Yes. It's a very irritating phrase; meaningless to everyone, including the jokers who utter it. It's on a par with 'going forward'.

It is another slogan of the sort always used by totalitarians who really can't think of a good reason to force us to do something. Unfortunately, the sheeple fall for it.

"It is apparent that the Church, in all its forms, has lost the battle for the modern mind. God help us!"

There has been no battle. The Church has slipped easily into the modern world and let us down. And, perhaps we are supposed to be helping ourselves? "God helps those who help themselves".

I think PS has confused the battle raging between secularism and theism, with the personal battle within for the possession of our soul, one between good and evil. This latter contest is the true content and purpose of the Christian message.

In view of that it’s important to remember we as Christians are in the world but not of it.
Who is the Christ we follow as believers, is also a contested point with threads back through our Jewish/Christian ancestry . Who is this son of Man we as Christians follow?

These are things that matter, not the body count of membership to the Christian faith world wide.
Historically, Christianity has existed in two distinct parts, one part the personal attachment with its teachings, the other overtly political. Don’t stress over the latter wins and losses is good advice, since as a Christian, that’s not your responsibility to worry about.

Dan.

Personally, I'm thrilled if the religionists have "lost the battle" for the modern mind. They're obsessed with selfishly anthropocentric issues - women, gays, trans, marriage, reproduction, and dying. In the US, guns too.

There's just one tiny problem. The economists who have replaced them are even worse. They couldn't give a rats about the planet either.

What is the "right Thing" ?

Perhaps it might be well to return to monotheism. Get rid of the pagan man-god in the person of Jesus. Recognize the unity of God and get rid of the Trinity. Get rid of the God of the Bible who is petulant and arbitrary. The God of Christianity and Judaism is a monstrous figure. In the Book of Joshua he orders his people to commit genocide on the Canaanites. In the New Testament he subjects his beloved son to an agonizing, torturous death. I have two sons and would not be a good father if I treated them as the biblical, monstrous God treated his son. If we return to monotheism it would be better to dispense with the God of the Bible.

Perhaps it might be better to get rid of all the nonsense and recognize that humans like other species are subject to the forces of nature and make the best of it. We can recognise that God is an imaginary entity, a creation of a pre-scientific age, and face reality as best we can determine its nature. A wise cleric, William of Ockham, expressed Ockham's razor, also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony which is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". One of those unnecessary entities is God.

Do the right thing! Well, what is that if it is not treating others how you would be treated, if stood in their shoes.

We do not need churches/exclusive clubs nor parsimonious power junkie preachers, demanding moral authority, to tell us that or what is moral and what is not. Be they right- or left-wing believers. The master was reportedly giving right wing believers and institutions, condemnation and implacable opposition. And allegedly, we should follow that alleged example.

That said, so much of religious belief is founded exclusively on absolutely unprovable myth and legend and or, fundamentally flawed fallacy/fiction.

Doing the right thing has to include staying out of the bedrooms of consenting adults and their victimless sexual predilections.
Alan B.

>God helps those who help themselves< And God help those I catch helping themselves.
Alan B.

Thank you Peter for this very thoughtful article.

I do wonder how many of the readers could understand what you wanted to convey:

The thought of God as a supernatural being is far too prevalent these days, among believers and unbelievers alike. To try and cure that notion, you introduce the parable that "Rather God exists as does a work of art" which demonstrates passive causality. The risk is that the reader might be hooked to that example and think of God as a work of art...

Passive causality and desire/inspiration have their place in the foundations of the world, but God goes even beyond that: they depend on God but God does not depend on them!

Keep up the faith for God will surely help us, even if His help does not come through a church.

Meanwhile why not check out these two references on the nature of Faith (Trust), Freedom,Authority and Doubt
http://www.beezone.com/authoritycertaintyfreedom/authority_certainty_freedom_part1_edit.html

http://www.beezone.com/adi-da/faith-1.html

Plus this essay on Christ & Quantum Reality
http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/christ_equals_emsquared.html

The above essay is featured in this remarkable book
http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/tableofcontents-5.html
All of the essays in the above book can now be read

Meanwhile what does one make of the very deeply psychotic religionists who were/are very supportive of Donald Trump. As are most of those who scribble for the Quadrant/Spectator nexus here in Australia.

Thank you David F. and Alan B. for your thoughtful contributions.

While God is not an entity, most people are yet unable to relate to God other than as an entity (of their imagination). We ought to be kind to their childish way of thinking, because we too used to be children. Rather than insist on the deepest and mind-boggling Truth for which they are not ready, we as religious leaders ought, as much we can, to try and infuse their ideas with the best conceivable qualities, good values and the most exquisite and attracting beauty. Monotheism seems to be an adult theme.

Yes, even in case it once did, the book of Joshua no longer conveys goodness and beauty to the modern man.

Regarding "The right thing", it only has a relative existence: there always are righter and righter options to pursue, each resulting in longer and longer lasting long-term happiness, yet there is no "rightest" and no action produces eternal results - Grace is still required.

This reference and the book in which it written also provide a unique Illuminated Understanding of Reality (including the "trinity") and the Teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee
http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/ewb_pp436-459.html
Note the last section titled The Essential Teaching of the New Testament

God helps those who help themselves< And God help those I catch helping themselves.
Alan B,
Good one !

The article Daffy Duck cited contained this:

"Even a scientific theory like the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, though it is commonly believed, is not affirmed as absolute doctrine. Maybe the Big Bang theory will turn out not to be true after a few more observations, or will disappear completely in a few decades. Or maybe it will be given more support from continued research. In any case, it will still have the status of a theory, rather than the status of authority."

