Oh God...and this from the pen of a man professed of great marketing skills, directed towards the service of the Golden Calf of Capitalist consumer marketing.

That is the same marketing Gurus responsible for the destruction of our freedom of speech and the pulling down of a workable historically constructed Christian ethic, that has driven societies successfully the world over, for thousands of years.

Congratulations fool.

Ian – you say, “personal behavior, ethics, and morality all dwell in the domain of the individual – oneself”.

That seems to indicate that you think that each person is responsible for their own ethics. If that is so, do you think that the ethics of one person is just as “good” or “right” as any other person’s? For example, were Hitler’s ethics morally equivalent to say, Mandella’s or Mother Teresa’s?

If not, how can it be determined who is right or who was wrong if ethics is just up to the individual?

We need only look at the differences in societies to know that the personal responsibility/ethical theory is untrue; particularly between Christian societies and non-Christian.

The fact that Western societies have benefited by being based on Christianity is becoming more apparent everyday, as the West gradually disintegrates as more Westerners turn their backs on Christianity.

Ethics can be described as the knowledge gained through one's personal experience after noting the outcomes of different causations.

Ethics can be a moral matter but nonetheless remains a personal one, therefore attempts should not be made to assign that individual knowledge to other individuals, or indeed, a group.

this sort of waffle could only drive somoene to the belief in a personal God.

Dear Nancey [1]

Your heretical views deserve excommunication from Pell's boss or at least a severe hand spanking from runner.

Note "I am not the Messiah" from The Life of Brian (escusing 2:23 expletive!) http://youtu.be/iktKXIsRUIg

Time to top up your indulgences http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/04/explanation-of-indulgences.html your Eminence.

Ponder, you say, "Ethics can be a moral matter but nonetheless remains a personal one, therefore attempts should not be made to assign that individual knowledge to other individuals, or indeed, a group".

Are you saying that if a person decides that murder is wrong they should not tell other individuals or groups that murder is wrong? ("attempts should not be made to assign that individual knowledge to other individuals, or indeed, a group")

Really? Do you see morality as being totally relativistic? Each individual should just decide for themselves what is right and wrong?

JP - what I am saying is that the results of actions are observable, and used to formulate personal response. Rightness or wrongness are subjective intangibles.

The self-centered belief that "Rightness or wrongness are subjective intangibles."

fails to recall that we live in an interdependent/social world.

Otherwise some Trumpist loony with a gun may think its "Right. According to his values" to go out and kill people.

Meanwhile does christian-ism have anything to do with Truth & Reality?
Obviously not!

These essays provide a unique criticism of the naive childish even infantile mind-set at the root of the christian mommy-daddy creator-"God".
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/religious_ambivalence/index.html

This essay describes the narcissistic nature of conventional exoteric religiosity http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm

This essay provides a comprehensive critique of the historically dominant "great" religions http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm

This essay describes the profound difference between institutional exoteric religiosity and the potential profundities of Esoteric Spiritual Religion http://www.dabase.org/up-1-5.htm

This reference describes the root-principle of esoteric Spiritual Religion http://www.beezone.com/sadhana.html

Quote from the article:

<<It is also disturbing to realise that religions are based around a mistaken belief in the supposed existence of one, or more, supreme beings having some perceived power to control the destiny of believers.>>

Ian, you were so close too. You actually acknowledged that genuine believers can be role models and great people. That's farther then some make it in similar philosophy. But then it went down hill from there. God does exist. That's the plain truth of the situation. Everything after this quote is heavily based on the mistaken assumption that God can't exist. Get rid of that foundation and it all falls apart. Sorry but true.

See real life CRUCIFIXION AT EASTER

A celebration of death by a violent act that launched Christianity, launched many religious wars, Northern Ireland's "troubles" and Pell.

Behold you sinners! http://youtu.be/SJUhlRoBL8M

Dear NNS,

I believe that genuine believers can be role models and great people. That does not mean that God exists.

To David f. You said:

<<I believe that genuine believers can be role models and great people.>>

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Almost enough to bring up past discussions and ask "what changed your mind?" But no. Let the past die in the past. At least those things can die away.

