Does hope come from God?

[modest]

However, examining what Paul and his contemporaries mean by spirit, especially in phrases like “spiritual body”, continues to reinforce my confidence in my theory that these people were referring to much more tangible things with these terms than later Christians, and religionists and spiritualists of many kinds. The Spiritual body described in 1 Corinthians 15 is not a “ghost” in the modern sense – insubstantial and invisible – but an outwardly ordinary human body, distinguished from a “natural body” by a few key traits:

 

I think we might find otherwise.

 

The idea of early Christian spirits and souls is a melting-pot of Hebrew, Greek, and other philosophies. Mostly, however, it is Platonic as most all authoritative authors and constructors of those Christian and pre-Christian ideas both spoke Greek and were trained in Platonism.

 

…By the way, as I keep talking here, I’m not going to source everything (like I just didn’t source what I just said) and I will therefore not be offended at all if you ask me to source anything I say. I won’t see it as a challenge or any such thing, but will do it happily.

 

An investigation into Plato’s idea of the soul may be helpful in as far as it was very helpful to the early Christian church. However, it’s just as likely we could argue what the Platonic soul is until we’re sodding dead and get nowhere toward a solution to our current quandary. It probably would be more helpful to look directly at the works of the early Christian writers toward that effect. So, let’s see…

 

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - 50 AD) was not Christian and never once mentioned Jesus in his writings. He was, however, a prolific Jewish author and theologian and philosopher in the first century AD that both spoke Greek and was schooled in Platonism. His ideas of the soul should be important to us.

 

 

Philo - ReligionFacts

More important in Philo's system is the doctrine of the moral development of man. Of this he distinguishes two conditions: (1) that before time was, and (2) that since the beginning of time. In the pretemporal condition the soul was without body, free from earthly matter. Without sex, in the condition of the generic (γενικός) man, morally perfect, i.e., without flaws, but still striving after a higher purity. On entering upon time the soul loses its purity and is confined in a body. The nous becomes earthly, but it retains a tendency toward something higher.

 

This one paragraph shows Philo’s thinking was a beginning of both Neoplatonism and Christianity (and before Jesus died at that). It demonstrates that even outside the Christian sects of the first century amongst this group of people it is accepted easily (by a devout Jew nonetheless) that the soul can exist both before birth and after death. This is important to the pneumatology of the ‘Christian spirit’ and we’re about to build on that thought.

 

Origen Adamantius of Alexandria (185 - 254 AD) was Christian - and good at it as well. He influenced the Roman-Christian church as-much and earlier than his contemporary brothers in arms. His theology (I should freely admit now) is markedly different than the later Roman rendition. His work is, however, important to our discussion and from the right time frame - so here we go:

 

And, I just pasted a long quote from Origen of Alexandria [internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] section 3.b and realized it was a bit too much copyrighted material. Let me paraphrase it a bit:

 

Origen stated in his works that souls first existed in close proximity to God but eventually fell from his grace out of sheer boredom. As they fell they developed invisible, ethereal bodies. Falling further their bodies became more materialistic and solid. Eventually they got themselves the human model body to house their far-separated-from-God soul. Origen’s idea is that all souls will eventually ascend to the spiritual grace of God to be near him once again.

 

In this we see a good picture painted of the ‘spiritual body’ Paul was talking about post resurrection. The soul is the person and the body is simply the manifestation of that soul. It is (as you correctly characterize) a transformation. The transformation explained by Origen is away from the flesh and into a celestial, spiritual, and ethereal form. The soul will eventually find proximity to God where it looses the title ‘soul’ and becomes an expression of the contemplation of God’s greatness - eternally.

 

So, where do I think you have gone wrong?

 

The Spiritual body described in 1 Corinthians 15 is not a “ghost” in the modern sense – insubstantial and invisible – but an outwardly ordinary human body, distinguished from a “natural body” by a few key traits...