The above shows an ignorance of science. Science does not deal in absolute doctrine or authority. Any scientific theory is simply the best explanation available for a phenomenon at a particular time and is discarded if there is evidence that shows where the explanation it offers is inadequate. Religion deals in absolute doctrine. The problem with religion is the preservation of absolute doctrine by faith when it is no longer valid.

Dear David F.,

Following your last comment I looked up Daffy's article; and whether we agree with it or not, it nowhere claims that science deals with absolute doctrines or authorities: I think you have burst into an open door there.

As for your claim: "Religion deals in absolute doctrine", how can it?!

'Absolute' means it depends on nothing, neither time nor any object, nor even space itself can modify that which is absolute, yet doctrines depend on words, on language which interprets these words, and most importantly, on people and how they understand these words. Gone the people - gone the doctrine!

Speaking of "preservation of absolute doctrine [by faith] when it is no longer valid", a doctrine that can at times be valid and at other times be invalid, is obviously not an absolute doctrine!

.

As I understand it the notions of right and wrong are the basic elements of the survival instinct attributed to all living species by nature – right signifying positivity, and wrong signifying negativity.

The survival of each individual and each species depends on doing what is right for survival – either instinctively or as a result of (shared) experience.

There is no such thing as good or bad. There is just what is right or wrong.

The notions of good and bad relate to a system of evaluation of human conduct whose terms of reference are not just "whatever is necessary for human survival" but are largely inspired by religious dogma.

.

Well, transpose the term right and wrong with the terns good and evil. Where does conscience fit most comfortably? With the latter I would suggest.
And what better fits with the latter, is personal responsibility; and what better makes personal responsibility fit with the latter, is religious dogma.

The above extension to your more crude analysis of motivation and personal survival, is mans yearning for conscious meaning to life. So at this juncture, we can fit in the concept of truth.
What is truth to an animal is prioritised by survival instincts: What is truth to man cannot be denied as attachment to dogma.

Man is distinguishable from lower forms of animal life , by his inclination towards inspirational and inventive thinking. From this comes progressive society with inclusion of technology. Continuity of inventiveness from inspiration.

Mans attachment to survival is through his mammalian brain, where his natural survival instincts are hidden away underneath the higher order brain, which has invented the need for religion as a controlling mechanism for order and survival of the person and his society.

So what I seek to achieve here is a less simple explanation of human motivation and it’s unstoppable yearning for truth and meaning to overpowering urges of crude and powerful natural instincts of survival, and their negative outcomes.

I don't believe the universe created itself from nothing but was created from something, with an organizing intelligence overseeing the creation.

So, I believe in intelligent design and a creator. If that be God, then I won't pick straws between the labels.

I also believe that mankind are fallen angels trying to earn a return from whence they came. That computes for me.
Alan B.

We see it clearly in the rest of the animal kingdom.
There is a 'leader of the pack', and the others follow him.
This is programmed in to those animals. It is instinct.
There is a similar desire in the human animal.

When we are young, older persons control our life.
They are our 'pack leaders'.
As we grow, and move to the 'outer' world, we seek 'heroes' and 'heroines' to emulate.
We still need to 'follow the leader'.
It developed over time that leaders chosen were often fictional, as real life 'leaders' can be shown to be fallible.

Fictional 'leaders' can have any attributes you want them to have.
This is demonstrated by ancient peoples ascribing supernatural powers to large geological features.
Features such as mountains and rivers, and even the sun.
The humble 'totem pole' was in there somewhere too.

Somewhere along the way, it was realised that a totally fictional entity would be best of all.
It is not human, so it cannot be shown to be fallible.
It cannot be located or examined and, in that way, shown to be false.
It can be said to have any desired attribute or power.

The truth is that it is humans themselves who provide the entity with its reality.
It is humans who tell the stories and write the stories and print the stories.
One needs to turn to human resources to find out anything about the subject.
It is purely a product of human thought.

But education has saved us.
We are no longer slaves to fear and superstition.
We are able to see ourselves and our instincts as they really are.
We can use reason to control and direct those instincts.
So the need for a supernatural leader is far lessened, as we grow in wisdom and experience.

Truth has take over, and it will not be silenced.
Thought processes can now be logical.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

You have made a faulty analogy. Animals of related species may have quite difficult social structures. Eg. Tigers are solitary animals getting together only to mate. Lions are social animals.

Human animals exhibit both tendencies and neither. Some humans are neither leaders nor followers. Muhammed Ali is an example. He stood alone in his opposition to service in the Vietnamese War. Although he was both admired and reviled he did not attract followers.

Some species have designated roles in which individuals neither lead nor follow. The queen in a bee hive is a breeding machine. She neither rules nor follows. She is brought food and produces eggs which are carried away by other bees in their roles as carers for the young. The beeswax is produced by glands in the body of worker bees. The worker fills different roles determined the age of the bee.

I believe that David Hume was correct when he said, “Reason is the slave of the passions.” We are driven to do things by our instincts for warmth, food, sex and other urges. Then, if we are intellectual animals, we find justification for doing what we have done.

We live in a world dominated to a large part by science. Science does not deal in truth. It deals in provisional explanations. Newton’s laws of motion were adequate to describe the movement of bodies in his world. However, Einstein became aware that space and time were not independent entities, and Newton’s laws did not adequately describe motions approaching the speed of light.

Rather than truth science deals with the best explanation for phenomena we have at a particular time. With new information the explanation may be inadequate.

I believe we must discard the myths created by religion if we are to live a rational existence. However, I also believe that of the customs created by religion and other traditions serve us well in giving us guidelines in how to live with our fellows.

