a dissection of the lyric "the Earth is filled with His glory"

When I sing during a church service I strive to ponder the lyrics. I firmly believe that mindless worship is a self-contradiction. I keep silent during the lines and stanzas that I can't state honestly. One short assertion in that category is, if I'm repeating it faithfully, "the Earth is filled with His glory". It's more problematic than it may seem:

• If the lyric means that the Earth is a strong representation of God's goodness, then it's false. I count my blessings like any other grateful being (it's always more than we deserve), but surely that matter of the Fall is a stumbling block to thinking the Earth is Good? Not only is there a dizzying array of ways to experience pain but there is an even greater number of ways that one inhabitant of Earth can inflict that pain on its counterparts. Consider another good quality, fairness. Aside from the difficulty of arriving at a definition that everyone will accept, any regime to enforce fairness will sooner or later fail because people are simply too clever.
• If the lyric means that the Earth is a strong representation of God's power and majesty and creativity, then it's false. Infinite is infinite. Absolute is absolute. Merely from the standpoint of the rest of the solar system, Earth isn't terribly distinctive...apart from supporting life, a task at which it hasn't been perpetually successful. Sometimes people will speak of natural disasters and catastrophes that supposedly illustrate God's might. As if. Perhaps a greater sign is the very existence of the Earth and universe. Something from nothing is the true miracle.
• If the lyric means that the Earth is filled with God, then it's false. God is separate. God's full force would flatten it. God's presence would crush our minds. Also remember that many things on Earth injure and kill indiscriminately. And annoy. Is it respectful to imply that "Jack Frost nipping at your nose" should be "Yahweh nipping at your nose"? Please, be thankful when everything seems to be favoring your happiness. Yet what should the response be when everything seems to be spiting your happiness? What about the beautiful sunshine...before and after it burns you? I admit to not being someone who sees God in everything. My intent is to provoke thought, not to challenge anyone's faith.
  

False Amorality redux

False Amorality made the point that accusations of amorality don't help either side of any moral conflict. One example of this is the assumption (sometimes proven right, sometimes not) by some Christians that people who don't believe in the supernatural or at the very least objective morality must not have high standards of behavior or a basis for humane, altruistic actions. The following quote simply expresses a perspective that combines compassion with pessimism about ultimate meaning.

...If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today...All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

two categories of hypocrisy

The common definition of hypocrisy is someone not doing what they say.

One well-publicized category of it is that of Christians, or any other person who doesn't keep quiet about morality, not living their lives as perfectly as they say they should.

But there's also a second category. In this category, people don't claim at all to live in accordance with their religious "beliefs" or even to "take them seriously" (literal Hell, anyone?). Yet they attend services, sing songs, feign prayers, and always expect the other guy to volunteer. They silently dismiss any mutterings they hear about taking up crosses.

In the first category, well-meaning people make mistakes like everyone else as they struggle to put their difficult beliefs into practice. In the second category, people openly do as they like while telling bald lies to themselves and others about their feelings, commitments, and loyalties. Which is worse?

spontaneous not random acts of kindness

Go ahead, perform acts of kindness, but not randomly. Acts of kindness should be motivated. Help an unknown person not out of obligation to the "randomness edict" but out of compassion and sympathy for flawed humanity. Let your "light" shine before men always, but do this in full conscious awareness. Aim to do the most good to the most drastic need. Unthinking, unfeeling, randomized behavior is beneath the dignity of our responsibility to represent God on Earth.

The virtuous person spontaneously gives to everyone around him or her from a bottomless divine supply, but do not compare these gifts to a die roll.

another quick hint on opening constructive dialogs with Christians

Don't blame Christianity for every dark point in the history of Western Civilization. Don't pretend that the obvious hypocrites were sincere Christians. Don't attempt to maintain that the sole efforts of the church were to exert thought control through force. Look, some awful people did some awful actions, no question. But how is that different from every other place and time on Earth?

Consider what would most likely have happened if Christianity, like other world religions, hadn't largely replaced the original belief systems. No religions worse than Christianity? Do some more research, this time with the objectivity.

a quick hint on opening constructive dialogs with Christians

Don't label Christian communities with the words "tribe" or "tribal", or else be careful to reapply the same words to other communities, too. Insinuating that people can't think for themselves but rather that they have "tribal" beliefs that they defend as members of a "tribe" is simply not an effective way to reach them. Any social group usually has shared beliefs that are intrinsic to the group's very existence. One may as well state that the American Dental Association tribe has zealous beliefs about oral hygiene. People with that "tribal affiliation" will take a stand against those who question the "tribal laws" for combating tooth decay.

secular metaphors

"Secular values" pointed out that since values and religion are so intertwined, and values are so important for individuals of a society to make good decisions, the marginalization or elimination of religion from culture must also include secular substitutes for values. In a similar way, the metaphors of a culture both intertwine with religion and serve important cultural functions. Therefore, secular metaphors must be introduced along with secular values.

Examples of cultural metaphors from Christianity are David and Goliath, Noah, Adam, Lazarus, Samson, Moses, Solomon, and Jesus, of course. Turns of phrase from Christianity include "let he who is without sin", "lamb to the slaughter", "go the extra mile", "feet of clay", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "wheat from the chaff", "wash my hands of", "turn the other cheek", "straight and narrow", "scapegoat", "salt of the earth". Some concepts from Christianity commonly alluded to include the Apocalypse and all the associated symbols like the Four Horsemen, numerous stories like Babel and the Ark and the battle of Jericho, parables or teachings like the Good Shepherd. Moreover, cultural metaphors from other religions also abound. Consider "herculean", "sisyphean", "Midas touch", "titanic", "tantalizing", "procrustean", "Achilles heel".

The official or inclusive stance on religious metaphors usually seems to be that these metaphors are really metaphors from influential literature that happened to be religious in nature. It's true that metaphorical uses of the above elements jettison the important theological meanings of the originals. For instance, David's victory over Goliath was a divine work or gift, as was Samson's strength and Solomon's wisdom. But merely placing the metaphors in the same category as "lilliputian" and "something is rotten in Denmark" doesn't change the fact that the metaphors originate from the exact "dangerously deranged religions" that some wish would just go away or become irrelevant or benign. If supernatural belief is a metaphorical millstone around the neck (oops, the Bible mentions that too) of humanity, wouldn't it at least be more satisfactory for the irredeemably-flawed associated metaphors to be replaced by secular metaphors? Or am I opening Pandora's Box, so to speak, by mentioning this challenge?

In any case, it seems rather hypocritical when people who loudly cry against supernatural beliefs continue to mine those beliefs for artistic metaphors. You have your own set of anti-theistic beliefs, which you are proud of (and why not be proud of your beliefs when everyone else is proud of theirs?). Why not use metaphors from beliefs you hold?