Spot on Peter! And thoroughly debunks all those who claimed to be able to communicate with the divine, from the earliest prophets on down including Mr Moses and beyond, down to the modern day.

Poof there goes the bible! And all the belief systems that rely on it!

It simply has to be extremely disconcerting to hear voices coming out of thin air!? But so much more so, when you understand what they're saying!
Alan B.

If intellectual servility toward such abstruse contriving of christianity and the figure at its head is now required to be Sellick's true christian, then I pay homage to the singular simplicity and logic of the influences that led me to atheism.

Does the christian god choose to present himself as an intellectual trickster to his flock? It seems like the lowly headcount of scribes who are claimed to have penned the scriptures were more than simply "inspired" by the holy word.

Are all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the scriptures now explained by holy perfidy and a penchant for triviality?

I wish christians would lose their persecution complex and realise that science is NOT searching for their deity and is no threat to it. Reducing it to a metaphor seems like an act of desperation than anything else.

Jeez! Sells has really surpassed himself this time.
As if any of that has anything to do with Truth & Reality. And the all-important significance of death and what it requires of us.

http://www.beezone.com/death_message.html Read the three available essays at the bottom of this webpage, including Welcome Sister Death

Once again this assessment of conventional spirit-killing institutional christian-ism and its impenetrable "holy" book.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm

To Peter.

A friend directed me to these articles, and I thought of you for them.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/are-there-contradictions-bible/

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/early-symptoms-spiritual-danger/

One is about contradictions, and the other is about losing one's faith. If you ever want to talk about either topic to someone, I hope you can find someone who can help you through your struggles in faith.

As to your article. One point you posed was this:

<<The absence of any sign in our time that such events occur places evangelicals on shaky ground since they have to explain how God could intrude upon the physical world in biblical times but not in ours.>>

The reversal of this argument is something that strengthens my own faith. Hopefully it can strengthen yours as well. By seeing events in our lives that God has interceded and intruded on the physical world, the conclusion that He can do so it biblical times is strengthened. Be strengthened in knowing that God does act on the world today. He is not absent. Good news indeed.

To Pogi. You said:

<<Reducing it to a metaphor seems like an act of desperation than anything else.>>

The good news I have for you is that God is not a metaphor. And no
I also don't see science as a threat.

Peter,

>>The absence of any sign in our time that such events occur places evangelicals on shaky ground since they have to explain how God could intrude upon the physical world in biblical times but not in ours. The absence of any sign in our time that such events occur places evangelicals on shaky ground since they have to explain how God could intrude upon the physical world in biblical times but not in ours.<<

The combination of “divine action” with “science” brought me 60 400 Google hits. So I do not think one can dismiss Divine Action (seen through 21st century Christian approaches to philosophy of science and philosophy of religion) as simply as you seem to indicate.

Perfect score, Peter. Well done!

---

Dear Pogi,

«I wish christians would lose their persecution complex and realise that science is NOT searching for their deity and is no threat to it»

God is not a deity.

The learned have understood this from time immemorial, but usually not the ordinary person in the market-place.

Thinking of God as a deity has its merits and science IS a threat to the simple and innocent faith of ordinary people in the market-place.

«Reducing it to a metaphor seems like an act of desperation than anything else.»

Well God is not a metaphor either, yet a desperate attempt of using this explanation to restore the faith of ordinary people in the market-place has its rightful positive place. Not everyone has the time on their hands and the intellectual capacity to study God, but even those who are not (yet) in the position to study God can still learn to lead a good, honest moral life. Science undermines this because nothing in the realm of material science indicates that one ought to seek the good and avoid evil even if/when they could get away with it.

To Daffy Duck.

What does the articles you posted have to do with Peter Sellick's article?

One being about death? The other rebranding Christianity? Is there something specific you wanted to relate about reality through those articles, or about the article Peter wrote? Or was it a knee-jerk reaction to the topic of Christianity from The article "Mistaken atheism, mistaken theism?"

Give some context to what your trying to say instead of giving a short sentence and pointing to two articles that don't seem to relate directly to what's being said here; and then hope we see the connection.

Not_Now.Soon writes: "To Pogi. You said:

<<Reducing it to a metaphor seems like an act of desperation than anything else.>>

The good news I have for you is that God is not a metaphor. And no
I also don't see science as a threat."