Science which gives us the insight to doubt and ask questions gives us the ability to change with changing circumstances

It is inappropriate to respond directly to another contributor?
Entering in to dialogue in that way is not the intention of online opinion?
So I will just say: To Whom It May Concern....

I have to advise you that I see my 'explanation' as being the better. ^_^

Admittedly it has gaps.
That is a practical thing.
I cannot write on forever and ever.
Instead, I try to provide a framework of ideas.
I rely on the reader to join the dots as it were.
Like in a movie, where action betweens scenes needs to be imagined.

It seems to me that people can be both followers and leaders at different times.
Some are almost forced by circumstance to assume leadership.
These are persons who give benefit to those they lead.
Some persons just want to be seen as leader.
The effect they have on those they lead is of no consequence to them.
How they appear to other world leaders is what matters.
We have obvious and clear examples of both types in eastern europe right now.

So the idea of leaders and followers is valid, even if not universal.
The need to follow the leader, combined with fear and superstition, has allowed 'religious' leaders to flourish throughout history.
During this time, stories have been told which are clearly fictional.
There are other stories which are more likely than not to be true.
Better to base our life's principles on the latter?
With suitable healthy reservation of course.
And the people around me continue to surprise me.
Even here on Online Opinion.
And that is the truth.

.

Dear diver dan,

.

You wrote :

« Well, transpose the term right and wrong with the terns good and evil. Where does conscience fit most comfortably? With the latter I would suggest.

And what better fits with the latter, is personal responsibility; and what better makes personal responsibility fit with the latter, is religious dogma »
.

That’s an interesting chain of thought, diver dan, but, as I see it, things are a little more complex than that.

According to an anthropological article published in Nature on 27 Aug 2014 :

« Compared with other primates, including the other great apes, humans show extremely intensive cooperation, which is increasingly recognized as being ultimately responsible for our unusual cognition, morality, and cumulative culture and technology. A variety of mechanisms underlie this unusual level of cooperation. High social tolerance and reactive prosociality, as shown in empathy-based targeted helping where individuals respond to signs and signals of need by others, are clearly important »

Also in his article on Biological Altruism for the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (winter, 2009 edition), Samir Okasha indicates:

"Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own — so have personal fitness of zero — but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen".

And as for religious dogma regarding morality, the Encyclopedia Britannica informs us that the Golden Rule precept that is the fundamental ethical principle of Christianity figures in the Analects of Confucius (6th and 5th centuries BC), and also appears in one form or another in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Seneca »

All this duly considered, I am inclined to conclude that conscience defined as the mental process that controls and inhibits our actions and feelings towards others is just as much, if not more, innate than acquired. – whether by religion or any other source of outside influence.

.

Leadership. Leaders rarely if ever, chose that role, but have it thrust on them. Others become leaders by being consistent and true to their values and the almighty irrefutable truth.

There's a story that goes, a long time ago a little Swiss lad was minding his father's flock, when a gipsy caravan pulled up and asked for directions. Then they invited themselves to the campfire where they plied the boy with many sweetmeats. When the boy awoke, he found himself bound and gagged in the back of a wagon enroute to a Middle east slave market where he was sold.

Years went by and he gained the affection and trust of a benign master. tome went by until one day there was some sort of emergency. The master who could not attend instead entrust the now young man with a bag of gold coins and directed him to where he should deliver same.

With the money in his possession and the fare Switzerland the young man sort his home. He traveled from village to village lured on by a familiar village bell, which when he got closer, turn out to be a false ring. After years a distant familiar peel got his attention and as he crested a final hill, there before him was his home.

Just as the young man recognized his own true bell, there exists in all of us the ring of truth which allows us to recognize irrefutable truth when we hear it.

For me it's goose bumps and a chill up and down my spine. Ignore that small internal voice at your ultimate eternal peril!
Alan B.

BP.

You say conscience and instincts, including social instincts, are common across all species to a greater or lesser degree of genetic input according to any particular species.

And you seem to wonder at mans need for religion when socialising and other survival instincts are innate.

I don’t think many anthropologists would argue at its prevalence though. I form the view that mans need for religion and it’s rituals, is as old as man himself, and he will carry this need to the end of time.
The end of time is actually mans greatest fear, which trumps all other survival needs, since all of mams efforts towards existence aims at avoiding the end moment.

Man is as disparate as the stars in the sky, and his collection of religious attachments are as similar.

The need for a religion to follow, is embedded in the mammalian brain with all other natural instincts. It’s as instinctive as the need for sex and eating.

Dan

.

Dear diver dan,

.

I have the impression from your last post that we are pretty much on the same wavelength. You have touched a chord that resonates with me. We seem to be playing the same tune with a similar refrain but using slightly different words.

My only comment relates to your last paragraph :

« The need for a religion to follow, is embedded in the mammalian brain with all other natural instincts. It’s as instinctive as the need for sex and eating »

In my view, it was precisely the survival instinct that prompted primeval man to conceive of the existence of supernatural spirits (invisible gods) that animated nature and caused awesome and sometimes terrifying and destructive natural phenomena. This conception which we call religion allowed them to plead with the gods (prayer) and make offerings and sacrifices, including human sacrifices (scapegoats), to placate them and obtain their indulgence.

In other words, as they had no other way of defending themselves from severe droughts, floods, bushfires, lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, and the occasional terrifying meteorite, etc., religion was conceived as their only possible strategy for survival in which they fervently placed all their hopes and faith.

We have no way of knowing precisely when all this occurred, but it is estimated that mankind separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about 7 million years ago and that anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago, so let's take that as the time scale for the origin of religion.

Just how long it will continue to exist, of course, is anybody’s guess.

