Hi everyone, I’d like to share a short write-up I’ve just created about destiny and free will and how the reality of both corresponds to the appropriateness of both surrender and service to God, it’s the last section: sites.google.com/site/jmaf6556/purpose-of-life
That is a pretty way to say slavery or pets.
Its doctored up fairly well as in convincing the reader of freedom, happiness and love while shackling them in a collar. Your interpretation of the Biblical deity is different than mine.
Kriswest, thanks for the comment. I can see where you’re coming from, the main thing I’d say is that I believe unity, love, humility, and selflessness are in fact the ideal, you just have to make sure you’re serving the universe and life as a whole, which includes yourself, and which I’ve called “God” and have defined on the site, and not as the biblical God. I think life is normally grateful and receptive, you just have to make sure you’re not serving lifeforms who don’t appreciate you and who disrespect you, which unfortunately is a widespread problem in the society we happen to live in. While slavery may not be a virtue, unity, love, humility, and selflessness are, surrender and service to God is the essence of bhakti yoga which has produced countless true saints some of whom I’ve referenced on the site, if you try it I think you’ll realizing that it’s freeing, not binding, because you’re living in harmony with the universe as a whole and are no longer caught up in your individual concerns. Besides, what I’ve written emphasizes that free will is half of the truth, I’ve just added that optimally it’s used to help and serve others, which I don’t see a problem with.
But, why be given individualism and self concern if it is not wanted or needed? Evolution reqiures difference , challenge and individualism. What god would deny evolution?
This isn’t an anti-evolutionary perspective, actually it enhances the evolution process because it explains the direct way to grow, through receiving/surrender and giving/service, without being setback by either being stagnant or worse harming those around you and thereby yourself. You can’t really “get ahead” in life by living only for yourself, although you do have to include yourself in those you live for, you’ve got to connect with and benefit the universe and receive the favor back in return, this in itself makes a difference, is a challenge, and requires personal individual effort, even more so because your concern is for everyone, not just yourself.
Thats fine but, it does not need a god
God is the term I’ve chosen to use to refer to the greater reality/power, which there is, we don’t have control over everything, there’s a lot that we don’t know and can’t do. And it’s a benevolent power, so there’s no risk of become a slave or pet, those opportunists with whom there is this risk aren’t aligned with God/truth.
Why choose a controversial name?
How could it be controversial if people were not willing to choose it? 
I suppose it’s because in my experience it’s not such a controversial term, in the part of the world where I’m from, Hawaii, God seems to generally mean simply the greater, benevolent, impersonal power, as it does in many non-religious spiritual worldviews. It seems like much of the controversy comes from the questionable behaviors of the Abrahamic “God” and the fundamentalist religions that derive from it, from my point of view this understanding of God isn’t the major and default one, though others who’re more immersed in these religions may disagree.
Well, personally, I have no problem with your use of the term. It would be nice if more people would clearly and unambiguously define what they mean when they use the term, but generally that is asking way too much. I think that your explanation is far to presumptuous of people going along with abstract concepts and will cause immediate rejection of any deeper relevance (and most probably totally ignored if even seen at all). But I can’t argue with the apparent underlining intent (which is the simple statement in your OP). The rest is a negative distraction due to the more prevalent attitudes of the day.
I have defined God at the top of the webpage, hopefully it makes things clearer.
I suspected that you were going to say that. But the truth (aka “God”) is that such doesn’t really matter to most readers. And on top of that, you defined “God” in such a way as to be very vague and ambiguous. A totally unambiguous definition is required to make even the slightest progress and even that isn’t going to go far because people actually don’t really care. But good luck with it.
I apreciate that and apreciate your view. Thank-you.
I do however still feel that humans are capable to do what you want and are doing it without help of god.
Look at the last 200 years. So many countries are helping each other now as are communities. Alot has progressed in such a short time.
Not to be merely controversial, but humans aren’t even capable of existing without God, much less actually accomplishing anything.
I do think that humans have progressed and that life as a whole naturally evolves towards unity, I think God and the Truth are unity, hence the United Earth idea on my site.
The ideal is neither unity nor chaos, but a particular synthesis of both. A “united life” would be a single living entity. Dinosaurs tried that. Emperors try that. Globalists are trying that. God-wannabes try that. Bigger is not always better. The smaller more individual creatures inherited the Earth. The same will be true of social gatherings. Bigger is NOT better. Distributed intelligence/authority is very provably far superior to central intelligence. It has been proven very mathematically and scientifically for about 40 years now (not to mention that life on Earth has been proving it all along).
I agree that the ideal isn’t a monolithic state, and especially not one with a centralized power. However, I don’t think this describes true unity, which involves freedom and self-responsibility and equality, as I’ve written about on the “United Earth” webpage. True unity involves harmony and celebrating uniqueness, its true meaning is treating others as you’d like to be treated yourself, the “unity” you’re thinking about is totalitarianism which suppresses people’s intuition and is inevitably eventually thrown off through revolution, this kind of “union” that infringes on the will of it members isn’t a true union. So I do think you can generalize and say that unity and the harmony, peace, and order it implies is desirable and “good”, while chaos is undesirable and “bad”.
Also, I do think that bigger is better in the sense that the more beings you have working together the better off they all are, this is why tribes become states which become nations which become supranational unions such as the UN and EU, and so on eventually uniting whole planets and beyond, there are even galactic unions if learn about ETs. Because true unity preserves individual sovereignty and equality, it also creates the distributed intelligence/authority you mention.
I just refer to it as “Anentropic Harmony” so as to include the vital concerns, whether large or small.
Here is a question:
Why do we want all people united? I can see some real downsides to an almost hive union.