Then how would you suggest we determine some relatively objective standard for personal fulfillment?
I can tell you how best not to define it.
What if I don't see any real meaning to believing in God to work towards goals or help people? What does it indicate in terms of the standard of personal fulfillment?
Absolutely nothing, if one wishes to close his mind of to any perceived dislike. "we" in a western society have been taught from an early age to not dismiss or turn your nose up at something as trivial as strange food, unless you have tried at least once. I find it hard to believe the exploring a culture or philosophy different than the one you find the most comfort in is acceptable.
As a religious studies major, it's not as if I haven't tried to understand the perspectives of a believer in God and Jesus, but I honestly cannot say I see any reason to pursue anything regarding their spiritual practices, especially as related to communion with God, since, imho, it distracts from an already complex spiritual/psychological/experiential/phenomenological world we live in.
Perhaps that is the problem. you are looking at the behavior of the relationship rather than focusing on experience the relationship for yourself.
Let's say to took an objective look at the courting practices of the typical couple from first date to marriage and you recorded all of the "events" that took place. from the first contact, first dinner, to the kiss and so on and so fourth till marriage. Now if you could catalog all of these events and place them in the specific order they happened, would you have an instruction manual on how to marry a woman? any woman?
i actually tried this for a while i was awesome for about the first 5 dates i told the same stories went to the same restraint and gaged my progress of the date on the story I was on and the timing of when the food came out.
It was great until the formality part of the relationship was over and I was forced to move into developing an individual connection with that particular person. Long story short it did not work because relationships do not work according to formulas.
Like wise if one only approached God with that list you typed out in your quote, I seriously doubt you will find anything more than what you listed.
So we have that distinction settled?
as far as I know?
Admittedly one Muslim does not speak for all Muslims or Islam, no more than you speak for all Christians. You might not believe as other Christians seem to that the soul will only gain eternal life through God and otherwise will be annihilated, as in annihilationism as I understand it.
Yes this is true but we all still believe in one God. and we all have a basic understanding of Heaven and Hell. Like wise Muslims have a similar accord when the terms of their afterlife is upon them. Trying to dismiss the commonalities shared by the members of the same faith does not jive, simply because all aspects of all other doctrines are not the same in a given faith.
In this case I can strongly argue that One signal life long devoted Muslim would give an accurate representation of a picture of an after life that I would say more than 95% of the people in that faith would agree with. (Generally speaking) I say that because that is what we were indeed speaking about, and not annihilationism.
There are different understandings of Paradise apart from Eden, however. I imagine we could agree on that. Eden is merely one popularized understanding of paradise as a concept, similar to utopia realized in various different theories and models.
When I mention Paradise I mean to say the Muslim version of Heaven. Eden was a paradise (Small "p") but Not a final destination "P" Paradise. (as in what Muslims believe)
Do you mean what was said in scripture about Heaven?
yes.
A communal effort, not a perfect communal effort. Humans don't think that they'll necessarily succeed in these endeavors, they hope and believe they will. It's where we get the notion of idealism, seems to me. Man's well being and welfare are sustained ideally, not actually. The difficulty with Utopia by human affairs is that we cannot predict that far. It seems to me a comparison of some idea of utopia as a good world might be justified IF it is managed by God. Considering God knows human welfare and what is good for humans better than humans, correct?
Yes
I want no utopia, since it is idealistic and unrealistic. If you admit you want a theocratic utopia, then we have to clarify what this theocratic utopia consists in. The secular utopia is something we can both critique, though for drastically different reasons, I imagine. But that you want the theocratic utopia, while I want neither a theocratic nor secular utopia is something we have just discovered now, it seems. A great progress!
If you are man and man's idea of utopia is basically whatever you will it to be... How is your particular version of it new?
You may have discovered a new ball field but we are all still in the same park.
So in your utopia, men's needs are served by being servants to God?Is that a fair assessment?
Yes/no God will provide, and we will be that provision. (Heavenly Jobs)
Then our discussion has concluded or at least clarified that utopia at its basis only meets humans' needs, but not necessarily in a form that involves servitude or anything as selfish and elitist as what might be implied.
Not needs, wants and desires.
So in the full context, you argue that this is primarily about heaven? What about the interpretation I recall more clearly about the parable's focus on forgiveness in a general interpersonal context?
Same story two parts. One can not be Restored If He does not repent. First half of the story outlines the devastating nature of the sin, and how complete it was, then the son hits bottom and decides to repent and return to the father because he has nothing else.
The second half reassures that the Father does not hold a grudge and enslaves his own son, as the son thought to be his only option. Infact the Father restores the lost son back to a position of honor and authority (as if he never left.) In His Father's House. Which is another way of describing Heaven.
Just to clarify the Christian context of the roles in that context?
I am not sure what you are clarifying. If a person asks a question concerning xyz, I use stories or references 123 to explain the principle. If 123 does not work I go on to abc. Your "faith" has little to do with how you receive your answer. as i said before your answer is determined on what you are asking, and how you are doing so.
But my argument is that there is some focus on one's needs, though you haven't disagreed our needs are met, but moreso that it isn't the human perception of what our needs are, but God's perception. Is that a better understanding?
We need to make the distinction between needs and want/desire. Utopian beliefs all center around want/desire for man's general prosperity
Heaven beliefs center around a relationship with God, and does not focus on the secular things man wants. (This is illustrated by the streets of Gold and pearly gates. as in that day you built streets and gates out of common materials, not things of tremendous value.) His needs are filled yes, but the purpose of Heaven is not to fill the secular want or desire of Man.
In that Heaven is seen as synonymous with God in providing for our needs in some mistaken way?
Somewhat. yes. Your across the board interchanging of want and desire with need muddles the definitions you have given.
God Meets our needs through our service to Him. Our wants and desires will be of God. To those wants, we will have our fill through our personal relationship with God.
In Utopia All wants and desires center around mans secular want and desire. this may include but is not limited to his personal need.
So, this is the difference.