As you can see, diver dan, my opinion is similar to yours in so far as the origin of religion is concerned. I see it as a defence strategy developed at the behest of mankind’s survival instinct.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

But that was, let us say, at the most 7 million years ago, and at least 300,000 years ago. We have learned quite a bit about nature and natural phenomena since then. Many (but not all) of us no longer believe in multiple gods. Many now believe in a unique, all-encompassing God. Many believe in the human sacrifice to the God of Jesus (scapegoat) as their saviour, and many others do not. Yet many others remain sceptical of the relevance of the strategy, while still others reject it completely.

7 million years later, nothing has changed so far as our survival instinct is concerned, and the existential angst of many of us remains intact. If anything has changed it is the reason for our angst. In addition to the everlasting prospect of eternal death from which none of us can escape, many of us feel menaced in our very existence for various reasons – simply because of our identity, race, colour, religion (or lack thereof), personal feud, hatred, etc.

In such cases, religion is undoubtedly a precious source of solace for those who are ready, willing, and able to believe in its tenets.

As Saul of Tarsus may be interpreted as having said :

« It’s not God or religion that saves – it’s faith alone that saves ! »

Though he did not say that precisely, it could certainly be implied from what he did say, and in fact, I believe that the statement as indicated has worked miracles in several cases according to the personal accounts of a number of individuals who had been trapped for several days under the concrete and rubble of collapsed buildings due to earthquakes.

Belief is a powerful attribute that should never be underestimated. Trump has masterfully demonstrated this ever since the 2020 US presidential election which he claims to have won. He has relentlessly hammered home the fantastic lesson that reality doesn’t matter. It’s belief in reality that matters. And it’s easier to change people’s belief than to change reality.

That strangely sounds like religion to me.

.

Dear Dan,

«I form the view that mans need for religion and it’s rituals, is as old as man himself, and he will carry this need to the end of time.»

The need for religion, yes.
For rituals? I am not that sure.

«The need for a religion to follow, is embedded in the mammalian brain with all other natural instincts. It’s as instinctive as the need for sex and eating.»

I doubt you could find the need for religion in brains. Brains are but gross physical matter which is generated by our genes for the selfish purpose of their survival - and genes have no need for religion, from their perspective they probably consider religion an unnecessary headache...

The need for rituals - maybe, but then not every ritual is religious.

You seem to be drawn with Banjo Paterson into a discussion about anthropology, which is more than fine, but has very little to do with religion. Banjo just wrote:

«In my view, it was precisely the survival instinct that prompted primeval man to conceive of the existence of supernatural spirits (invisible gods) that animated nature and caused awesome and sometimes terrifying and destructive natural phenomena.»

So far so good, it is all an anthropological phenomenon, but then he continues:

«This conception which we call religion allowed them to plead with the gods (prayer)...»

- and you would know too well that such behaviours have nothing to do with religion. Like rituals, prayer too can be used as a religious practice, or as [at least what one believes to be] a useful tool for everyday success.

The logical mistake many people make is in the deduction:
A. Fearful people pray to gods.
B. Religious people pray to God.
Therefore:
C. The religious are fearful people who pray for practical results that could alleviate their anxiety.

Well as a religious person you already know that this is not the case.

So go ahead, do enjoy your discussion of anthropology, psychology, zoology, etc., but please do not commit this mistake of considering religion to be related to any of them.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have your own idiosyncratic definition of religion and god. Nobody else has any obligation to accept your definition.

Dear Yuyutsu,

My definitions of god and religion are:

God is an imaginary entity whose existence is believed in by superstitious people.

Religion is a relict of a pre-scientific age adopted by superstitious people.

Dear David F.,

I don't think you liked it when Nazi propaganda portrayed Jews as viruses and leprechauns.

In a similar fashion, secular society today portrays religion as some primitive, substance-less, superstitious and irrational belief; and similarly caricatures God as some silly, imaginary and impossible deity. That is an insulting mockery which hurts, so if your intention behind your definition is to hurt people, then go ahead.

It is true that the West was controlled for centuries by powerful and abusive churches which CLAIMED to represent God, fake syndicates that CLAIMED to be religious. It is understandable why Western society turned against these organisations, but in doing so they also hurt the innocent religious people who had nothing to do with the church's abuses of power.

To stop this mockery, one should at least admit that "religion" has substance, that it is real, not just a flimsy idea in some people's feverish minds. At least this is respectful, even if you still don't know exactly what that substance is. Once this is established, it is fair enough to point at particular churches (which possibly promoted such feverish flimsy ideas in order to scare their members into sumission) and claim that they fail to provide this substance, thus are unworthy to be called "a religion".

Next one may want to learn what this substance is. Should you care to ask the religious people themselves (not their corrupt churches) rather than to lay your own trip on them, they never claim that religion is meant to protect them from earthquakes, lightnings, lions and infections, but rather to protect one from their own character flaws and weaknesses, to purify their own mind and heart, to fight and overcome their internal daemons. While describing this process using their own terminology which usually (but not in Buddhism for example) includes the use of 'God', if you care to listen patiently (because studying a different terminology takes time) you will find that this process of purification is what they actually mean to be the substance of religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have a high regard for truth. I told the truth as I see it. From what I have read in history religion has done more harm than good. You might claim that the harmful is false religion. Religion has promoted intolerance, hate and war. A social movement that has nothing attractive does not win followers. Religion gives a sense of bonding, an explanation of human suffering and a persuasive picture of the world. So does Nazism. So does any human movement that unites ignorant humanity against an enemy. One enemy of religion are those who question, those who don't accept the fables and those who realize its tribal nature. If we are to live in peace with our fellow humans we must accept that others will differ from us and accept that. We even must accept those who are hoodwinked by the attractiveness of an evil belief as long as they can control their actions. If we can't eliminate evil we must live with it. Religion is an evil that contaminates humanity.

