Is there a version of eternity...

Simon Anders said:
It's a poor metaphor. And so is surrender. They're old metaphors, they are traditional. But they are poor. Even if one thinks God does not change, we don't have to use old metaphors based on abusive relationships.

And an eternity based on an abusive relationship is not appealing.
Click to expand...
What is it exactly that you find abusive about accepting a role as a servant in a loving relationship?

It doesn't even make sense in the material world, what to speak of when you extrapolate it to the spiritual world (IOW in what way is a mother who loves her child abused in the relationship? In what way is child who loves their mother abused? In what ways do they attain a higher state of existence if they are not burdened by such a relationship?, etc etc)
:confused:
 
lightgigantic said:
What is it exactly that you find abusive about accepting a role as a servant in a loving relationship?

It doesn't even make sense in the material world, what to speak of when you extrapolate it to the spiritual world (IOW in what way is a mother who loves her child abused in the relationship? In what way is child who loves their mother abused? In what ways do they attain a higher state of existence if they are not burdened by such a relationship?, etc etc)
:confused:
Click to expand...
In another life, we've been at this juncture before, you and I. There is no need for that metaphor. None at all.

But I doubt either of us will convince the other of their position, so I am going to drop it.
 
Simon Anders said:
In another life, we've been at this juncture before, you and I. There is no need for that metaphor. None at all.

But I doubt either of us will convince the other of their position, so I am going to drop it.
Click to expand...

I think you shouldn't drop it, though.

I think it might be worthwhile to look into the negative associations that the notion of service brings into your mind, and check how justified those associations are. You yourself said elsewhere that it is important to check what it is that one believes.

Surrendering or serving a fire and brimstone god as usually described by mainstream Christians - this truly is defeat, a giving in to abuse and giving it nice names.

But that god of the Christians is not the only god, their description of God is not the only one there is.

Imagine someone, who, for example, is an expert cook. You like good food, don't you? And if you know someone who cooks really good food, you get all warm and fuzzy around that person when they cook and serve you food, and you really love to eat that food. You're even willing to pay them to cook for you, you are willing to buy the ingredients, you comply with their schedule - as long as you have the opportunity to eat that delicious food they make.

Or, another, example, imagine someone who is an expert philosopher. Really really good to talk to. Much smarter than you, sure, but still, you don't feel like trash around them and you absolutely love to talk to them.

Or an expert gardener or someone you love to cuddle with. Or someone who strikes you as really happy so you love to be around them. And so on.
Why would it be so impossible that God would be like that, all these wonderful qualities in one person?
 
greenberg said:
I think you shouldn't drop it, though.

I think it might be worthwhile to look into the negative associations that the notion of service brings into your mind, and check how justified those associations are. You yourself said elsewhere that it is important to check what it is that one believes.
Click to expand...
And in that context I meant 'because perhaps once one realizes what one believes already one will no longer feel the need to continue seeking to build up a belief or to fine the "right" one. '

In relation to 'surrender' and 'service' as core metaphors for the relationship with God (or other relationships), I am not in that position. I know what I believe.

But that god of the Christians is not the only god, their description of God is not the only one there is.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
But I see no need to prioritize service or surrender. Sure, I'd cook a meal for God and serve it. And accept an invitation for a meal God cooked for me. But as one verb amongst many. The prioritization is unneccessary. And the service goes both ways. Again, as one verb amongst many.

I don't see any need to prioritize them. I am OK with this 'not seeing the need' on my part.

Or, another, example, imagine someone who is an expert philosopher. Really really good to talk to. Much smarter than you, sure, but still, you don't feel like trash around them and you absolutely love to talk to them.

Or an expert gardener or someone you love to cuddle with. Or someone who strikes you as really happy so you love to be around them. And so on.
Why would it be so impossible that God would be like that, all these wonderful qualities in one person?
Click to expand...

edit: I am not really sure where 'serve' or 'surrender' need to be used in relation to these people (gods) you describe. I do know people like this and, yes, on occasion, one of us serves the other something, but I don't need to describe the relationship as centered on these verbs.

I am not assuming, at all, that God is the fire and brimstone guy. Now there is someone to surrender to, and there is someone to bow your head and serve and know your place. Or be demolished for not.

It seems in these examples, and also the one LG used with the Mother and Child, it is the older (more expert being) who is serving. But I certainly hope that is not all they are doing.

But if the metaphor works for LG, obviously he (or she) should keep at it. Likewise for you. Perhaps my reaction would have been better - to LG bringing up that metaphor - if I'd put it in more personal terms. It has taken some time for me to work out that I do not need those verbs to be used in the ways they have been used, just as some of the OT ideas of God seem not useful to me. Or worse. It has seemed like some people think I (and everyone) should use these verbs more as core metaphors and this dynamic has not been pleasant.

