b]

But if God is all about God, what is the basis for this worthiness? Absolute power?
That is but one aspect of God's characteristics, as seen in the creation of 'other.'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not true. God has never, will never, can never fail. Man's failure is not a reflection of God's effort; rather it is proof that he needs God to be good.

Sorry. My bad. It was Knightmeister. He said that God failed.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]“So when are you going to show me this ‘ocean’ you’re always talking about.”
A good way of viewing pantheism, perhaps, but not an accurate picture of the presence of God. While there exists no place in all of creation in which we could hide from Him, there is one place He can be denied, i.e., the soul of man.

Like all parables, I think it operates on more than one level.
Amen.[/b]

A good way of viewing pantheism, perhaps, but not an accurate picture of the presence of God.

Actually, I believe that it is: in whom “we live and move and have our being.”

"Holy Holy Holy YHVH Tzevaot—the fullness of all the earth is your presence."

EDIT: Despite the fact that it is (as I came across it anyway) a Zen parable, I was using it in the context of panentheism, not pantheism.

EDIT 2:

According to John, at least, agape is not a characteristic of God, alongside others—it is the very essence of God.

Now, I am neither a sola scripturist nor a biblical literalist (nor do I treat the whole thing as a single self-interpreting or self-authenticating book, which I think is a rather latter-day Protestant view). I am here, however, following what seems to be the pre-eminent understanding of the early church.

Originally posted by vistesd
In clear-mind, prior to making thoughts and opinions, just being-aware, there is no anguish. In that condition, or uncluttered way of being, just here-now, there is no disharmony—no fear or anger, for example. It is the natural “ground” of consciousness in which one realizes one’s non-separability from the ground of existence: like a wave (or a stream) in ...[text shortened]... as to create an eternal hell, which would seem to imply a kind of existential incoherence.

i think this is the first post i've read in the spirituality forum that made perfect sense... thank you.... someone on the same level