.

According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. in the world. Their number is in constant augmentation.

Perhaps david f. has in mind, the major religions which are as follows (source : Pew Research Centre, 2017) :

Rank Religion Members

1. Christianity 2.3 billion
2. Islam 1.8 billion
3. Unaffiliated 1.2 billion
4. Hinduism 1.1 billion
5. Buddhism 500 million
6. Folk religions 400 million
7. Other religions 100 million
8. Judaism 10 million

It is nevertheless interesting to note that there are no less than 4,200 different religions in the world (at the last count) that cannot agree on anything about the gods, God, or no god –exactly how many gods there are or, in fact, whether there are any gods at all – and what they, it, or nobody expects us to do or not do, eat or not eat, drink or not drink, how we should dress (particularly the girls and women), with whom we should make love or not make love, how many wives or husbands we may have, whether the girls and women may or not have an abortion, whether we can be legally euthanised or not, have recourse to modern assisted reproduction techniques including surrogacy, etc., etc.

The members of those religions that believe there are gods, or a God, have never met those or that God and are totally incapable of providing any sort of meaningful description of them, him, or it.

It’s no wonder there are so many different concepts, dogmas, creeds, doctrines, rituals, rules, and behaviours. Everybody seems to have their own ideas on the subject – and each religion claims to be the one true faith.

That, I find hard to believe.

As the world population increases, the number of religions increases with it.

All the more the merrier, I guess.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You speak of so many "religions" with practically nothing in common, then what on earth makes you group and count them together? If you know of no common substance to them all, then you could just as well point at a flying bird in the sky and say "Hey, there's another religion up there".

---

Dear David F.,

Primitive and poor human behaviour, hate, intolerance and wars have been with us through the ages and still are, so were social movements and clubs that sold a sense of bonding, "identity" as it is popularly called nowadays (not that it has anything to do with actual, logical or mathematical identity). Society was always replete with those who fought against others who failed to accept their fables, but even more vehemently with others who did follow the same fables, possibly with a minuscule variation.

You say that you have a high regard for truth:

Why point at some subset of these harmful movements as "religious" if you can find no commonality of substance to distinguish them from other harmful movements?

It so happens that, besides these social groups, there actually is a common substance for people who practice religion, be that in organised and semi-organised groups or alone and privately: you may not be aware of this substance and I no longer even ask you to recognise it, but can you see that by blaming your cloudy idea of "religion" you are insulting good innocent people, causing collateral damage, by unjustly blaming and associating them with unrelated social movements whose evil-doings we can all agree on?

Dear Yuytsu,

As you don't violate the law of the land you live in you are free to promote ignorance and superstition to the best of your ability.

Yuyutsu

*…but please do not commit this mistake of considering religion to be related to any of them.…

I’m getting a bit lost here.
This cake started off as a carrot cake, and has turned itself into a mud cake.

I have spent a total of six hours over two days in a jungle retreat, which separates me from the idiocy of humanity, overlooking an endless expanse of countryside totally devoid of human habitation, from a view across a ten square kilometres lake with the only visible activity are a dozen dolphins in a feeding frenzy, while I swing away those hours in a hammock ; all the while l calling to the God of inspiration to guide me on a path of enlightenment with the subject of religion.
I’ve come away totally uninspired with mass religion as a subject but spiritually refreshed.

Maybe that is what your saying in effect Yuyutsu, religion spoils the cake with formality.
True or false?

Dan.

Dear David F.,

«As you don't violate the law of the land you live in you are free to promote ignorance and superstition to the best of your ability.»

Yes, I am pretty much aware that this is one of the few activities the regime still allows us to do (legally), but why would I want to do such silly things? Only in order to prove that I can (I am no longer a teenager, you know)...?

---

Dear Dan,

I am so glad you had a great, spiritually refreshing retreat.

«Maybe that is what your saying in effect Yuyutsu, religion spoils the cake with formality.
True or false?»

- False.

This is not what I said, but perhaps your confusion is due to my own fault in failing to be clear enough, please forgive me:
The "them" in my statement you quoted, «but please do not commit this mistake of considering religion to be related to any of them»,
referred to anthropology, psychology, zoology, etc. - rather than to formal/mass/organised religion.

«I’ve come away totally uninspired with mass religion as a subject but spiritually refreshed.»

Possibly you progressed and reached a turn where mass religion no longer suits you. Congratulations, but mass religion can still be of benefit to others.

Jesus never taught mass religion, but provided suitable personal spiritual instructions to his disciples at the particular junctures they were at. I wish for you that you too soon find a teacher like Jesus to guide you on your personal spiritual journey.

.

From what I can understand from Yuyutsu’s posts over the years, he appears to practice some form of Hindu spiritualism that embodies an indescribable God in which each human being participates. When pressed to explain the concept more fully, he invariably replies that each and every one of us is God.

I interpret this to mean that the object of the exercise is to become one with his hypothetical, indescribable God.

Yuyutsu firmly opposes the use of prayer to request anything whatsoever from the hypothetical, indescribable God – including, presumably, favours such as relieving someone’s pain and suffering, healing an incurable disease, protecting a loved one from some danger or threat of death, finding a lost child, etc.

He seems to consider that prayer should be devoted almost exclusively to the praise and worship of the hypothetical, indescribable God.

It is something of a mystery to me why such a calm, gentle, respectable, kind, and respectful person as Yuyutsu could possibly conceive of such a narcissistic, uncompassionate, hypothetical, and otherwise indescribable God.