 

1 Corinthians 15 is pretty clear, IMHO, that everybody, or at least every Christian, should expect undergo a physical transformation paralleling the depicted resurrection of Jesus: physical death (cessation of motion, heartbeat, etc), then physically “rising up” and leaving the tomb to walk, eat and drink, and behave much as before. Their bodies tissues are expected to be different from before in an outwardly subtle way

 

I wouldn’t presume to speak toward what individual people expected after the resurrection, but I can speak toward the writings of the time. The writings are very, very spiritual. They do not describe the soul’s afterlife as something like life here on earth. If you’ve read Origen, he sounds more like Buddhism in what he describes. He goes on and on about the soul restored and contemplating for all eternity the mysteries of the eternal God-Head. It is allegorical like a Greek poem and just about as spiritual as any eastern philosophy you’d read.

 

Gnosticism of the time was at least as spiritual and non-physical in their ideas. Granted, like I said earlier, a lot of this spiritualism eventually gets cut out in further Romanization. However, it was clearly there and well established for some time.

 

My central point is that modern-day Christians and other religionists have an interpretation of a “spirit being” version of a human radically different from early Christians’. Early Christians’ appear to have imagined an essentially “improved flesh” – immorbid and immortal, but physically real and outwardly very similar to ordinary – human. Modern Christians, in my experience, imagine a physically insubstantial (commonly described as “unearthly”, “disembodied soul”, “extradimensional”, “metaphysical”, “pure spirit”, etc.)

 

I think what happened in the modern time is not exactly what you are describing but is close. The attributes given to the soul in pre-modern-medicine include all the functions of reason and intellect. The body controlled the senses and urges and the soul controlled the reasoning and logic. This was established early (much earlier than Christianity) by different philosophies and was universal in Christianity up until recent times.

 

A good description of the older view is found in “Of Two Souls - Against the Manichæans” by St. Augustine in 391 AD.

 

Where Augustine disputes the idea of 2 souls to the Manichæans and in doing so describes at length his ideas of the soul. Interesting are the attributes of a person and nature he attributes to the soul vs. the body. These same ideas can be found in Plato’s dialogs and more-chaotically in Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’.

 

Our idea of what is “spiritual” today in modern times is not far off from what Augustine writes there. It is something apart from the bodily urges and even the bodily senses. Our modern understanding of anatomy; however, forces us to concede more of our personality and that which makes us, us - to the brain. In other words - somewhere Aristotle’s idea of metaphysics turned into Kant’s idea of metaphysics and the brain took over for the soul.

 

That obviously forced theology into a corner that it was not previously confined to. This may well have forced some Christians to amend their idea of the soul. However, it does not and I would argue did not force Christian theology to change the nature of heaven or the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit or God or the trinity. Those ideas have been entirely spiritual and unphysical since their inception ‘till now.

 

In any case, don’t think I’m entirely disagreeing with you - I’m certainly not. I love exploring this kind of thing and have probably taken on more of an adversarial position in order to do so. I know that’s not good - in fact - that’s not good at all. I think your theory would probably fit the evolution of the Roman-Catholic denomination better than Christianity as a whole. I just get peeved a bit at the Catholic neglect and the scholarly neglect (until recently) of the early non-apostolic church influences. Especially Gnosticism. I'm sure that has spilled over into everything I just said (which also isn't too good).

 

I consider myself an atheist, but believe that a good understanding of human history and culture requires a good knowledge of religion, including a first-hand, emotional appreciation of the ideas underlying religion. Religious ideas and writing are intensely meaningful and important, I think, both to theists and atheists, even though people of these diametrically opposed sorts interpret them very differently.

 

I agree completely. A lot of human history is the history of religion. I admit (hesitatingly) that I enjoy reading and studying the classic religious texts. Comparing them - reading the works of others who've studied and compared them.

 

And, it is remarkable to me how religion has failed humanity in modern times. The works I quoted above have no intellectual religious equal now. It seems like modern religion of most all faiths preclude that kind of investigative theology. If that were not the case - theists might just find themselves agreeing with modern science by way of religious scholars who marry modern ideas to religious ones. But, they rather run to dogma and plug their ears and fight the times - which hurts society. A good example is the Muslim 'ilm - which I'm not going to get into... it suddenly dawns on me that this entire post was off topic and I've been rambling.

 

-modest

 

Look Mom, I didn’t quote any scripture :hihi:

[rockytriton]

sorry if someone already asked this question, but I'm going to reverse your question:

 

does god come from hope?

[Rade]

Hope comes from time, not god. Hope connects a want in the "present" with an expectation of receipt in the "future". Because god is outside of time, god cannot come from hope. For god the past=present=future. God hopes for nothing because it wants for nothing.

