c. scott andreas

note: this is part three of a three-part series.

Yesterday, I began to compare the relationship of one person to another with the relationship between individuals and God. Today, I conclude this series, smashing these ideas against each other in fun new ways.

I closed with a passage from Genesis, which I repeat here:

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.� For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

-Genesis 2:22-24 (Zondervan/NIV)

It seems that this again returns us to the question of God and what He’s done for us. The Bible teaches that man was created alone, and that the plants and animals were created to provide companionship. But this wasn’t enough – man cannot create and invent himself in a ficus any more than he could live comfortably within a dog. So He created a true companion. Lonely solitude isn’t the only option.

The language used here implies that male and female are incomplete without one another. * It then follows that upon finding a partner with whom one can relate to the fullest extent possible (in earthly terms), the man and the woman are made complete (perfect). While men and women can have relationships with other men and women, a connection between men or between women can never be as strong as one paired with the opposite gender. To settle for anything less is displeasing to God; He wishes for us to have the most intimate connection with one another possible in our few years on earth – settling for less and rejecting His creation certainly fails to bring Him glory.

As these intimate relationships are absolutely dependent upon perfect trust, it is then imperative that they be monogamous. While we are able to carry on relationships with many people, creating ourselves within them and allowing them to be created within us, there is no intimacy among humans as deep as the romantic. Marriage is believed to bring people together as one flesh – the metaphor in the mind of the other is identical to one’s image of him or herself. Extending a sexual relationship beyond one’s husband or wife indicates that the bond between the couple is not strong enough and the intimacy not deep enough to satisfy.

It seems that Heaven allows for the fulfillment of the dream of ideal communication. Those who are one with God (the bride of Christ) are also one with one another in spirit on Earth. Once our earthly existence passes away, we will be left only with our spirits. Made perfect (finished, completed, purified) in Christ, we will finally be able to relate perfectly with Him and with those who are His. We’ll have achieved the ideal and be able to freely invent ourselves within one another without sin getting in the way.

Most importantly, however, the invention of ourselves within God will be our true reality. Our existence in Him is our eternity. If we live in Him, we live eternally with Him. If we do not live with Him, however, we live on earth, but not outside of earth. Once dead on earth, we do not live eternally – we die. Separated from both God and body, our souls are bound forever to solipsism, living in alone torment with the evil that has corrupted us. Smeagol says hello.

It seems that the first judgment is simply the answering of the question of whether or not we exist in Him. The second is a question of to what degree.

* I do not mean to say that the celibate are somehow “incomplete” or “lacking.” Instead, I contend that those for whom God created a partner will only be fully satisfied when they have entered into what He has planned for them.

I hope that you’ve enjoyed these musings. I can’t say whether they’re “right” or “true.” But they make sense. Am I way off?

Call me out.

For my sake, and everyone else’s.

have a safe and happy new year’s celebration.

- c. scott andreas

note: this is part two of a three-part series

Yesterday, I introduced a three-part thought. Part one focused on the trouble and frustration created between individuals as a result of mistrust, the problem of creating ourselves within each other, and social communication.

This is part two, in which I apply the concepts I posited with regard to human relationships to a relationship with the Divine.

I believe that this way of thinking also has a profound meaning within the context of faith and God. Many believe that the afterlife is the fulfillment of this dream of perfect communication.

In praying to God, we build our relationship with Him. In reading His Word, we let Him build His relationship with us. To apply the alternate metaphor, when we pray to God, we create ourselves in Him; when we read the Word of God, He creates Himself within us.

The same problem of “perfect communication� among each other also applies to our relationship with God. Just as it is undesirable to relate with others we perceive as unlikable or simply unlike us, God faces the question of whether or not it is desirable to relate with us. By speaking to us through His Word, He openly accepts all of the risks involved in a creating a relationship – in speaking to us, He creates Himself within us. He walks the streets of our minds, filled with danger and sin, without fear. He offers to live within us. In exchange, He offers to allow us to create ourselves and live within Him. We are free to pray to Him – to create ourselves within Him and walk the pure streets of gold without fear.

When we create and define the metaphor that is our life within Him, we are able to discover who we really are – in our relationships with others, we are unable to do this because perfect intimacy is both impossible and undesirable. But with God, we are free, even encouraged, to explore and define ourselves free from fear and inhibition.

This, then, begs the question of how deep of a relationship is possible on earth.

A passage to ponder…

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

-Genesis 2:22-24 (Zondervan/NIV)

look for part three tomorrow

note: this is part one of a three-part series.

Humans are relational beings – we desire and require meaningful interaction.

It is by these relationships that we define, create, and invent ourselves. Left alone, we lay stagnant, and often end up depressed in our solitude.

When we first encounter someone, we do not exist to them as anything other than a physical sight that quickly fades following the initial meeting. As we speak, interact, communicate, and build our relationship with others, we create our mental selves within them. Though a date may begin with nothing other than physical attraction, it concludes with a plethora of information having been exchanged, the totality of which is filed under the metaphor of their name.

Left alone, we exist only in our own minds. It is not until we begin to interact with others, to “create ourselves� within them, that we define who we are.

Some have the desire to have the ability to know everyone intimately – to “break down the barriers of communication� that divide us, the “group tensions,� the “cliques� that isolate us from others. They desire to remove any sort of vagaries and hidden connotations to words; rather than subjective, contextual language, their ideal is objective speech and perfect, intact transmission of ideas.

Living in an imperfect world, the realization of such perfection would have abhorrent and far-reaching consequences. In “perfect communion,� we would be one in thought, billions living out the singular consciousness that could just as easily be done by one.

We all have people whom we do not or would not like, in the event that we became acquainted with them. In such a world, we would become literally one with them, unavoidably sharing our innermost secrets, wants, and desires.

The traditional problem with the sorts of people with whom we do not “easily relate� is that we cannot trust them. To return to the previous analogy, we do not wish to create ourselves within them; we do not believe their minds would make hospitable homes for us. We’d feel unsafe, as if living in a dangerous neighborhood, doors unlocked. Conversing with them is not unlike wandering the poorly-lit side streets and alleys of Chicago unescorted at night – we sense that we (our persons within themselves) will be assaulted and attacked, left defenseless in an unfamiliar world.

look for part two tomorrow

“This is my first entry into my blog.”

“Welcome to my blog! I promise to add interesting tidbits of info from here on out! I can’t believe how easy it was to start this up!”

Above quotes taken from various blogs; curious? Google: “first entry” “my blog”

The first post is a genre in itself, often containing intentions, (failed) promises, or a statement proclaiming the author’s mental clutter. Then, there’s the “meta” post about the post. I fall here.

welcome.

question me and be questioned. provoke me and be provoked. think. write.
i invite you to be changed and reinvented as i continuously change and reinvent myself.

it’ll be a fun ride.

- c. scott andreas