Of course, the president would need all the help he can get, which means we have to other like-minded people in congress too. That’s the hard part.

Mike, dear, my personal beliefs aside, to save argument about an afterlife, I think we could at least try, politically and non-theistically (secularly) to make earth heaven. Yes, it is idealism I’m talking, but if we don’t strive to do that then we will continue to be at war with each other. This is why I can tolerate Spong’s ideology and others who talk in this manner, because they too have a dream similar to mine. I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to “love wastefully”, strive to be all we can be, and to strive for peace and justice. Regardless of the words one uses, it is a common goal that we can all attempt to strive for even if it is idealistic. If we don’t try then things won’t get better.

Oh I agree. I think we do need to work for the “kingdom” here on earth. I just don’t think it will happen by means of our current systems of power, violence, and domination. The current tools of governments are antithetical to what I think the “kingdom” is all about. You can’t bring peace through violence (e.g. Iraq), reconciliation through exclusion (e.g. immigration), prosperity through exploitation (e.g. trade policies), or virtue through legislation and threat of punishment (e.g. “Family Values”). This is why in the kingdom Jesus described the greatest are really the least (and vice versa) and those who would lead have to learn to give their power away for the good of all. Personally I’m not holding out hope that our current power structures will be doing this kind of thing any time soon.

Though personally I’d disagree with him that such a kingdom of justice and peace can ever be ultimately reached via political means.

Mike, dear, my personal beliefs aside, to save argument about an afterlife, I think we could at least try, politically and non-theistically (secularly) to make earth heaven. Yes, it is idealism I’m talking, but if we don’t strive to do that then we will continue to be at war with each other. This is why I can tolerate Spong’s ideology and others who talk in this manner, because they too have a dream similar to mine. I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to “love wastefully”, strive to be all we can be, and to strive for peace and justice. Regardless of the words one uses, it is a common goal that we can all attempt to strive for even if it is idealistic. If we don’t try then things won’t get better.

I interpret Jesus’s statement “The Kingdom of God is within you” in a universalist way: everyone can reach within themselves and pull out something good and true and live that in the world. That’s about as close to the Kingdom of God as we’re going to get.

I’m working on a paper working with the word ‘numinous’ currently which includes the Gospel of Thomas verse 3 and 77. I think this concept has been around for centuries and can be used in a non-metaphysical manner, though Strong atheists would disagree with me as well as Fundamentalists. It is a concept that can even apply here too in the case of Obama’s words too and does not need a concept of an afterlife- Sea of Faith and some Unitarians might understand what I’m saying though.

As idealistic as it sounds, Mike, it is still a common goal and dream for many humans to make the concept of heaven tangible. If we could all think of heaven as a human concept, then our ideas change concerning how to achieve this changes. Whether our idea is a supernatural concept or a natural concept I think it is a worthwhile goal to strive for it here on earth.

What if I and others are right that this is it, that this is the only chance we get, wouldn’t it be a good idea to at least make our common goal to have heaven on earth and to strive for it? Of course if we are wrong, then those who believe in a supernatural heaven too could end up with both. Either way, it doesn’t matter because it is a good goal to strive for on earth too.

I do agree that the “kingdom” is for here on earth (not just some pie in the sky when we die) but I don’t think our “imperial” structures are ever going to succeed in bringing it about.

I interpret Jesus’s statement “The Kingdom of God is within you” in a universalist way: everyone can reach within themselves and pull out something good and true and live that in the world. That’s about as close to the Kingdom of God as we’re going to get.

Though personally I’d disagree with him that such a kingdom of justice and peace can ever be ultimately reached via political means. We’ve been chasing that particular utopian dream for some time now and yet not much seems to have improved. I do agree that the “kingdom” is for here on earth (not just some pie in the sky when we die) but I don’t think our “imperial” structures are ever going to succeed in bringing it about.

Also, I’ve found that people at that time used the word “atheist” to describe agnostics, non-Christians, or Christians of “bad” denominations.