[REASON]

God hopes for nothing because it wants for nothing.

 

So then god doesn't hope for, and want me to, believe in him so he isn't forced to condemn me to an eternity of pain and misery in hell after I die?

 

Whew, thank god. :)

[rockytriton]

So then god doesn't hope for, and want me to, believe in him so he isn't forced to condemn me to an eternity of pain and misery in hell after I die?

 

Whew, thank god. :)

 

yea, thank god this stupid ancient jewish tribal idea of god isn't true. what a dumb idea.

[Rade]

...[*]The first woman commits a grave error;

[*]The world is free from ill emotions prior to her error;...[*]The released ills were created by a divinity....

The only "world" (human) before Eve was a single human called Adam, and he did have ill emotions prior to Eve--he complained to God that he was lonely and sad being the only human in a zoo of animals and plants all reproducing and having fun.

 

Also, Eve did not commit any error, Eve was given mis-information. Eve no more guilty than Bush--Bush given mis-information about WMD in Irag. You see, Eve was given false information by Adam about what God said concerning the tree of knowledge. God never said that Adam could not touch apple, however, when Adam communicated to Eve what God said about tree Adam falsely told Eve she could not touch apple. Well, Devil, being somewhat clever, knew this was false information, and so told Eve--he told Eve that surely she would not die if she touched apple, which is 100% true. So, when Eve touched apple and saw that she was not dead, of course she took next step to eat apple to gain the knowledge it held. Why did Eve believe Devil (as serpent) over Adam ? Well, ask any female, and they will tell you that a snake that talks by far has more brains than any human male. Imagine the shock of Adam when he saw that Eve did not die after she ate the apple--his first thought must have been--but why did God lie to me ? So, of course he ate apple. The only actor with egg on face in this play is God for allowing Adam to communicate apple commandment to Eve rather than doing so directly. For it not possible that an all perfect and all good God gave Eve mis-information directly.

[Jet2]

please excuse I'm being a bit late to jump in...

 

I think hope should be coming from where God come from.

Yet hope is just a kind of thought or dream that isn't easy to come true.

 

When people have hope, if they pray: "...so please help me God." They are irresponsible to themselves.

[modest]

please excuse I'm being a bit late to jump in...

 

I think hope should be coming from where God come from.

Yet hope is just a kind of thought or dream that isn't easy to come true.

 

When people have hope, if they pray: "...so please help me God." They are irresponsible to themselves.

 

I wouldn't say hoping for something and striving for it are mutually exclusive. In fact, they often come paired.

 

-modest

[Ahmabeliever]

Hope is a seedling breaking earth in the springtime

Hope is a child searching pockets for sweets

Hope is another who has known the same burden

Hope is the shoreline when foundering at sea

 

Sorry, just came out that way :)

 

Hope is knowing that the day follows night

That the rains will depart and the meadows will thrive

Hope is a memory the pulse of the heart

Breathing in dreams and exhaling the past

 

There it goes again! :D

 

Hope is a reason an option to run

To weave in the seasons and laugh at the sun

Plankton are we in this universe wide

Hope is the strength to embrace till we die.

 

:doh: Funny. Haven't done that in a while honest I was gonna write like, a human paragraph not a poem rofl :lol:

 

Guess that's my opinion, in abstract... ;)

[Tormod]

Also, Eve did not commit any error, Eve was given mis-information. Eve no more guilty than Bush--Bush given mis-information about WMD in Irag.

 

So if I can claim misinformation, I am not responsible for any of my acts?

 

How brilliant!

[REASON]

HOPE comes from DESIRE

[Jet2]

Does animal have hope then?

[InfiniteNow]

Does animal have hope then?

 

Lock one in a cage, and it hopes to be released.

Put a male animal in front of a female animal in estrus, it hopes to mate.

Let my dog in from outside at night, he hopes for a treat.

 

My answer to you is a resounding, Yes! I ask anybody... Where is the evidence that animals do not have hope?

 

This concept of humans being somehow inherently unique is a tired old remnant of biblical teaching, where it is suggested that man is created in gods image and has dominion over nature. That's total nonsense. The similarities between humans and other non-human animals VASTLY overshadows any natural differences in thought and experience, and claims suggesting otherwise are more indicative of deep insecurities within the person making said claim than any real testable differences between the human animal and the non-human animal.