<<That does not mean that God exists.>>

No, people behaving themselves isn't proof of God. I wasn't meaning to tie those two points together that closely. Only that there is a growing trend to demonize christians as the evil of the world or some such thing. In Ian's article he actually acknowledges that genuine Christians are good. That's a lot more then I've heard for a while from non-Christians in OLO. (The only ones outspoken enough to talk about Christianity or about Christians never acknowledge anything good coming from Christians or Christianity).

(Continued)

(Continued)

However, regardless of that. The claim in the article that God is a made up or mistaken belief is completely wrong. Here's the way to look at it. If you've never seen a kangaroo, but have heard about them from other people. Never saw a picture of a kangaroo, but all around you in Australia people can tell you what they'd seen or dealt with regarding kangaroos then there's a lot of evidence in that; even if you never see the same things others had seen.

The same is true regarding God. However instead of acknowledging the evidence of countless people across the world, from different religions (even phenomenon from non-believers in any religion having stories that make them question the world around them); instead of ever coming close to acknowledging that information, those who don't want to believe, A) ignore it all; B) make excuses for the information as if that fits what's described by some outstanding observations, or C) belittle the population as a whole as either too dumb or a giant conspiricy lying to the world.

Imagine if any of those three tactics of doubt were used to say that kangaroos weren't real. The person would be a laughing stock for thinking such a thing and trying to rationalize it.

No, as a matter of facing the world as it is. God exists. There's no other way around the matter.

Dear NNS,

Nothing changed my mind. I never denied that genuine believers can't be role models or great people. You have built up a picture of me in your mind. People may believe in nonsense and still be good people. People have believed in Thor, Apollo, the God of the Bible, Allah, Krishna and lots of other gods. You believe in the God you believe in. They believe in the god they believe in. All gods are human inventions. The fact that millions of people believe in God is not evidence that there is a god. At one time many people believed that the sun went around the earth. The fact that many people believed in it did not make it true. You will continue to believe in a God which, like all other gods, is a creation of the human imagination. That does not mean you are a bad or stupid person.

Some Christians and some non-Christians are very good people. Some Christians and some non-Christians are very bad people. Most people follow the religion of their parents.

To David f.

I am not talking about beliefs. I'm talking about observations. People can have beliefs, hope on them and trust them. Then people can have observations in their lives, which can test or confirm their already held beliefs. In another thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20254&page=17 Is Mise and Banjo Paterson are discussing a specific location and the apparent miracles that have been documented as happening there. My point is that there are too many observation in the world to conclude that God doesn't exist. Even if you yourself never witnessed them. The excuses for denying those observations are the three I outlined in my last reply.

One thing though to correct. I haven't built a false picture of you in my head. I've read what you've wrote. Read too much I'm afraid. Or should I remind you of a conversation regarding telling people to love God, and explain the observation that this helps people be better then they were before resulted in a long continuous rant from you on Christians and gunboats. Instead, if you have any belief that genuine Christians can be good people, regardless of your views on the beliefs being nonsense, then that is a very different change of view. I gathered from you, in several conversations, that Christianity is harmful and should be oppressed and fought against at every opportunity. (All of which I disagree with). To say that people can be Christian and good is something very different from what you've presented before. Let the past die in the past David, but don't expect it to be forgotten if it was never even apologized about. If you've changed a negative and prejudged view, then that's a good thing. I hope that there is such a change.

Dear NNS,

I think Christianity has inspired many bad things, and it would be better had it never been invented. It has also inspired good things, but in my reading of history the bad outweighs the good. Many of the doctrines of Christianity such as the virgin birth, a man god, the man god taking other's sins upon himself, a God of three parts, life after death, a devil, heaven and hell seem like things no reasonable person could believe. Some Christians can be kind, generous, thoughtful and be generally good people in spite of the nonsense or even because of the nonsense. However, I also think that people can rise above superstition or ideology into which they have been indoctrinated. There are many different gods that people believe in. There are many sacred books - the Buddhist tripitaka, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, the Jewish Bible which is different from the Christian Bible, the Muslim Koran and others. Can they all be wrong and yours the right one? To me it is more reasonable to think that all including yours are the products of humans trying to explain the world. In all of them may be some truth. I like the Christian idea of hate the sin but love the sinner. One can hate the sin of Christianity but love Christians.