If your deity is not a metaphor as Sellick claims, then your correction is better directed to him. Please take responsibility for the inconsistencies and contradictions of theism and scripture and refrain from trying to lumber the non-believer with them. Your concern about "good news" is of no concern to me. Regular nippng at the ankles of the unbeliever and uttering threadbare mottoes with a contrived enthusiasm is seen as deserving a rap on the nose with a rolled newspaper.If the faithful don't see science as a threat, when can we see cessation of their resort to the perversion that is creation "science" as a legitimate alternative to the real thing? Their authority has been found wanting at every turn in their tortuous path.

Yuyutsu, writes: "God is not a deity."

How would you identify the thing you and 1.5 bn other humans worship then? It seems that denying a ghostly, supernatural and spiritual existence to your object of worship finally closes off access to all and every capacity for existence. Without a monarch in paradise, only the realm of eternal discomfort remains, unless, of course, the subterranean denizens are themselves suffering the same redefinitions.

You write: "Well God is not a metaphor either, yet a desperate attempt of using this explanation to restore the faith of ordinary people in the market-place has its rightful positive place."

What a smug declaration of "special pleading"! Only a chosen few are privy to this lofty station, are they? Those of the elite of the elite, those with the sacred gift of "knowing" what the sweaty headcount is incapable of comprehending!
Continued....

....Continuation of my previous post to Yuyutsu.
You write further: "Not everyone has the time on their hands and the intellectual capacity to study God, but even those who are not (yet) in the position to study God can still learn to lead a good, honest moral life."

I confess to a certain astonishment that at my age, I'm faced with a level of self-congratulatory hubris previously not encountered. And this is held by yourself and your ilk to be the highest virtue. The level of your conceit is more than astonishing, it is utterly stupefying and confounding of all attempts at reconciling such a notion with your scripture.

And further: "Science undermines this because nothing in the realm of material science indicates that one ought to seek the good and avoid evil even if/when they could get away with it."

This really, is a risible observation quite congruent with your mindset. Your claim to intellectual prowess is, to the rational in society, dashed on the rocks of hubristic presumption and truly, reveals an ignorance of science that makes a joke of your claims to "specialness". Nothing in the realm of material science [is there a realm of immaterial or un-material science?] is concerned at all with matters metaphysical. Those of humankind unafflicted with original guilt or possessing an immunity to the concept of sin, those of humankind not constantly in need of a living threat of punishment, have acquired a profound knowledge from our fellow humans in the societies in which we live. The Principal of Reciprocity governs their realm of morality.

To Pogi.

I've tried a few times to talk to Peter about our views of faith. Admittedly much of the time it was that I disagreed with him but I've also tried to ask him about some things we hopefully would have a common ground on. At this point and based on some of the things he's said, my current worry is that he is either losing his faith or has already lost it. I've heard of a support group for ex-pastors who've lost their faith but haven't told their community about it. Known also to stay on the pulpit or their other roles in the church. (I hope this is not the case with Peter, but it is a concern).

You said:

<<Please take responsibility for the inconsistencies and contradictions of theism and scripture>>

I'm not a scholar or a priest/minister, but I can try. If you have an inconsistency or contradiction in mind, I can try to look into it, or if it's something I already have an answer for maybe give an answer sooner.

<<refrain from trying to lumber the non-believer with them.>>

If you mean to not hold religious views in the presence on nonChristians, then I have to inform you that I won't do this. I no longer see this as a fair or good idea, as I used to when I was a kid. Instead a person's faith should be something that is part of their lives completely. Otherwise can you really say they have faith in it. There are other reasons to reject the rationel, but this one is enough.

(continued)

(Continued)

You also said:

<<Regular nippng at the ankles of the unbeliever and uttering threadbare mottoes with a contrived enthusiasm is seen as deserving a rap on the nose with a rolled newspaper.>>

HA! I'd like to see you or anyone else try. I'm not a child or a pet for your rolled up paper, and instead if the opportunity arose I'd have to try to restrain myself from accepting that as the challenge that it is. No dice about it, the culture to try and silence Christians from openly speaking about their faith is something to chide that population about, often because they say they are trying to silence others in a hypocrisy of claiming it's for freedom of speech. Bollox and balderdash to the whole thing.

For this topic on Christianity that Peter started, wouldn't you be guilty of "nipping at the ankles" of believers? On other topics I see no reason to restrain my views even if they are religous views. If they hold merit (regardless of religous influence) that should be what counts.

