The Lord’s prayer has us asking for the Father’s kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.
Elsewhere, Jesus says, “Believe me, whatever you forbid upon earth will be what is forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be what is permitted in heaven. And I tell you that if two of you on earth agree in asking for anything, it will be granted to you by my heavenly father. For wherever two or three people come together in my name, I am there, right among you!”
Where is heaven? Where is the kingdom of heaven? Where is the heavenly father? Where is Jesus? Where are we?
“The kingdom of God never comes by watching for it. People cannot say, ‘look, here it is’, or ‘there is’, for the kingdom of God is inside you.”
Jesus sure talks a lot about inside (mind/heaven) and outside (body/earth).
And where is hell? One of many great C.S. Lewis quotes: “ Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others… but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God “sending us” to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will BE hell unless it is nipped in the bud.” - C.S. Lewis
I am quite sure that it is an emergent quality that is meant, which is something that seems to be backed up by experience. The idea of a physical place is really materialist thinking, whereas the idea of God as Love emerging in a void of non-love, and taking over a man’s willing heart, as a force against the slippage into futility that goes on without meaning, seems to me to be more of what is meant.
Again, as above, the world without God, without love, without meaning, slipping into futility, in which our misgivings, our mistakes and our moments of idiocy rule our thoughts, where blame is put on everyone but oneself, and no escape is visible, is hell.
The new heaven & new earth - the place Jesus is preparing since he ascended after the resurrection… none of that is spoken of figuratively. Only a physical resurrection explains the data. The rest get thrown in.
If we are immortal and can refuse heaven (being with God), an eternal hell (being without) has to be a real option we can freely choose.
Would have to be pretty oblivious, but… we’re already oblivious, no? Lazarus’ counterpart’s slaving of him was no less oblivious before death than after.
The closest I can get is the cosmic consciousness into which the local consciousness returns when the body dies. I am quite convinced that consciousness is the ground of being and is that which God breathes into the clay figurine, making him a living being. It has similarity with the concept of Brahman/Atman, which are one, meaning that the cosmic consciousness is in us, but we don’t allow it the upper hand, or the possibility to emerge into the world. Thereby we slip into futility and figuratively into hell. The rejoining at the end would be equivalent to a kind of purgatory, and an agonising realisation of what we already suspected.
This also has a perspective with regard to incarnation, since by this understanding, we all incarnate, not just Christ. The difference being that his incarnation with the awareness of the cosmic presence is what was the difference was and the gate opener. The cross being the symbol of redemption, creating in us the mindset that will help us through life and at the end. The trinity makes more sense to me with this understanding.
According to the pledge of allegiance, we are “one nation, under god.” So god is above us. Problem with that is that earth rotates about its axis. So god must rotate with the earth, always staying above the USA. If he doesn’t rotate with earth and stay above USA then at some point he is below us. So if that is the case then we need to change the pledge to “one nation over and under god.” Duh?
P.s. Should we take out indivisible just because we are a variety of worldviews? Isn’t it interesting that a nation united in God (whether or not he is acknowledged) allows for such diversity of perspectives? It’s a beautiful thing. Unless God is being used as a tool and we are on the brink of universal slavery. Don’t think he’ll let his name be misused ad infinitum. Hence the good news of the kingdom
What do you think of Joseph Campbell’s opinion on the subject?
Speaking metaphorically up is good and down is bad. Higher is better lower is worse. By ascending to the throne of God, Jesus the Christ achieves and becomes synonymous with the ultimate good which is the transcendent source of being itself. And so he was esteemed by the writers of the New Testament.
I have often found the idea that God chose America and that it is united in God an affront. For me, the OT shows how Israel is reduced to a “remnant” and hope is place in a stem growing from a plant taken to be dead. It was the inspiration for the song “Es ist ein Ros entsprungen” (literally “It is a rose sprung up”), is a Christmas carol and Marian Hymn of German origin. It is most commonly translated in English as “Lo, how a rose e’er blooming”. And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. (Isaiah 11:1). The Rose is a symbol of love.
The remnant then, is that hope that comes forth from the stem of Jesse. Since that card has been played, and Christianity has failed to live up to the calling it had, the aggressive migration to and capitalism of America seems to me more like the migration from Egypt than the flowering hope of love. Your implicit threat that God won’t “let his name be misused ad infinitum” underlines that impression, and if anything, universal slavery is enforced by an ideological agenda, which isn’t lacking in America.
A lot of garbage has been done in God’s name. His harshest words are for those who should have known better. All will be reconciled. His word will not return to him void. See my post on Christian Economics and my first reply to it (etc) for my thoughts there.
Isaiah 11:1 is not linked with that rose. I must decline. 1 Sam 16:7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.
I think you will find that the rose is linked with Isaiah 11:1, not the other way around. The composer, Carl Gottlieb Reissiger, is using it as a metaphor, reaching out, saying more than could otherwise said.
A rod has sprung
from a root tender,
as the ancients sang to us
from Jesse came the species,
and brought a little flower
in the middle of the cold winter
halfway through the night.
The little rod that I mean,
that brought us this little flower,
is a virgin pure,
of which Isaiah says,
according to God’s eternal counsel.
she gave birth to a child,
and remained a pure maid.
The little flower so small,
that smells so sweet to us,
With its bright glow
it drives away the darkness;
true man and true God
helps us out of all suffering,
saves from sin and death.
Praise and honor be to God, the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Mary, Mother of God,
blessed be you;
who lay in the manger,
who walks in God’s footsteps,
transforms night into day.
The rhetorical doubling of Isaiah’s word is thus interpreted in the song to the rod (Mary) and the blossom budding from it (Jesus).
Bob, in the other thread you mention Greek tragedy. Which reminds me of the Nietzsche I’m reading. I am out of my depth and an uncultured swine when discussing art history. But I have the impulse. I understand much. But it is balanced in a way those who settle for mere constructs are quite unbalanced. And somehow they do philosophy with art, but … it’s kitsch to be obvious with ideas. Of course I haven’t has coffee yet. Always irreverent and insensitive to subtlety before coffee. Sometimes all day erryday.