To David f.

Give me the beliefs and world views of other religions and texts, and I'll probabley consider them. Give me observations that coincide with those world views and I'll consider them more so.

It's not just the beliefs of every other world view is wrong and mine is right. It's that there are observations. Take them into account if and when you come across them. That is largely what I've said over and over again. With that in mind God is real. The only other reasoning is to ignore, dismiss, or belittle the observations that point to God. Regardless of the beliefs the person held before or after they were a witness to whatever they witnessed.

I don't have explainations for everything, but neither do I have my head in the sand refusing to see the world for what it really is.

(Continued)

Dear NNS,

Some people believe in God. Other people don't believe in God. It is nothing to get excited about.

Some people believe in God. Other people don't believe in God
david f,
The majority are disillusioned by the antics of the religious.

Davidf

That's the bleeding obvious. Also obvious is thefact that nobody who has left this mortal coil has been able to advise us one way or the other. So, mortals will never know the truth. I recently read a comment, from someone who claimed to believe in God, that you have to "experience God" to believe. He didn't explain or reveal his own experience. I don't understand that at all. How does one experience God?

So, it's back to either you do or you don't. I hope that God exists, and that there is something better ahead for us than life on earth; because that experience hasn't been anything to write home about, and it is sheer Hell for some people.

Dear ttbn,

I don't know either how one can experience God. We can't even control most of what happen to us. The philosophy of the Stoics maintains that we can control our feelings as to what happens to us. I have had a fairly good life, but it's really a matter of luck.

Ian,

<<There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion>>

However, there is a biblical description that shows what religion does: "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you" (James 1:27).

Instead of defining religion, it shows what genuine religion does: cares for orphans and widows and refuses worldly corruption of believers.

The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) in the US and the state and federal courts in that country have to decide on whether a belief or practice is or is not religious.

Augustine, at the end of the fourth century, wrote, 'Of True Religion', by which he meant worship - where Christians in public turn to God to give him special honour, respect and praise. See: http://vdocuments.mx/augustine-on-true-religion-de-vera-religione.html

Justin Martyr (ca. AD 100-165) considered true religion related to the teaching of passing 'through life without danger on account of the judgment which is to be after the termination of this life, and which is announced not only by our forefathers according to God, to wit the prophets and lawgivers' '(Hortatory Address to the Greeks', ch 1) at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0129.htm.

Ian,

<<So the term God was used to mean goodness, positivity, benevolence and the like, and in the process has taken on an identity which masks the fact that the word is a method of easy summation, rather than a complex defining of the nature of what is being examined.

Personalising of an abstract has resulted in conversation, sometimes in the form of prayer, between a believer and an imagined being>>

That sure reads like your own creative imagination at work in creating an image of a god.

Could your creation be an idolatrous invention?

Terry Barnes (The Spectator) reckons Morrison made an "error of judgement" when he allowed TV cameras in to show him happy-clapping, swaying and singing at his Pentacostal church on Easter Sunday. He thinks that most Christians in the community believe that their faith is a private matter, and not to be advertised in this way. I have a fair idea what atheist and anti-Christian voters would think of his antics. Morrison is better known through TV for his beer drinking habit than his religion. Not sure that would go down too well with his fellow Pentacostals. In all, probably a big mistake as Barnes says.

david f,

<<Some people believe in God. Other people don't believe in God. It is nothing to get excited about.>>

One minute after your last breath, that will not be your position. Why?

"People have to die once. After that, God will judge them. In the same way, Christ was offered up once. He took away the sins of many people. He will also come a second time. At that time he will not suffer for sin. Instead, he will come to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Hebrews 9:27-28).

ttbn,

<<Terry Barnes (The Spectator) reckons Morrison made an "error of judgement" when he allowed TV cameras in to show him happy-clapping, swaying and singing at his Pentacostal (sic)church on Easter Sunday>>

Barnes wants Morrison to replicate what happens with people attending mainline churches. Take a look at the numbers diminishing in such churches. They are being white-anted from within. See: http://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/backwards-forwards-happy-clappy-happy/

I encourage ScoMo to express his vibrant brand of Pentecostal Christianity for the world to see.

