Zone1 Theology of the Body

[Meriweather]

However, one thing does seem clear. We shouldn't worship gods. If they don't exist, then we shouldn't worship them. If they're sadists, then we shouldn't worship them. If they are apathetic to us, then we shouldn't worship them. If they are incapable, then we shouldn't worship them.

The reason we do worship goes back to the etymology of 'worship'. Judeo-Christian belief is that God is love, and therefore we put God first. Worship isn't a word limited to adoration, but to service. The aim is to serve God first. We are to love him, and love all those around us. Catholic catechism teaches us to know God, love him, and serve him--and I haven't heard of any faith denomination that argues against this.

 

[onefour1]

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God

True, Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven but flesh and bones can! Jesus has a resurrected body of flesh and bones and he has already inherited the kingdom of heaven. See Luke 24 for a description of Jesus Christ's resurrected body.

 

[Donald H]

We are to love him, and love all those around us.

Americans are those who least love those around them. There is no correlation between Christian nations and love for their fellow human beings. America is the world's worst aggressor with 40 wars of aggression to it's credit since WW2 alone.

Mark Twain recognized the evil many years ago and the wrote his war prayer.

The War Prayer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no prayer that makes better sense than this one.

Why make guesses on reality when we see reality all around us being demonstrated by Christians?

 

[ding]

America is the world's worst aggressor with 40 wars of aggression to it's credit since WW2 alone.

By any objective measure America is the least imperialistic superpower of all time. Learn some history.

 

[ding]

Why make guesses on reality when we see reality all around us being demonstrated by Christians?

By any objective assessment Christianity has been one of the most powerful forces of good.

 

[ding]

Ok, lets take the idea seriously and broadly. So assuming that god or gods exist, what can we infer about him/her/it/they from the body? Of course we have to divorce this question from any particular religion because we have to rely on the body alone. An obvious difficulty, however, is how do we distinguish between what the gods desire, what they're apathetic about, and what they're powerless to do.

A universal experience, for example, is death. Did the gods design us to die? Did the design not factor that in because the immortality wasn't a design goal? Were the gods simply incapable of designing us to be immortal? Of course all that assumes that we we're designed by the gods in the first place.

Another universal experience is pain. Are the gods sadists who enjoy our pain? Are they apathetic to our pain? Are they incapable of stopping our pain?

So I would suggest that the first order of Body Theology is to show that the body does indeed reveal when the gods desire an outcome, are apathetic about the outcome, or are powerless to stop an outcome. If Body Theology is incapable of making these distinctions then is the body really revealing anything about the invisible?

However, one thing does seem clear. We shouldn't worship gods. If they don't exist, then we shouldn't worship them. If they're sadists, then we shouldn't worship them. If they are apathetic to us, then we shouldn't worship them. If they are incapable, then we shouldn't worship them.

What if the answers to your questions is that the flesh is of no avail?

 

[ding]

We shouldn't worship gods.

Because worshipping God - which you probably see differently than me - isn't for God. It's for us.

But what you really need to grasp is that belief in God, religion, belief in spirituality, etc. has existed in overwhelming numbers in every civilization since the beginning of man. According to the principles of Darwin, that can only be the case if those beliefs provided a functional advantage over non-belief in those things.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I'd like to begin with what is a human made of? Everyone seems to agree that the human body is made up of body and mind.

There's also a deeper issues here. Does body give rise to mind (materialism), does mind give rise to the body (idealism), or are the two separate (dualism)?

The part that is debated is spirit/soul. Theology teaches that while the body and mind experience death, the spirit lives on.

How does the body reveal this? We are talking Body Theology here.

One argument for the spirit is what is the purpose of life?

Is there a purpose? If anything the body reveals that the purpose of life is to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Actually I think you could list even more things like to communicate, to emote, to possess, to dominate, to mimic, to form tribes, to experience pleasure and pain, etc. Essentially anything we can do is the purpose of life. Or to put it even more simply, the purposes of life are to be and to do.

If human are simply body and mind, does law and order matter, or should it be the winner/strongest take all?

If people are also spirit then does law and order matter or should it be the winner/strongest? Forming cooperative groups makes sense because it increases the chances of survival for everyone in the group. People causing disorder in the tribe thus becomes a danger to the tribe and can be removed from the tribe (either through death or banishment).