(continued)

(Continued)

<<If the faithful don't see science as a threat, when can we see cessation of their resort to the perversion that is creation "science" as a legitimate alternative to the real thing? Their authority has been found wanting at every turn in their tortuous path.>>

I don't see it as a threat. I can't speak for anyone else or speak for their endeavors in life. The problem your speaking about is cultures within scientific communities. From the past to the present there are people who hold a view of the world (or of what they are studying) and look to scientific investigation to confirm their ideals already made. Instead of just collect the data and see what they see. Too much hypothesis and explanation combined with a lack of data. This is not a creationist science issue. It's an issue in every field of scientific investigation.

Again though, science is not a threat to me. So far it hasn't proven anything I see to harm my faith. Instead several in-depth studies of any topic seem to do the opposite for several scientists, fill them with a sense of awe for how the world works and less of a sense that this is a chance occurrence. For me the study of anatomy has only strengthened my sense of God's work in the world.

.....to clear up one other thing. Yuyutsu isn't a Christian. His world view isn't the same as a monotheistic God that many other religions have. I'm not as familiar with Hindu perspectives, but I am learning what Yuyutsu's perspective of Hinduism is. ... Just in case there was confusion of that part of the conversation.

Not Now soon,
I can assure you that I am not losing my faith. Here I am up bright and early looking forward to a beautiful sung Eucharist at the Cathedral. Your judgment that I am losing my faith reveals a certain narrow understanding of what faith amounts to. For me, it does not rely on evidence of supernatural existence. I read widely in theology and have done so for many years.

My hope for you is that you escape the evangelical bubble and come to a more mature understanding that will increase your "knowledge and love of God".

My hope for Pogi is that he will come to understand that we Christians are not all alike, that his materialist view of the universe is accurate but that that view has a tendency to mask fundamental issues around what it means to be human.

Dear Pogi,

«How would you identify the thing you and 1.5 bn other humans worship then?»

A representation of God.

But it is not just one thing that 1.5 billion people worship (assuming the number is correct): there are many deities that are being worshipped around the world as well as other representations of God which are not deities.

«Without a monarch in paradise, only the realm of eternal discomfort remains»

I urge you to think again: you should be able to come up with many possible alternatives yourself.

«What a smug declaration of "special pleading"!»

A very common pleading: most people can benefit from worshipping a deity of their choice. Most people have no time or inclination for deep theological study, but they still can progress spiritually by devoting a little time for prayer or other forms of worship, even if it is just once or twice a day.

«Only a chosen few are privy to this lofty station»

The books are open and nowadays even freely available on the internet.
Teachers are available too to explain the books.
One just needs to want it enough, but alas, people usually have other priorities.

"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness."
[Isaiah 55:1-2]

«[is there a realm of immaterial or un-material science?]»

Not a realm, but disciplines, material science itself being a discipline rather than a realm.

«Nothing in [the realm of] material science is concerned at all with matters metaphysical... The Principal of Reciprocity governs their realm of morality.»

Indeed, material science cannot answer the metaphysical question of WHY: Suppose your definition of morality is complete, yet WHY should one be moral, WHY should one observe the Principal of Reciprocity? Material science is silent about this.

Yuyutsu, writes: "Indeed, material science cannot answer the metaphysical question of WHY."

This is exactly what I was telling you when I wrote: <<Nothing in [the realm of] material science is concerned at all with matters metaphysical.>> Do you suffer some kind of dyslexic affliction? Science declares its recognition that the remit allocated to it by the reason and logic that governs the REAL world that humans inhabit. Matters metaphysical have never been, nor will they ever be, a concern of science. Charging science with fault or with incompleteness of some kind is a dishonest device of the faithful to inflate their own authority by devious means. It is a commonly accepted and unequivocal fault of faith that deviousness in expanding its figurehead's aims and credibility is made virtue by the purpose that drives it. I have never encountered anywhere else how hubris is turned to such successful use.

You write further: "Suppose your definition of morality is complete, yet WHY should one be moral, WHY should one observe the Principal of Reciprocity? Material science is silent about this."

I trust even you might understand now precisely why science is silent...

As to why one should observe...Because it is in our interest as an animal living in a complex group that cooperation, fellowship and a sense of fairness/justice are more likely to be reciprocated than not, that our own actions prompt most intelligent humans to react in a similar manner. The safety, health and prosperity of societal groups were found by evolution to be enhanced by a largely benign reciprocity involving cooperation, fellowship and fairness/justice. Contrary to the view held by the faithful, humans are intelligent enough to recognise this and live their lives accordingly. Intelligence alone is sufficient to recognise this. Threats to the well-being of individuals who are afflicted with faith that intelligence is insufficient is to deny humankind some of its innate worth and this notion caters to a legitimation of the faithfuls' sense of inadequacy and decrepitude. Such groveling subservience is inimical to human dignity and integrity. The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and thriving in religion.