Jesus did not regard 'religion' as a personal, private thing. He did not restrict His message to Calvinistic, born-again fundamentalists. Jesus told Nicodemus, a Jewish leader, 'I assure you, EVERYONE must be born again. ANYONE who is not born again cannot be in God’s kingdom' (John 3:3).

Jesus didn't make it an issue for Calvinists only but for the whole world of evangelical Christians. It is a requirement for EVERYONE who wants to enter God's kingdom. Then he told the disciples: you must GO and make disciples of all nations.....' (Matthew 28:19). That's hardly a personal, private matter.

True Christianity is a Go-Go faith.

Why would anyone want to keep the gospel of Jesus' salvation private when it is such Good News for the present and the future?

To his credit, ScoMo didn't make 'an error of political judgment’; instead he stood for the truth of what he believes in - energetic Holy Spirit ministry centred on God's praise.

May his tribe of politicians increase as they stand up for their faith in the public square

While everyone is quoting words from questionable sources, here is mine for Easter:

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ“ One from a former Pope amongst others.
Galen

To Galen,

Do you believe that Jesus never existed? I thought the world had moved on from that rhetoric, and onto another persuasion of doubt. That Jesus probabley existed, but not as the bible records him. (Hence the invention of the term the "historical Jesus." Utter rubbish of people trying to make history fit their own views without any collaborating evidence). If there is any myth of Jesus it is the secular muths that are made up so no one has to change their views or change their minds.

As for the knowledge of Jesus (regardless if you think of Him as a myth or not), I agree it has served the world well. Search it and you find the truth of God's message, His hope, and the salvation of mankind. Something for anyone to hold to but especially those who need that hope and that strength. Search the knowledge more and you have teachings of how to be and get along in the world. Ideas that are not just for your own sake but for the sakes of the community around you as well. Ideas like love your neighbor and forgive others if you want to receive forgiveness. I would argue that most historical moments that people went back to what Jesus taught, are the times when that society that had that influence get better again. Yes it has served the word well. But Jesus is no myth.

I accept responsibility for what I do but not for how I was made !

Galen,

<<"It has served us well, this myth of Christ“ One from a former Pope amongst others.>>

Even the skeptics are skeptical about that quote: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30416/did-pope-leo-x-say-that-christianity-is-a-fable

It has been explained:

"Although the quote is commonly attributed without source documentation to Pope Leo X, it is believed to have originated in a satirical piece titled “The Pageant of the Popes” by a Protestant controversialist named John Bale (1495–1563). Bale wrote: “For on a time when a Cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: ‘All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie.’” http://www.catholic.com/qa/did-pope-leo-x-say-it-has-served-us-well-this-myth-of-christ

The christophobes are out in force. Always mocking the One they claim not to believe in. Quite ironic.

To Individual.

No one can accept responsibility for how they were made. No more then they can accept responsibility for being born or for the moment of conception and any details that happened between their parents. A smaller amount of responsibility is on how a person grows. The world is bigger then the baby, the child, even the adult. Much of who we are are because of the good and the bad of the environments that we grew up in.

But we all have a choice. A choice of life and death, as well as a number of many other choices throughout life. A poor person with a lot of responsibility has more limited choices then a rich person bragging about how they made it all on their own. But both people have the choice to seek God, find Him, and accept Him; as well as the choice to not. That has always been a choice. You're not made to disbelieve, nor are you made programmed to believe. Seeking God and finding Him is a choice. A responsibility that we all have.

Of the things people say they have no choice about, possibly the way you were made. I would say that even those there is a limited amount of choice. I know at least one person who avoids alcohol to the point of avoiding being social like he use to be. It's a choice to choose to not be an alcoholic by avoiding the situation entirely instead entering a situation that is hard for him to refuse a drink. I wish more people had the sense to do what my friend does, by knowing their weaknesses instead of walking into a situation they often fail to make good choices in.