I'll start out with God is love, and all are welcome to introduce their own descriptions.

Could you clarify this? Are you saying that God is an emotion? Humans experience many emotions, so wouldn't there be a god for each emotion?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Here we return to the make-up of humans. Was the physical body always meant to perish? I haven't researched this. I do recall one theory is that living in close proximity to God is what brings immortality. I don't know which faith (if any) teaches this. Most believe the human spirit is designed to be immortal.

No body has ever been observed to be immortal so body theology would suggest that the soul, if it exists at all, is likewise mortal.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Christianity teaches it is not God's desire that any (spirit) should perish. In Hinduism (reincarnation) the ultimate goal is 'moksha' or liberation from the material world.

Our starting point, given the OP, is Body Theology not Christianity, Hinduism, or and other religion. How does Body Theology reveal that it's not God's desire that any spirit should perish?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

What if the answers to your questions is that the flesh is of no avail?

That means that Body Theology has no theological value. For the sake of discussion I'm assuming that it does, because that's what the OP is about.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Because worshipping God - which you probably see differently than me - isn't for God. It's for us.

But what you really need to grasp is that belief in God, religion, belief in spirituality, etc. has existed in overwhelming numbers in every civilization since the beginning of man. According to the principles of Darwin, that can only be the case if those beliefs provided a functional advantage over non-belief in those things.

Fair point. One that I've also thought of. But then the question becomes what is that functional advantage? Perhaps a clue is that as man has learned to dominate nature the belief in gods has waned. Worshipping gods is thus essentially a psychological coping technique to deal with our slavery to nature (basically, Stockholm Syndrome). The oldest gods are indeed nature spirits. We pray for rain, or for good crops, or for a successful hunt, etc. We attempt to appease the gods so that hail doesn't destroy our crops or that we avoid a drought. So as we learn more about how nature works we can and do disregard these coping techniques.

Of course religion does offer other advantages. Religions, for example, provide moral guidance. However, all this really means is that people need a system of morality. IMO, morality serves to strengthen the tribe and thus increase chances of survival for the members of the tribe. Modern ideas of morality however, appear to function to undermine tribal cohesion. Thus I see ideas such as feminism, libertarianism, transgenderism, as fundamentally evil. Public rituals and tradition seem to serve a similar goal of social cohesion. There's no need for either of these things to be god-centered. There are plenty of public holidays that are secular in nature that work. We just had Memorial Day in the US, for example.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The reason we do worship goes back to the etymology of 'worship'. Judeo-Christian belief is that God is love, and therefore we put God first. Worship isn't a word limited to adoration, but to service. The aim is to serve God first. We are to love him, and love all those around us. Catholic catechism teaches us to know God, love him, and serve him--and I haven't heard of any faith denomination that argues against this.

How does Body Theology reveal any of this? Isn't Body Theology the topic of this thread?

 

[Meriweather]

There's also a deeper issues here. Does body give rise to mind (materialism), does mind give rise to the body (idealism), or are the two separate (dualism)?



How does the body reveal this? We are talking Body Theology here.


Is there a purpose? If anything the body reveals that the purpose of life is to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Actually I think you could list even more things like to communicate, to emote, to possess, to dominate, to mimic, to form tribes, to experience pleasure and pain, etc. Essentially anything we can do is the purpose of life. Or to put it even more simply, the purposes of life are to be and to do.


If people are also spirit then does law and order matter or should it be the winner/strongest? Forming cooperative groups makes sense because it increases the chances of survival for everyone in the group. People causing disorder in the tribe thus becomes a danger to the tribe and can be removed from the tribe (either through death or banishment).


Could you clarify this? Are you saying that God is an emotion? Humans experience many emotions, so wouldn't there be a god for each emotion?

I understand your post as focusing on the material aspects of the body, or "What is in it for me?" Pope John Paul II was focused on the spiritual aspects of the body. He notes that in Genesis all the animals who were in the garden with him were not like him. What Adam found different in himself is that not only did he have body and mind, as did the other animals, he was also spirit. And he wanted another like him. The Pope describes that before the Fall, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their bodies and this was because each wanted what was best for the other. After the Fall, they were ashamed and covered themselves. What caused this shame? The Pope said it was because they then saw in the other a lust and a selfishness of now seeing the other as someone to use to satisfy his/her own wants, desires, and pleasures. It was about self instead of what was best for the whole.