To Peter.

I'm glad to hear you're faith is doing well and is strong. You said:

<<My hope for you is that you escape the evangelical bubble and come to a more mature understanding that will increase your "knowledge and love of God".>>

Regardless of your thoughts of evangelicalism or if I have a narrow view of faith, thank you for hoping that I will increase in knowing the knowledge and love of God. I hope for that too. I hope the same for you also. :)

OLO Mistaken atheism, mistaken theism : Comments 01042019 2

Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 31 March 2019 2

You write: "I don't see it as a threat. I can't speak for anyone else or speak for their endeavors in life. The problem your speaking about is cultures within scientific communities [the dichotomy of legitimate science and creation "science".

No, it is not cultural. Creation "science" is not part of the scientific community, it is, and has been proven to be, a concoction of lies, misrepresentation and deceit. It's stated goal is to pervert legitimate science...a much easier task than conducting original research and seeing that research published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. In trying to foist creationism onto legitimate science you manage to convey your own recognition of it as illegitimate.

You write: " This is not a creationist science issue. It's an issue in every field of scientific investigation."

Science itself declares you to be both wrong and a perpetrator of deceit.

Sellick writes: "My hope for Pogi is that he will come to understand that we Christians are not all alike,"

Legitimacy through diversity? A claim with some logic to its contrivance. It is inescapable that ALL faithful shall share a number of fundamental characteristics while vehemently claiming simultaneously that all other christian sects are illegitimate and their members are hell-bound. Mind you, this gleeful threat is nurtured by every christian toward his fellows in faith, so strangely, it is a binding characteristic of diversity and as vile a characteristic peculiar to all who are religious as any rational person could conceive of. Torture for eternity for those who think/worship differently...your brethren in faith. Such a notion would disgust the hardest of hearts. And for Sellick, it's a sacred virtue?

Dear Pogi,

I am glad that we agree that science is silent about metaphysics.

Morality is metaphysical.

On Friday I wrote: "nothing in the realm of material science indicates that one ought to seek the good and avoid evil EVEN IF/WHEN THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT".

Your reply, summarily, was that due to reciprocity it is rational for a human to imitate morality. The problems with this approach are:

1. There still are cases when it is rational and scientific to believe that despite reciprocity which works in general, in the particular situation, the prospects of one's human organism and/or its progeny would actually improve by behaving immorally. In other words, that one could get away with wrongful acts.

2. People in general are not rational. While they know many facts, they continue to behave irrationally, based on emotions and desires.

3. The initial assumptions regarding desirables and undesirables are arbitrary and irrational: why would the safety, health and prosperity of humans, individually and/or socially, be a good thing? After all, science tells us that no matter what we do, every human and every human society will eventually die. Not only is it irrational to consider the perceived interests of our human-animal body important, but rational analysis also shows that these are futile and cannot be successful, so why this irrational effort?

4. Material science is limited. While it knows much about physical matter (i.e. particles), it understands energy much less (recall that matter is actually condensed energy, E=mc²) and is yet to discover that energy itself is a condensed form of mind, then that mind itself is a condensed form of intelligence.

To be consistently moral, one needs either direct knowledge of the source of intelligence, which in turn is the source of mind, energy and matter, or otherwise, to have faith in the writings and teachings of those who delved within, discovered this source and referred to it as 'God'.

You seem to confuse the reality of God as the essence and source of all that is, with the useful/practical method of worshipping God through a deity.

To Pogi. You said:

<<It is inescapable that ALL faithful shall share a number of fundamental characteristics while vehemently claiming simultaneously that all other christian sects are illegitimate and their members are hell-bound.>>

Nope. Not correct at all. Look up 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. It basically confronts divisions among Christians that started back then, and Paul confront and corrects that kind of view. Any Christian who reads this passage and tries to apply it will likely come to the conclusion that though Christians see things differently and don't always agree doctrinally, we are all still saved by Jesus, not by a denomination or a sect. There is another verse that says to trust God's wisdom, not man's. If that is applied to our understanding as well, then our misunderstanding and disagreements on issues that are not salvation related, won't be a reason to be rejected by God and sent to Hell.