NNS I don’t need to acknowledge let alone believe in a ‘Jesus’ or God to be a good person with strong morals and values. These traits long predate your religion and it’s mantra. You can’t claim these traits solely when they are clearly evident in other societies and religions.

Your beliefs are just that ‘yours’ don’t try to push them onto others, it’s hypocritical and arrogant and additionally, who gave you the moral authority to do so?

I am fine without all your assumptions of a Christ, God etc.

Whatever is in your head should stay there for your own moral direction you just don’t need to share it.

Simple
Galen

'NNS I don’t need to acknowledge let alone believe in a ‘Jesus’ or God to be a good person with strong morals and values.'

yep no doubt Hitler agreed with you Galen.

Galen,

<<I don’t need to acknowledge let alone believe in a ‘Jesus’ or God to be a good person with strong morals and values. These traits long predate your religion and it’s (sic) mantra. You can’t claim these traits solely when they are clearly evident in other societies and religions.>>

To my knowledge, the only religion that would predate the Judeo-Christian worldview would be Hinduism, but it is not a monotheistic religion.

'Judaism is the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, dating back nearly 4,000 years', http://www.history.com/topics/religion/judaism

Buddhism dates back 2,500 years: http://www.ancient.eu/buddhism/

Hinduism started about 4,000 years ago. 'Because the religion has no specific founder, it’s difficult to trace its origins and history', http://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism. It is suggested it is the oldest religion.

Jainism started about 2,600 years ago. 'Jains believe that their tradition does not have a historical founder', http://www.britannica.com/topic/Jainism

Confucianism started 2,500 years ago, http://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

Islam started about 1,400 years ago, http://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism

I agree that many people can be good and have strong morals without God, but when it comes to deciding what is absolutely right or wrong, we need an absolute standard. Otherwise, we set our own standards. Thus, paedophiles would consider their ethics good for them.

You seem to miss the difference between the right of relativism and right of absolute standards.

<<Your beliefs are just that ‘yours’ don’t try to push them onto others, it’s hypocritical and arrogant and additionally, who gave you the moral authority to do so?>>

You defeat your own views with that claim. You push your own values regularly on OLO, as you've done here by debunking NNS.

To Galen.

Having a strong moral compass is not as strong in the era of moral relativism. I'm not silent about my convections, and I don't think they should be silenced. You say it's pushing my views on others. But if they are good convictions is there any harm in holding them as well as voicing them?

On the other hand, here's a direct question. You quoted someone suggesting that Jesus is a myth. My question for you is: do you think Jesus actually existed, or was he a myth?

No need to acknowledge Jesus or not. But since you already gave acknowledgement to Jesus in a un-referenced quote from an un-referenced pope, you might as well be honest on your stance on it. No reason to give a quote then duck from the topic.

My view is that
1) people can have their own sets of values without religion. However, most people got their values because of the values instilled in their society and culture through a religion.
And
2) that by finding God regardless of our moral standards, people become better then they were before. (This is a comment for Christians to rededicate their love and focus to God, as much as it's a comment for non-Christians to find God). By looking for God and by finding Him it will help any person's values.

NNS, there is, I believe, a reasonable probability of a ‘Jesus’ as you infer. However it is much more likely he was a man just like any other except he was a polarising figure, a man more into political and social shenanigans than any esoteric deeds or mystical wonders.

He was more of an ancient freedom fighter, of which some evidence, if I recall correctly, had previously been discovered. His deeds found him most likely counter to the prevailing mood and politics of his time, ultimately leading to his death on the cross, a quite regular form of execution during his time.

As to his rising from the dead, being the son of a god, and the other childish magic attributed to the Jesus of the bible, any rational mind would realise this is just superstitious jumbo jumbo written into a story book long after his death.

OzSpen, I believe what I stated earlier stands. You are referring to known organised religion. I include religion in the broad sense, whether a small sect, with a set of beliefs in a certain geographical area to large more widespread beliefs held by ancient people’s the world over. I would argue the Papuan ‘Cargo Cult’ as a more modern iteration of a religion as implied above.