The desires of self was greater than love for the other. The female saw how the male wanted/intended to use her; The male saw how the female wanted/intended to use him. Nuptials between a man and a woman strive to work towards human relations before the Fall, where the good of the other always comes before the desire of what one wants for him/herself. This leads us into who we want to be as a community: Is taking more important to our society than giving?

 

[Meriweather]

Our starting point, given the OP, is Body Theology not Christianity, Hinduism, or and other religion. How does Body Theology reveal that it's not God's desire that any spirit should perish?

This takes us back to wanting what is best for another, the essence of love, and God is love.

 

[Meriweather]

There's no need for either of these things to be god-centered.

What is missing is that to be God-centered is to be centered in love.

 

[ding]

That means that Body Theology has no theological value. For the sake of discussion I'm assuming that it does, because that's what the OP is about.

Not sure how you made that leap in logic. The way I see it, life is effectively a test and in that regard the flesh is of avail but that is not what is being tested. It's being used as the test.

 

[Meriweather]

How does Body Theology reveal any of this? Isn't Body Theology the topic of this thread?

Love is shown and transmitted in and from the body. Our goal is to love as God loves, as we--from the beginning--were meant to love. From the earliest Bible stories, the misuse of sex has been warned against, and how a blasé attitude towards sex has brought about the downfall of nations, the downfall of families.

The Catholic faith has been harshly criticized because of its teachings on artificial birth control. Pope Paul VI was given the task of making the decision to relax the Church's position on birth control. One of the reasons he couldn't is because life is our greatest gift, our greatest creation. It wasn't so much the prevention of life that influenced the Pope's decision over fifty years ago, but what would follow when birth control was forgotten or failed. The Pope foresaw abortion--the extinguishing of our new creation.

Pope John Paul II further explains that pure love between male and female means being open to new creation. Love flowing within God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is what brought creation into being. Father, the Creator; his Spirit hovered over the Earth when it was formless and empty. And there was his Word...and the creation of the Earth came into being.

 

[ding]

Fair point. One that I've also thought of. But then the question becomes what is that functional advantage? Perhaps a clue is that as man has learned to dominate nature the belief in gods has waned. Worshipping gods is thus essentially a psychological coping technique to deal with our slavery to nature (basically, Stockholm Syndrome). The oldest gods are indeed nature spirits. We pray for rain, or for good crops, or for a successful hunt, etc. We attempt to appease the gods so that hail doesn't destroy our crops or that we avoid a drought. So as we learn more about how nature works we can and do disregard these coping techniques.

Of course religion does offer other advantages. Religions, for example, provide moral guidance. However, all this really means is that people need a system of morality. IMO, morality serves to strengthen the tribe and thus increase chances of survival for the members of the tribe. Modern ideas of morality however, appear to function to undermine tribal cohesion. Thus I see ideas such as feminism, libertarianism, transgenderism, as fundamentally evil. Public rituals and tradition seem to serve a similar goal of social cohesion. There's no need for either of these things to be god-centered. There are plenty of public holidays that are secular in nature that work. We just had Memorial Day in the US, for example.

The functional advantages you are describing don't seem to be good reasons for the continued existence of faith, religion, spirituality, etc. So I don't believe the Stockholm Syndrome is the reason for its continued existence in overwhelming numbers in every civilization. Nor do I believe you are going to discover the reasons using polytheism as your basis for discovery and an imperfect understanding of worship.

As for the need... you are free to worship anything you want; money, power, fame, pleasure, etc. but in the end none of those things will satisfy you because you were made for more. In summary we were made to worship God. It's hardwired into us and when done properly is what makes us the most happy. But make no mistake... you will worship something. The only question will be will it make you happy.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I understand your post as focusing on the material aspects of the body, or "What is in it for me?"

According to Body Theology the visible is supposed to illuminate the invisible. So the starting point of spirituality would be the material body.

Pope John Paul II was focused on the spiritual aspects of the body. He notes that in Genesis all the animals who were in the garden with him were not like him.

And here is the central problem. The visible is not being used to illuminate the invisible. Scripture is being used to illuminate the invisible. That's all well and good, I suppose, but it's not Body Theology.