What you wrote is based on your philosophy of Christianity, and like I said of the cultures in science, philosophy is an issue. To many conclusions without enough data. Too many hypothesis without tests and observations being repeated to confirm them. It is a philosophy issue. Whether you like it or not. Would you like an example? Very well.

On Monday, 1 April 2019 12:56:21 AM you said to Yuyutsu:

<<it is in our interest as an animal living in a complex group that cooperation, fellowship and a sense of fairness/justice are more likely to be reciprocated than not, that our own actions prompt most intelligent humans to react in a similar manner. The safety, health and prosperity of societal groups were found by evolution to be enhanced by a largely benign reciprocity involving cooperation, fellowship and fairness/justice.>>

While I agree that fellowship, justice, and reciprocity/cooperation are in our best interests, there are still two things I would challenge you on in this quote. One is that these qualities are prompted by intelligence, and the second is that these qualities were found by evolutionary means.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Here's why I challenge these two ideas. Based on what I see, people are kind and fair (leading to fellowship, corporation and reciprocated), regardless of their intellect. A more intelligent person does not make them a kinder or fairer person. In fact instead often our intellect is used to get away with injustice, different schemes, and even cons and coverups. We do this at a young age when we don't know any better (hoping not to get in trouble with parents), and some do this more successfully at an older age because they can get away with it and don't care about our fellow human beings.

Therefore, I would counter that a sense of kindness and fairness (and by extension, corporation, fellowship and justice) is part of something different then intellect is. Both are important, but kindness is more important then intelligence, and not reliant on it.

Regarding evolution. There's no real evidence that we've evolved socially. We've changed with governments, cultures, technology, and society throughout the ages, and across the world. But the things that are counted as evolved could just as easily have always been there. As far as I can tell, people are the same as they've always been. Both the good aspects and the negative aspects.

What you've written on is a philosophical perspective, not a data based perspective. This actually occurs often enough in scientific communities just on the basis that rarely is a person's research and work second checked, by repeating them. They are quoted, and added to a peer review (that is if they come to conclusions that their peers can agree with based on other conclusions from research that may or may not have been repeated).

You also said:

<<Science itself declares you to be both wrong and a perpetrator of deceit.>>

Nope. Still wrong. Not only is science not a threat to my faith, your philosophy of science ("science declares") is not a threat either.

To Pogi and Yuyutsu.

This conversation is rapidly moving away from the article that Peter Sellick wrote. Therefore to bring it back a notch, here is a quote from the article.

"Any kind of faith that relies on certainties will be spiritually crippling and will make a mockery of faith."

I think on this point is a foundation that Yuyutsu congratulates Peter's article on, (because he often refutes any perspective to reliability and what is real), and is also a point that Pogi recoils to. I say that because from what I've seen in this conversation with Pogi, and from past conversations with Yuyutsu.

This is also a point I greatly disagree with and have discussed greatly with Yuyutsu about. There needs to be a reliable foundation to test and place other philosophies and conclusions on. Otherwise there is no reason to judge or justify and perspective if we remove a foundation of certainty that we can trust and rely on.

I can tell you through experience that God exists, and that he loves us. This is not through theological study, or from biblical study, but by experience to confirm these things. These lead me to search theological perspectives and read the bible, which lead to trusting the bible as a solid foundation as opposed to theological springboards that are not grounded in something solid like experience or the bible.

Without a foundation to hold you, there is no guide to rely on in our spiritual growth. It is therefore crucial to find what can be reliable in our journey of faith, and that is not a crippling factor, but a strengthening one.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You touched on some fundamental and difficult questions, particularly the question of free choice.

Because in the past we have placed our faith in the world, only we can change our allegiance and turn it to God. Is this fair, given that at the time when we placed our faith in the world we were ignorant of God? I am still struggling with this question, but either way, what is certain is that nobody else will do it for us, that only we can make this leap of faith.

So long as we perceive God to be of the world, even with the best of proofs, we cannot leap and change our allegiance. We just cannot tread along the spiritual path only from certainty to certainty, for the path also contains leaps of faith. I think that this is what Peter Sellick meant by "spiritually crippling", that having too many proofs delays our leap of faith.

Once the leap is made, we find a level of certainty again, just as you have, through your own experience.
However, until you are fully bathed in the glory of God there are several leaps of faith to make, not just one.