The bible story has only survived because of sheer good fortune and the brutality of those supporting its promotion in most cases, for dubious and selfish aims.
Galen

"A religion is a cultural system of designated practices, morals, prophecies, or organisations that connects humanity to supernatural, transcendental or spiritual elements."

And most importantly, but omitted, this system must direct its followers towards God, otherwise it is not a religion!

«It is also disturbing to realise that religions are based around a mistaken belief in the supposed existence of one, or more, supreme beings»

The author is disturbed by a false notion of religion.
I too would be disturbed had I believed that this is what religion is about!

For the rest of the article the author is being tortured by his confusion between religion and "a religion", simply for failing to understand that not all recognised "religions" (as defined at the top) are in fact religious. Finally, like Michelangelo's finger-of-God, relief and salvation come in the form of "spirituality", as if it was ever different from religion.

Though synonymous, in common modern speech "religion" somehow tends to relate to the earlier stages of spiritual-evolution whereas "spirituality" tends to relate to the later stages of religion, yet they are one and the same.

---

Dear Ttbn,

«I don't understand that at all. How does one experience God?»

You are in excellent company: nobody can understands that. You either experience God or you do not. Nevertheless, scripture and religions teach methods by which one's chances to experience God are increased.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«...genuine Christians are good. That's a lot more then I've heard for a while from non-Christians in OLO. (The only ones outspoken enough to talk about Christianity or about Christians never acknowledge anything good coming from Christians or Christianity).»

Have I not always encouraged you to remain a good Christian and strong in your faith?

---

Dear Individual,

«I accept responsibility for what I do but not for how I was made!»

You were never made, you are.

Yes your body (which you mistakenly call "I") was made, by God, yet your true self is God, so no point in blaming others for your own makings.

---

Dear OzSpen,

Hinduism IS monotheistic and about 7,000-9,000 years old.

To Galen.

It's been my observation that when a person says "he (or she) is much more likely to..." then this is going in the direction of unfounded opinion. This trades events and quotes for theories of a person. Explaining them without talking in what subject actually does or says. This is what the theories of Jesus do by saying "he's more likely to be ______________," while ignoring the only source of material we have today that wrote about him. Even while holding doubt, be careful of deceptiveness in your reasoning. If Jesus existed but everything wrote about him is a lie, then there is no "he's more likely to be..." claim. There's no context to say who he really was if all the historical content is tossed.

On that note though there are reasons to believe the texts about Jesus in the gospels. Though I think OzSpen has gone into more study validating the bible as a historical document then I have, so if you want direction on the historical accuracy that historians look for, talk to him. For me, my trust in the bible stems directly from my trust in God. My reasoning for you is that if I can find God in my life, (from a few events of my life identify that God did one thing or another), then anyone else should be able to do the same too. You should be able to find God on your own too.

If you do find Him then this next reasoning is of value for trusting the bible. If 1) God exists (which you already confirm before continuing the logic), and 2) God wants to communicate with us or be part of our lives, (the ways to confirm about God being real through answered prayer also confirm active communication), then 3) God would have the ability to communicate to us through a written text, as well as the power to protect the texts throughout time. The task from there is trying to discern what is from God, and what religious texts aren't.

To Yuyutsu. You asked:

<<Have I not always encouraged you to remain a good Christian and strong in your faith?>>

No honestly you haven't. But I get your point refuting me that nonChristians only say negative things about Christians and Christianity. No my criticism for you is still on a different thread. It's worth keeping in mind and being aware of it. The Christianity you want to support, seems to be something that isn't real Christianity. Instead more often then not you try to correct the perspectives within a Christian mindset to fit your own world view. To me it feels more manipulative then encouraging. Trying to make Christianity fit into a Hinduism belief.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I am sorry if this is the impression I give you.

I have good Christian friends, Catholic and Anglican, including clergy. I occasionally participate in their services, appreciating both great music and a good sermon and due to my fluency in Hebrew I am often asked, as part of the service, to read a psalm in its original language. It never bothers them that I am not a Christian: they support me and I support them.