I find it incomprehensible that he should laud narcissism to the point of attributing it to his ideal of deity.

Could a scene such as that depicted in the following video possibly be his role model ? …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLVciTOtwN0&ab_channel=CNN

I hope not.

.

Dear Banjo and Yuyutsu,

Have either of you thought that God is a human invention and nothing more? That seems to me the simplest explanation for any supernatural entities.

.

Dear david f.

.

You ask :

« Have either of you [Yuyutsu and me] thought that God is a human invention and nothing more? »
.

Yes, I think I made it clear “that God is a human invention” in my post to diver dan at the top of page 5 of this thread.

However, I don’t think I would add “and nothing more”. I think there is a lot more to be said about that.

In my experience, there are occasions when people refuse to accept reality and deny its existence. There are other occasions when people affirm the existence of something that does not correspond to reality at all.

While I am willing to believe that many, if not most, of those who continue to promote the concept of deity as reality are of good faith (no pun intended), I suspect that there are others who are not so honest and are simply lying.

Religious zealots, for example, tend to take their desires for reality and have to be reminded regularly that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of any God or gods. That it's pure speculation. It would nevertheless be wrong to accuse them of lying. They honestly believe that deity does exist.

As for those who know better and are simply lying, I tend to reserve my judgment until I am reasonably satisfied that their motives are honourable.

It's sad, but I have to admit it : there are some people who simply cannot cope with the truth and need to hear what they have been led to believe all their lives.

That reminds me that when I was young, a girl I met at a party at a friend's place one evening asked me to say that I loved her. When I replied that we hardly knew each other she said “that doesn’t matter, say you love me. Go on, say it. Say you love me. Even if it’s not true. Say you love me. I want to hear it”.

I didn’t, and she cried.

I never saw her again.

.

Dear Banjo,

I was also told, "Tell me you love me even if you don't mean it." It is sad. I apologise. I should not have included you in my question.

Finding one's way to God is like finding one's way to the tooth fairy. I cannot take a person seriously who makes such a statement. It is not a purposeful lie, but it means that person lives in a fantasy world, a fantasy world shared by many people. People with such a fantasy want others to find substance in such a fantasy and then complain when you don't see the substance in their nonsense or find its value..

People may have what fantasies they will. However, it is a bit much when they want you to share their fantasy.

My life has been clouded by the fact that my mother was an alcoholic and a liar. I wrote a piece of fiction about a mother who was a liar. It was actually published, and I was paid for it. The money didn't make up for not having a mother I could trust - that I could believe.

One all encompassing evil about belief in a supernatural religion is that it's a blatant lie. Descartes in his 'cogito, ergo sum' wanted to establish a basis for reality even though he managed to use it to justify the fantasy of the society in which he lived.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«I interpret this to mean that the object of the exercise is to become one with his hypothetical, indescribable God.»

Since we already ARE God, there is no need to "become". There is however the need to lift the veil of ignorance that makes us forget this simple Truth - and that is the role of religion.

«Yuyutsu firmly opposes the use of prayer to request anything»

Not quite: prayers of request are valid for beginners since they strengthen our connection with God, open our hearts and replace the arrogant thoughts of "I can do it alone", but these requests become more refined as we mature, less selfish, for the wellbeing of all, and culminating in "Thy will be done".

«I find it incomprehensible that he should laud narcissism to the point of attributing it to his ideal of deity.»

Narcissism is the grotesque aggrandising of that which is not grand, of that which is limited, finite and perishable. So no, this is not my model.

And "deity"? It was you who introduced deities into this discussion, not I!

---

Dear David F.,

«Have either of you thought that God is a human invention and nothing more?»

No, because all human inventions are necessarily finite.

«That seems to me the simplest explanation for any supernatural entities.»

Well it seems that you are changing the topic:
God is not a being, let alone a supernatural being.

In fact, the term "supernatural being" is self contradictory: all beings are part of nature, regardless whether or not humans are able to see them or otherwise sense their presence.

Suppose for a moment that there are indeed such beings who are more capable and knowledgeable than humans: still they would be limited and part of nature, thus worshiping them would have little to do with religion and be much like a pet circumambulating their human master in hope of small favours.

When Yuyutsu is questioned about the imaginary entity called God he refuses to accept any description or designation. He maintains God is not an entity, a being or anything else we can describe by language.

Words of Wittgenstein come to mind:

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

I’m not sure I’m in agreeance with the negative opine of the author PS.

His is an argument from a false understanding of the role designed for Christianity by God.
Assuming there is an acknowledgement among unbelievers here, that Christians are actually believers in the existence of God in its current theological offering: otherwise they are not Christians: Evidence of the practical use of religion and it’s theology.

I disagree with Yuyuu , I’m a believer in the critical usefulness of anthropologists, Archaeologists and other allied sciences, to trace the progress of humankind over time.

Obviously the world in which we live now has little resemblance to earlier times, in this debate, to the relevance of religion and personal belief in it, or not, whatever.

So onwards. As a Christian, I criticise the author for his apparent lack of faith. Does he not understand the meaningful words of Christ when referring to the wide and the narrow road?
The numbers of converts to Christianity are predicted to be low.

What is and isn’t important to spiritual progress of the Christian, is not applicable to worldly accumulation, the opposite is true. Clearly this is a teaching of Christ.
Our obligation as Christians is to find the door to the Kingdom of Heaven through his teaching.

I think I understand that to be the position of Yuyutsu. A further obligation is to let the light shine out in our personal behaviour, not with any intention to glorify ourselves, but to reflect the righteousness of the God of our belief. But as Paul said, you will constantly fail.
Living a righteous and just life is made all the harder by our surroundings.