Scripture is so important, but due to past contaminations of our mind, chances are close to zero that we could simply read the text and understand its depth of truth correctly. We also need a living guide, a teacher who has already leapt further than us towards God, so their certainty is more solid and their intellect purer than ours. Not everyone is fortunate enough as the twelve and others who were guided directly by Jesus himself, yet there are people on earth who are ahead on the path to God - seek their guidance!

I pray that you find a guide who will be able to teach you the scriptures correctly, the Christian scriptures in your case, who will remove your errors and answer your spiritual questions. You have already come a long way, you deserve even more!

To Yuyutsu.

I don't see the connection to the topic of free choice based on what I wrote, or on what Peter wrote in his article.

What I was responding to was that having a foundation on solid ground, on things you are certain about, is good for a person's faith. There is more to our beliefs, and our perspectives (including out faith) then what can be proven or disproven casually. Often it is through our ideas and perspectives being tested by life, that we can see if they are reliable and true. That takes experience, growth, and maturity. All of which takes time. However if you have something that actually is a solid foundation and doesn't change or break when life tests you, then that should be counted as a strength in both your faith and your views of the world. It will not cripple a person's faith but instead give a reliable foundation on that aspect that they know is true.

Yuyutsu, you said:

<<So long as we perceive God to be of the world, even with the best of proofs, we cannot leap and change our allegiance [by turning to God]. >>

I'm not saying that God is of the world or not. That is your wording. But God does act in our lives. Too many testimonies of people being saved, rescued, cured, strengthened in their struggles, or just answered when praying, to conclude that God is not active in the world. And if a person can see it for themself that God is there, then they can rely more fully on turning to God, because they know He's there. This "proof" can be a steady ground when life gets harder or darker. Remember that God is there, and that He has already overcome the world, like we can see by the example of Jesus living and dying for us. Even to overcome death itself. If God being real is a certainty in a person's life then the hardships and burdens can become easier and to persevere through them because of the knowledge that God is there.

Yuyutsu, you also said:

<<Scripture is so important, but due to past contaminations of our mind, chances are close to zero that we could simply read the text and understand its depth of truth correctly. We also need a living guide, a teacher who has already leapt further than us towards God, so their certainty is more solid and their intellect purer than ours.>>

What you're saying sound like the idea of having a mentor, and the idea of mentorship in general. Which I think is a great idea. Not just for faith but for life in general. Whether it's life skills, job skills, or actions and understanding in faith, if a person can have a good mentor to guide them, that is a good resource.

However, the other aspect you spoke on is about reading scripture and understanding it fully. You don't have to understand it fully to be better from it. It's also worth saying that if you don't understand it fully, but apply what you do understand, then that is good enough. By applying it you can see the by the results and come to a better understanding. With a mentor it will be easier, but even without one, a person can take what they do understand and apply it to their lives, or at least keep it in their understanding for future. Therefore reading the bible and gaining an understanding from it is good for every Christian to do.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«if you don't understand it fully, but apply what you do understand, then that is good enough.»

Would you settle for just "good enough"? My standard is to become Christ-like: one ought to never stop short of that.

There are too many examples of people of weak and/or corrupt minds who read scriptures, including Christian scriptures and THOUGHT they understood it, resulting in massacres, resulting in terrible cults, resulting in torture, resulting in breaking of families, etc.
I am not saying that your mind is corrupt to that extent, but the human mind in general is weak and corrupt to one degree or another.

People use the bible to justify views of the political Left and the political Right alike and all that is in between. People speculate on the question "what would Jesus do in this case?", somehow tending to conclude that "Jesus would do just as I did", such is the human mind, so who is correct?

This is why in order to grow beyond "good enough", a spiritual mentor is indispensable.

«if you have something that actually is a solid foundation and doesn't change or break when life tests you, then that should be counted as a strength in both your faith and your views of the world.»

Yes, but there is no such THING which is absolutely solid.
Even the rock on which Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", has cracked due to the effects of time and earthquakes. I have seen this with mine own eyes, you can go to the Sea of Galilee and see it with yours. In Hinduism too, even the ideal and beautiful divinely-built city of Dwaraka, created by Krishna himself, has sunk back into the ocean.

The only possible foundation which is ever solid, is God, but to have God as foundation we must in fact KNOW God: merely having information ABOUT Him is insufficient, information does not amount to knowledge.

[continued...]

[...continued]

So what to do? The spiritual journey consists of both leaps of faith and periods of integration in between, during which one uses the level of knowledge they gained by their own experience to accrue virtues in preparation for the next leap. One can and should rely on the degree of foundation they already gained, but there comes the time to jump into the unknown in order to gain deeper and even more solid foundations.