In any case, they're not for me.
 
Last edited:
Simon Anders,


How would you describe valuable relationships, what is the core factor in them?

I imagine there must be such a description, so as to be able to distinguish valuable relationships from unvaluable ones.
 
greenberg said:
Simon Anders,


How would you describe valuable relationships, what is the core factor in them?

I imagine there must be such a description, so as to be able to distinguish valuable relationships from unvaluable ones.
Click to expand...
The closer ones have the feeling of love is present and felt.
 
swarm said:
No. Just a question...what's eternity?
Click to expand...
I'd rather not define it or try to define it. Eternity is offered or proclaimed in a number of religions, hell even secular people sometimes keep the door open to it with ideas of uploading themselves into digital eternities. So the idea is out there and it means something to people - or perhaps a variety of 'things'. I am curious how people, many of whom hope they can 'have' eternity find that a pleasant thought.

If someone's answer is 'yes', then in the ensuing questioning, perhaps I will get a definition of 'their' eternity, along with the explanation of why it seems like a good thing and how they will 'spend' their time.
 
Simon Anders said:
I am curious how people, many of whom hope they can 'have' eternity find that a pleasant thought.

If someone's answer is 'yes', then in the ensuing questioning, perhaps I will get a definition of 'their' eternity, along with the explanation of why it seems like a good thing and how they will 'spend' their time.
Click to expand...

I remember years back, I was talking to some Mormons and on their leaflet, there were enticing questions like "Did you know that families can be together forever?" From the Mormons I knew, this was very important to many of them.

It wasn't until just recently that I have thought about this again, and I have felt a great yearning. Not that I would want to be with my family, the way it is now, forever - but the idea of an eternal perfect family life - I find this very attractive.
By "perfect" I am of course implying 'without suffering'.
 
greenberg said:
I remember years back, I was talking to some Mormons and on their leaflet, there were enticing questions like "Did you know that families can be together forever?" From the Mormons I knew, this was very important to many of them.

It wasn't until just recently that I have thought about this again, and I have felt a great yearning. Not that I would want to be with my family, the way it is now, forever - but the idea of an eternal perfect family life - I find this very attractive.
By "perfect" I am of course implying 'without suffering'.
Click to expand...
I would say I feel a push pull related to this idea. I can relate to your expression of the pull, but is there also something frightening about the idea for you.
 
Why isn't it all finished? Why are we NOW? We are caught in the Process.

How do we know it has not already been forever? Duh. There is really no way to answer absolute stupidity. When somebody says something so stupid it is an indicator that anything intelligent said in reply will not be understood anyway.

I once was witness to a scene between a Maintenance Sergeant and a Company Commander. Everyone was busy working to get the Company Area and Vehicles ready for General Inspection, but about a half dozen solders were left sitting in the corner watching TV. The Commander demanded to know why these particular troops were not assigned jobs. The Maintenance Sergeant said that he reviewed their Records and observed their low performance ratings and test scores and decided that if these particular solders were put to work under anything less than direct point by point supervision, they were very likely to do more harm than good.

When somebody asks how we know that Forever has not already happened... well, please just sit down over there and watch some TV and try not to break anything.


Simon Anders said:
Then why isn't it all finished? How do you know it has already been a forever?
A line going back infinitely in time......
Click to expand...
 
Do you write against these single people one at a time, or do you write for the World?

Don't answer these particular people with their one question, but answer ALL the People out there with the SAME Question. You might not be able to convince the one person, the one particular village idiot that occassioned the line of discussion, but maybe you will be able to give Food for Thought to hundreds of thousands of other people who may someday see this discussion in some Archeological Find.

In the Theater they say "there are no small roles, just small actors". there is something like that in Intellectual Forums... the importance and intelligence of it all is limited only by our own capacity and efforts. We should not worry about whether some slope-head imbecile understands or not.



Simon Anders said:
But I doubt either of us will convince the other of their position, so I am going to drop it.
Click to expand...
 
Leo Volont said:
Do you write against these single people one at a time, or do you write for the World?
Click to expand...
Neither. I do however get put off by certain kinds of repetition. I felt like I was repeating myself in a way that I did not want to continue and that this had to do with the dynamic between me and LG or perhaps between our ways of looking at the world.

If you are interested in the points I made in that discussion, I might very well find it interesting to write back and forth on the topic to you.

So, I note what you see as a failure of mine when one judges it from an abstract generalizaion.

I also note that the specific topic did not interest you enough to respond to it.

Perhaps it was just fine here in the concrete world that the topic was dropped.

A good call on my part, as it were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top