Even Christ doubted his God on the cross; My God, why hast though foresaken me?
If it was tough for him, how much harder for his followers?

And finally I refer to the gem; Let the dead bury the dead!
Christians will have limited ability to combat the evil, and can only use the tool of righteousness, symbolic of their God!

Dan

Dear Dan,

«Even Christ doubted his God on the cross; My God, why hast though foresaken me?»

Christ was never forsaken - that is just a mistranslation of the Aramaic.
What Jesus actually said was "My God, My God, it is for this moment that I was spared".
http://bibleconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Mistranslation-02-on-03-02-19.pdf

«I disagree with Yuyuu , I’m a believer in the critical usefulness of anthropologists, Archaeologists and other allied sciences, to trace the progress of humankind over time.»

I never claimed that these were useless, only that they have little to do with religion. They can study many human behaviours, including superstition, but not religion.

«I think I understand that to be the position of Yuyutsu. A further obligation is to let the light shine out in our personal behaviour, not with any intention to glorify ourselves, but to reflect the righteousness of the God of our belief.»

Correct. This is a good way to bring you closer to God.

«But as Paul said, you will constantly fail.»

Paul was right - you will indeed fail so long as you think that you as human are the good doer and the righteous one rather than humbly recognise that God is working and manifesting through your human costume.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I wrote :

«I find it incomprehensible that he [you, Yuyutsu] should laud narcissism to the point of attributing it to his [your] ideal of deity »

And you replied :

« Narcissism is the grotesque aggrandising of that which is not grand, of that which is limited, finite and perishable. So no, this is not my model »
.

Having had many discussions with you over the years, Yuyutsu, my comment reflects the overall impression I have of how you conceive of your God :

« an indescribable God in which each human being participates, communicating by prayer and ritual, not requesting favours, but worshiping and submitting oneself to him/her/etc. as his/her/etc’s faithful servant.

Sometimes you complicate things, Yuyutsu, by adding that each one of us is God, and sometimes you comment, as you did in your last post to diver dan :

“This is a good way to bring you closer to God” – whereas, in your last post to me, you had written : “Since we already ARE God, there is no need to "become" ... »

Perhaps my impression is wrong but that is how I understand your concept of God, Yuyutsu, after several years of discussion with you on the subject.

Based on your indications and explanations, it appears that there is no doubt in your mind that your God appreciates all the adoration and worship his faithful servants fervently express to him – even if they are, in fact, addressing it to themselves because, as you sometimes proclaim, they (we) are all God.

Welcoming, condoning, encouraging, and enjoying expressions of adoration and worship of oneself can best be described in the English language as narcissism – though someone (and perhaps, correlatively, a God) who believes himself/herself/etc. deserving of worship is considered a "megalomaniac".

The president of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, is a good example of this, as demonstrated in the video I posted previously. Here it is again :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLVciTOtwN0&ab_channel=CNN

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Based on your indications and explanations, it appears that there is no doubt in your mind that your God appreciates all the adoration and worship his faithful servants fervently express to him»

I have no idea how you arrived at this incorrect conclusion.

BP.

I intrude on the point you raise re narcissism and calling one self God. It is a very significant point . Under the Pauline teachings of Christology, calling oneself God is blasphemy, but under differing forms of Christian interpretation of the message of Christ, not such a problem.

Before this point can be cleared up, the more vexing problem of who is really the Christ, and what is his true message.
The Paulian Catholics were very possessive of this question, and banned texts from circulation which delivered a counter view.

I believe I understand Yuyutsu position, and will exercise patients for his answer before proceeding down the trail.

Dan

Dear Dan,

«calling oneself God is blasphemy»

Yes, calling oneself God while still thinking of oneself as a human, is blasphemy: surely God is not a human!

When Jesus said "I and my father are one" [John 10:30], he did not refer to that human body, Jesus of Nazareth son of Mary, but to his true identity, which is God and he knew it.

«Before this point can be cleared up, the more vexing problem of who is really the Christ, and what is his true message.»

I can only present the Hindu view:
While none of us who lives today personally met Jesus Christ, on the balance of Christ's revealed teachings, we tend to believe that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of God.

In the Bhagavad Gita, another incarnation of God, Shri Krishna said:

"Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, O Arjuna, at that time I manifest Myself on earth.
To protect the righteous, to annihilate the wicked, and to reestablish the principles of dharma¹ I appear on this earth, age after age." [BG 4:7-8]

We have every reason to believe that Jesus Christ was one of these instances where God manifested Himself on earth as a human.

---
¹ roughly the equivalent of "doing the right thing", the subject of this discussion

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I wrote :

« Based on your indications and explanations, it appears that there is no doubt in your mind that your God appreciates all the adoration and worship his faithful servants fervently express to him »

And you replied :

« I have no idea how you arrived at this incorrect conclusion »
.

I have known you for quite some time now on this OLO forum, Yuyutsu, and judging from your posts – not just to me but to all your correspondents – I see that you continue to adopt a posture of humble servitude to the beloved God of your concept.

Knowing you as I do, if it had ever occurred to you that your constant effusion of adoration and worship had aghast or displeased him/her/etc., you would surely have adopted a very different posture (or concept?) long before now.

But as I have never observed any such change over the years, I can only presume, as I indicated in my previous post, “that there is no doubt in your mind that your God appreciates all the adoration and worship his faithful servants fervently express to him”.

Therefore, presuming that to be the case, it would appear that you “laud narcissism to the point of attributing it to your ideal of deity”, as I also indicated in my previous post.

By the way, Yuyutsu, deity simply means “a god or goddess” (OED). As you accept the latter denominations, I see no reason why you should not accept the former.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You spoke of "my" God, but God is not mine (or anybody else's for that matter).
You spoke of "the beloved God of your concept", but what has God to do with my stupid concepts?