And to avoid falling into pits at those leaps, a spiritual mentor is indispensable.

«God does act in our lives»

For all practical purposes He does, as you already experienced this yourself, at least to some degree. Theologically it would be more accurate to say that your life is affected by God because you allowed Him in, nevertheless let us be practical here, it comes to the same.

Now wouldn't you like this to be your constant, non-sporadic experience? Wouldn't you like to be infused with the full intensity of God's love, grace, power and glory at each and every moment?
This takes further leaps of faith.

To Yuyutsu. You said:

<< Would you settle for just "good enough"? My standard is to become Christ-like: one ought to never stop short of that.>>

<<For all practical purposes He does, as you already experienced this yourself, at least to some degree. Theologically it would be more accurate to say that your life is affected by God because you allowed Him in, nevertheless let us be practical here, it comes to the same.>>

Theologically there is a huge difference from what you believe and your approach, compared to what the bible teaches in the New Testament. God being in you is not something you do. It's something God does, something He chooses. Though we have expectations from us (love, mercy, kindness, turn from our sins) our success isn't something for us to brag about, but something God makes us successful in. Our choosing God can be counted as our own choice, but our staying with Him is said to be an act of God, otherwise it is impossible. There is more to the teaching that say that God chose us, that He hold on to us, and that through the Holy Spirit, He teaches us, comforts us, and corrects us. Sanctifies us, and strengthens us against our sins.

(Continued)

(Continued)

We have responsibilities as well but through it all the steady point is that God is in control, not us. So with the matter of settling for "Good Enough," yes I would settle for what is within my means to do, and what is the practicality of my understanding, that "settling" is still a lot of work. The bible has several parts that are easy to understand but difficult to live up to. If a person applies what they understand, regardless if that person has a lot of understanding or is a new Christian still learning, then the standard of "good enough" is indeed good enough. We are not saved by being perfect and earning our strips, but instead Jesus came to save us while we are still sinners, and haven't earned it. Having faith means trusting God.

The theology you hold try to be Christ like is not bad by the efforts and devotion to try to do it. But you miss the mark in thinking this is something you can accomplish on your own, instead of being an act of redeeming and cleansing through having the Holy Spirit in us. (Whether we have the Holy Spirit is also outside of our control, but is again in God's hands. The most we can do is strive to be obedient, and strive to follow God). If you do everything that you know how to do, and apply all that you understand, then yes that is good enough.

To Yuyutsu. You've also said:

<<Yes, but there is no such THING which is absolutely solid.>>

Read Mathew 7:24-27. In it Jesus ends His sermon (commonly recognized as "the sermon on the mount") with these words:

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

One last thought on being "good enough." Read 1 Corinthians 12. (You can google it and read it online it's not long). In it Paul addresses that people have different spiritual gifts, not everyone is the same. In the same way that we are all called to follow Jesus, not everyone is as good at teaching as another is, or one person has been given a gift of healing or miracles, others a gift of speaking through the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues) and interpreting what's being said.

These are big things to be given whenever God would give them to us, but they are not in our control to have them. Even just teaching, singing, or knowing the needs another has and trying to help them; are skills that some are better at then others. In the chapter I'm referencing Paul ends by saying that we should all strive for these gifts of the Holy Spirit. But throughout the chapter, the message is clear that we aren't all the same and shouldn't try to be someone else who holds one strength that we don't have (regardless if we ever can have it later or not).

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

It is my true belief that for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the Hindu and Christian faiths and theologies, as well as all true religions, despite using different terminology and languages, converge.

This is easier to see when looking at the practical side that requires less translation, how, regardless of philosophy, we arrive at the same place regarding what behaviour is virtuous versus what behaviour is foolish.

Yet when one reads their scripture unguided, one can be tempted into wrongful ideas. You said for example, "God being in you is not something you do. It's something God does, something He chooses.". Well that nice idea of God separating His sheep from the goats, could be [ab]used by the lazy to excuse their laziness: "Why should I do anything? Either God chose me or He didn't, so it doesn't matter...".

In the above example, the reason scripture could be twisted that way, begins with the loss of accuracy when attempting to translate experience into words (even before further errors are introduced by translation into other languages). Words cannot be absolutely accurate, information does not amount to knowledge!
The verbs "does" and "chooses" are good-enough everyday approximations for the actions of man, but are they also appropriate to describe "actions of God"? I say not: there is no reason to think that "actions of God" are anything like the limited actions of man or even within our imaginative capacity.