At times I also incorporate Christian (and Jewish) chants in Hindu gatherings. This one is especially popular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Ew4uxK8tg and this is a Jewish song I recently sang in an all-night-vigil on the holy night of Shivaratri in a Hindu temple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSEmpabndKE

There are no two Gods, but there are many paths to the same, one and only God. My Christian friends understand this too: if you are already on a path to God, STAY THERE, otherwise choose a path that fits you, then follow it all the way. May God bless you.

I'm sorry too, Yuyutsu.

I'm sorry for the criticism, and if I knew how to say it in a kinder way I hope that I would have done that. I'm glad you have friends in Christianity that welcome you, as well as in Hinduism welcome the influence you bring from Christianity. The conversations between faiths, in my opinion need to happen. Without that, I fear the polarization that influences so much evil in the world in the name of any religion.

However there is a second concern. In Christianity there's a philosophy to be in the world but not of it. With that in mind there's a balance to be welcoming, hospitable, and caring; while at the same time not to strip the heart and the lessons away from what makes Christianity, Christian.

I am sorry Yuyutsu. I like a lot of what you say. Both your perspective and your knack for turning the other cheek and focusing on a kind word. (Something I know I lack too often). So with that in mind, I'd like to hear your perspectives on the world or about Hinduism. I think there's a lot to learn from you. Regarding Christian texts though, I don't trust Hinduism to interpret Christianity. I don't know if you can relate to that or not. I would assume you wouldn't want Christian points to interpret Hindu values and teachings. But I could be wrong about that.

Ian,

<<some religions fool themselves when they fail to see that personal behavior, ethics, and morality all dwell in the domain of the individual – oneself.>>

I agree, but there are national implications. The Judeo-Christian world view confirms, 'Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people' (Proverbs 14:34).

This verse does not apply only to the Hebrew nation but 'a nation', i.e. any nation. There is no fence-sitting position. Righteous ethical standards exalt Australia while sinful standards are a disgrace to the Australian people. Which standards are being legislated in federal and state Australian parliaments today?

I realise there are difficulties with defining righteous behaviour in a permissive society when God is left out of the equation. However, the Christian world view in Scripture provides standards that are righteous (according to God's view).

Back in 1999, Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey wrote, 'The current cultural clash is not so much between three traditional worldviews—the Western world, the Islamic world, and the Confucian East—(their categorization), but within Western civilization itself, “between those who adhere to a Judeo-Christian framework and those who favor postmodernism and multiculturalism' (How Now Shall We Live? 1999:19), in http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13803600701473489

According to Psalm 107:33-34, 'He [the Lord] changes rivers into deserts, and springs of water into dry, thirsty land. He turns the fruitful land into salty wastelands, because of the wickedness of those who live there'.

That should ring a loud bell for Australia about what wickedness in the nation does.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«In Christianity there's a philosophy to be in the world but not of it.»

Same for Hinduism, exactly the same!

«while at the same time not to strip the heart and the lessons away from what makes Christianity, Christian.»

Did you perchance mean, what makes YOU Christian?

You see, one could argue forever about the extent to which churches actually follow Christ, but nothing I could say would change that, so even though this is what you wrote, I presume that you were actually talking about the effects of my words on yourself. Is this correct?

What makes YOU Christian, what really matters, is the extent to which you are willing to sacrifice your pleasures and comforts for the love of God and others, in other words, to what extent you follow the path laid down by Jesus Christ. Now this is no longer a theory - this is tough! If possible, I would love to encourage you, I would love it if my words could influence you to follow that path.

«I would assume you wouldn't want Christian points to interpret Hindu values and teachings. But I could be wrong about that.»

I often find a good sermon by a Christian priest inspiring and reminding me of values, like the above, that are common with Hinduism. At times it can even bring me to tears.

I never of course accept sermons blindly just because I respect the preacher or just because it is written in the bible, but rather look at the merits of their contents and translate as necessary the terms in use to equivalent Hindu concepts.