[HydrogenBond]

Hope is in the belief in the positive outcome of things that are not seen or things that can't be proven. Hope bridges the gap between what can be seen with the eyes and processed with knowledge, and a future occurrence that may or may not fit logically. Without hope one reaches the gap and stops there. With hope one dares to dream to the other side of the gap. For example, one may hope for a cure to their disease. The rational mind looks at the data and the odds, and may stop at the gap. The person who hopes uses their hope to build a bridge across the gap. Sometime they reach the other side but sometimes the bridges collapses, because they hope.

 

Also, Eve did not commit any error, Eve was given mis-information. Eve no more guilty than Bush--Bush given mis-information about WMD in Irag. You see, Eve was given false information by Adam about what God said concerning the tree of knowledge. God never said that Adam could not touch apple, however, when Adam communicated to Eve what God said about tree Adam falsely told Eve she could not touch apple. Well, Devil, being somewhat clever, knew this was false information, and so told Eve--he told Eve that surely she would not die if she touched apple, which is 100% true. So, when Eve touched apple and saw that she was not dead, of course she took next step to eat apple to gain the knowledge it held. Why did Eve believe Devil (as serpent) over Adam ? Well, ask any female, and they will tell you that a snake that talks by far has more brains than any human male. Imagine the shock of Adam when he saw that Eve did not die after she ate the apple--his first thought must have been--but why did God lie to me ? So, of course he ate apple. The only actor with egg on face in this play is God for allowing Adam to communicate apple commandment to Eve rather than doing so directly. For it not possible that an all perfect and all good God gave Eve mis-information directly.

 

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol. Knowledge of good and evil is law; good path and bad (evil) path. The tree of life is natural instincts. The animals don't get together to forms laws. Their actions are based on the preprogramming of instinct and not learned law. We do not have to bring a cat to cat school, based on the latest fad which will change in a few years. It does the same thing for millions of years because it works and perpetuates the life of the species. It works for all while also working for the collective good of the cats. This is a tree of life.

 

If you compare child development, in particular boys to girls, girls will tend to mature quicker, on the average. The girl is more willing or more able to eat of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong set by her parents and her culture. She then uses these rules in her behavior and appears more mature in the sense of social or cultural conformity for any given age, relative to boys. The boys are more likely to be wild, breaking, ignoring or forgetting the rules, since they are acting more on impulse. This contrast is is why Eve ate first. This symbol is still reflected in the female maturing in terms of conformity to the rules. One does not have as many female pioneers going against the grain, on their own, since this goes against the rules. She may do it as part of group, whose rules allows the other rules to be broken. But it is still based on some version of right and wrong.

 

When men and women get married, if the guy is not already house broken his wife will try to help him, by feeding him the latest cultural apples with respect to appearance, behavior, etc. Once he eats, he loses the last of his instincts or the tree of life is cut off, and it become substituted for cultural bias. He may allow this out of love and need for for his mate. But this cultural knowledge of good (right) and evil (wrong) is not perfect and may not work for everyone. The result is death, in a symbolic sense, or the death of a collective human instinct that works for one and all. It is substituted for anyone of the trees of cultural tree of knowledge of right and wrong that will regulate behavior, dress, style, diet, ideas, etc., based on temporal.

 

The best religion tries to approximate the conservative affect of instincts, but setting rules that are more independent of temporal fad, which seems to work for each and every generation. Thou shall not kill is not faddish, but works now, 1000 years ago and will be appropriate in another 1000 years. It starts to approximate the conservative instincts of the cat.

[nutronjon]

The debate to prove/disprove God will go on forever. If you are open minded, then the debate should be fun/interesting regardless what side you take! However, let's take God out of the equation for a second and just talk about hope--in a very broad sense. Where does it come from? Without any hope, we would take our own lives (as many people do, unfortunately).

 

If we aren't born with some hidden "spiritual knowledge" that God does indeed exist, and that we have a purpose, then how are we all still here? How do we wake up in the morning and get the motivation to do--well--anything?

 

Thoughts from all angles are greatly respected and appreciated. . .

 

Hum, it appears to me you are treating "hope" as something tangible, like oxygen. What is the molecular formation of hope?