One might then ask, "So why have any scripture at all?".
The shortest answer is that it is better than nothing.
Scripture can teach and inspire people to seek and follow God, to become more virtuous and less sinful. A skilful teacher whose personal experiences match the experiences of the authors of scripture, seeing where their student(s) are at, can expound the original sense of scripture in light of their own experience and the student's ability to absorb.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

The rest of your posts I mostly agree with, but there is more depth to it, deeper layers of truth which make both what you say and what I say true. To explain this, I would need more time than I currently have available.

And yes, we should all use our different gifts, superficially different, but within we ought all to become Christ-like in purity, wisdom, love and knowledge of God.

To Yuyutsu.

Do you know the deceitfulness in your own words? I imagine, that you don't. Part of it all is there when I've seen others like Pogi or myself confront you on testing the truths you believe against what is real and what isn't, more when OzSpen and I have tried to explain the differences between a Christian worldview and your own.

I imagine that these struggles while discussing issues to you are looked at as if we are struggling to grasp what you are saying, and that you are bringing truths for us to hear. Like a patient teacher or a wise mentor to a batch of reluctant to students. But this is wrong.

Take a moment and listen, not as a teacher trying to teach but as someone who might have something to learn. After all, there are times when what you say are good, or are inspiring. But they are stained by a logic that is either accidentally, or purposefully deceitful. It harms what you say greatly. Let me explain.

•In your last two posts the first paragraph, talks about how all true religions converging. This is an approach to bring us all on the same side, we are all the same kind of reasoning. For me this approach would mean more if it wasn't also combined with a message to foster your viewpoints through Hinduism, while shuffling both Christian and atheistic views under the rug.

(continued)

(Continued)

I think that there is hope on agreements and common ground in most religions. It's a hope based on a few things I was raised with. And that topic might be worth exploring to see where that is true or where it isn't. But I can safely say that Hinduism and Christianity are very different in many of the core beliefs. Therefore when a counter view is presented and you correct it based on your world view, (as if all religions and atheism are the same) this shows that they are not the same at all. Try to understand this. By ignoring this, you do no favors of showing the similarities between different faiths, but instead seem to try to trick other religions to being Hindu instead of their own faith.

•The next thing done is try to correct Christianity by the rationale of mistranslation. But the error being corrected isn't about mis-translating but about cherry picking one idea and using it as an excuse to be lazy. Mis-translating and correct translation won't help this issue. Instead the issue with translation shows itself as a way to circumvent what is actually said in the bible, and to down play anything else that can come from that source as accurate or worth while. If that was not your intent, then you should listen to this criticism even more so. Because that is what you did. Regardless if it was accidental or not. Even to the point of removing something easy to explain. "God does," and circumvent it with saying that we can never know what God does. The bible is full of descriptions of what God has done. It's no mystery to give Him credit, but is deceitful to say Hindu and Christianity converge when Christianity acknowledges what God does, and your world view shuffles that under the rug.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the criticism of cherry picking the idea of God choosing us and turning it to being a means of laziness. My response is the same as what I said before about our responsibilities. If we apply what we understand to our lives, then that is good enough. There are so many other very easy aspects to read and understand that are difficult to accomplish. By this approach it will not turn out in laziness. Love your neighbor, love your enemy. Forgive those who wrong you if you want forgives from God. If you swear by anything instead of a simple yes or no, something is wrong. So many more that are practice and easy to understand yet hard to do in the mist of the world as it is.

In your second post you said:

<<The rest of your posts I mostly agree with, but there is more depth to it, deeper layers of truth which make both what you say and what I say true. To explain this, I would need more time than I currently have available.>>

If you ever want to, or have the time to, I would like to talk about the depths of our perspectives and look at the deeper layers. But don't be deceptive in those discussions. If you think something is wrong or in error based on what I say or based on it being Christian instead of Hinduism, then be honest about it. I might not agree or receive that comment well, but at least it's honest. Try not to correct the deeper layers I (or anyone else) has to share by claiming your world views as if they are the authority. Christianity and Hinduism are not the same, and Hindu perspectives do not supersede Christian perspectives. What can benefit from these conversations is understanding each other's view better. It probably won't make you think of Christian views as more authority over Hindu views, any more then it will make me think that Hindu worldviews are better then Christian ones.