 

I don't think plants and animals give much thought to God or hope and yet they all function with a will to live. In the thread "what is life" I have said the things we consider living have internalized "life", and function to stay alive. I am not sure what life is, but do conclude, it does not depend on hope. In fact we could question, what causes some human creatures to take their own lives, and do any other species have this potential to wilfully self destruct?

[nutronjon]

Hope is in the belief in the positive outcome of things that are not seen or things that can't be proven. Hope bridges the gap between what can be seen with the eyes and processed with knowledge, and a future occurrence that may or may not fit logically. Without hope one reaches the gap and stops there. With hope one dares to dream to the other side of the gap. For example, one may hope for a cure to their disease. The rational mind looks at the data and the odds, and may stop at the gap. The person who hopes uses their hope to build a bridge across the gap. Sometime they reach the other side but sometimes the bridges collapses, because they hope.

 

 

 

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol. Knowledge of good and evil is law; good path and bad (evil) path. The tree of life is natural instincts. The animals don't get together to forms laws. Their actions are based on the preprogramming of instinct and not learned law. We do not have to bring a cat to cat school, based on the latest fad which will change in a few years. It does the same thing for millions of years because it works and perpetuates the life of the species. It works for all while also working for the collective good of the cats. This is a tree of life.

 

If you compare child development, in particular boys to girls, girls will tend to mature quicker, on the average. The girl is more willing or more able to eat of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong set by her parents and her culture. She then uses these rules in her behavior and appears more mature in the sense of social or cultural conformity for any given age, relative to boys. The boys are more likely to be wild, breaking, ignoring or forgetting the rules, since they are acting more on impulse. This contrast is why Eve ate first. This symbol is still reflected in the female maturing in terms of conformity to the rules. One does not have as many female pioneers going against the grain, on their own, since this goes against the rules. She may do it as part of group, whose rules allows the other rules to be broken. But it is still based on some version of right and wrong.

 

When men and women get married, if the guy is not already house broken his wife will try to help him, by feeding him the latest cultural apples with respect to appearance, behavior, etc. Once he eats, he loses the last of his instincts or the tree of life is cut off, and it become substituted for cultural bias. He may allow this out of love and need for his mate. But this cultural knowledge of good (right) and evil (wrong) is not perfect and may not work for everyone. The result is death, in a symbolic sense, or the death of a collective human instinct that works for one and all. It is substituted for anyone of the trees of cultural tree of knowledge of right and wrong that will regulate behavior, dress, style, diet, ideas, etc., based on temporal.

 

The best religion tries to approximate the conservative affect of instincts, but setting rules that are more independent of temporal fad, which seems to work for each and every generation. Thou shall not kill is not faddish, but works now, 1000 years ago and will be appropriate in another 1000 years. It starts to approximate the conservative instincts of the cat.

 

Hydrogenbond, your analysis of good and evil and culture, and writing style are exquisite. I feel inhibited by a belief I can not do as well. However, some important things need saying.

 

Social animals do learn social graces from the adults and peers in their social group. By studying animals, what we have learned about their learning is astounding. Especially an observation of hyenas sticks in my mind. Hyenas are lead by a female and her daughter inherits in her position when her mother dies. All hyenas defer to the female leader and her daughter, preparing her daughter to be the leader. In the case observed, the mother was killed before the daughter was old enough to take her mother's position. Instead of becoming the next leader, she was almost an outcast, as the rest of the hyenas would no longer defer to her, and she lost her place of favor.

I am also thinking of historical characters such as Peter the Great. Males, who had fathers who were deferred to, and assumed they would be as their fathers, and indeed found they too enjoyed the deference to the social position in they were born.

 

My point is, we are not so different from animals, and personally I think, our moral judgement would be enhanced with the acceptance of our animal nature. My heart is torn with knowledge of the differences between those children raised to expect they will receive what they want, and children who learn to extinguish desire early in life, because they know they are unlikely to get what they want, and rather than live with the pain unfilled desire, the extinguish the desire. Then later, the judgement of those who never wanted for much, is very cruel, when they look those who are satisfied with very little, and cooperatively work for low wages, and the relative deprivation of their children, that can even lead to their early death for lack of affordable care. Hum, this brings out a different understanding of hope doesn't it? For what do you hope? To what will your children aspire?