Your conclusion that "that there is no doubt in your mind that your God appreciates all the adoration and worship his faithful servants fervently express to him”, is simply incorrect.

I do not believe so at all: since God does not even exist, how could He possibly either appreciate or be displeased of anything?

«Therefore, presuming that to be the case...»

Well that is not the case - case closed!

«By the way, Yuyutsu, deity simply means “a god or goddess” (OED).»

OK, but what has God possibly to do with these gods, goddesses or deities, and why should we be discussing these in the first place?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

• To me (page 7 of this thread) :

« Since we already ARE God, there is no need to "become”. »

• To diver dan (page 8) :

« This is a good way to bring you closer to God »

• Again, to me (page 9) :

« … since God does not even exist, how could He possibly either appreciate or be displeased of anything? »
.

I understand your predicament and sympathize with you, Yuyutsu. I also agree with your final remark that God does not exist – and as he/she/etc. does not exist, there obviously is no God at all. There is only the idea of God (or gods).

Naturally, each person has his/her/etc’s own idea, his/her/etc’s own concept – whether it be a unique, all-encompassing, God or, to quote Sri Rama Krishna :

« There can really be as many Hindu Gods as there are devotees to suit the moods, feelings, emotions & social background of the devotees »

God is simply a mental construct, an idea, a concept in the mind of each individual human being.

You ask :

« How could He possibly either appreciate or be displeased of anything? »

That is for you to decide, Yuyutsu. As there is no God – just the idea of God – your idea, your concept, Yuyutsu, it’s up to you to decide if your God could “possibly either appreciate or be displeased of anything”.

I leave you to contemplate on the question and would be interested to learn what you finally decide if you care to share your decision with me.

.

o the right thing.

Get yourself locked up in a Mexican jail for six months for the answer.
In a cell smaller than a single car garage with thirty prisoners, and one bucket for a toilet overflowing onto the concrete floor you sleep on. What’s amazing is how many devout Christians you’ll be amongst, most of them looking like they’ve been spat out from under a bus

Events put a flux to the answer.

Dan

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«there obviously is no God at all. There is only the idea of God (or gods).»

You also are God, so are you claiming that there is no you?? Or are you claiming that you are just an idea? Surely you have some ideas about yourself and about God, but they are just ideas, we are not talking about ideas here!

And please leave out the "(or gods)" - they are not related and can only complicate and confuse the matter.

« There can really be as many Hindu Gods as there are devotees to suit the moods, feelings, emotions & social background of the devotees »

Since I know a bit about Hindu gods and about Shri Ramakrishna, I can tell you emphatically that this is a mis-translation, that it should read "Hindu gods" with a small-g (which could be described, if that is of any interest to you, as focal points for worship and meditation), so that statement does not even speak about God (which is not a god).

«God is simply a mental construct, an idea, a concept in the mind of each individual human being.

Are you still talking about these gods with a small-g?
Perhaps that is why you keep speaking of unrelated mental concepts...

«As there is no God – just the idea of God – your idea, your concept, Yuyutsu»

You still don't get it, Banjo, I may happen to have ideas about God and/or gods even, I could have one, several, or none such ideas, what do they matter at all? I don't think that you consider yourself to be an idea in my mind, do you?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« You also are God, so are you claiming that there is no you?? Or are you claiming that you are just an idea? Surely you have some ideas about yourself and about God, but they are just ideas, we are not talking about ideas here! … I don't think that you consider yourself to be an idea in my mind, do you? »
.

So far as I am concerned, Yuyutsu, all our correspondence here on this OLO forum is the expression of ideas and opinions – nothing but the expression of ideas and opinions.

I am, indeed, an idea in your mind and you are an idea in mine. God is an idea in both our minds but not the same idea.

Reality is that which exists independent of ideas concerning it (OED).

You and I exist independent of ideas concerning us. We correspond to reality. God does not. He is just an idea.

It is not sufficient to simply claim that an idea corresponds to something that exists independently of the idea concerning it, Yuyutsu. You must be able to prove it. Otherwise, you could get away with claiming that all sorts of weird and wonderful things exist that don’t and never will.

Donald Trump continues to claim that he won the 2020 US presidential election, and a lot of people believe it despite the fact that he and his lawyers and supporters have never been able to prove it. In fact, the exact opposite has been proven.

That does not stop his supporters from continuing to believe that he won the election.

No doubt they have their reasons for believing that, but it does not correspond to reality. It is just an idea. A false idea.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«I am, indeed, an idea in your mind and you are an idea in mine.»

Please speak for yourself, so you may claim the first half if you wish. I, anyway, am not an idea, nor is God.

«You and I exist independent of ideas concerning us.»

While I agree that You and I do not depend on any idea(s), you seem to believe that we exist - well I don't, nor have you proven so.

«We correspond to reality. God does not. He is just an idea.»

The only reality is God, it is nonsensical to speak of anything independently of Him, including of ideas - Just like I and You are God, just like every tree and every bird are God, so ideas too are God, yet just like God is not a bird, nor is God an idea.

«You must be able to prove it. Otherwise, you could get away with claiming that all sorts of weird and wonderful things exist that don’t and never will.»

But have I claimed that God exists?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I wrote :

« “I am, indeed, an idea in your mind and you are an idea in mine”

You replied :

Please speak for yourself, so you may claim the first half if you wish. I, anyway, am not an idea, nor is God »
.

I’m sorry if it displeases you, Yuyutsu, but I assure you that you and the Gid concept are, indeed, ideas in my mind, and unless I have the misfortune of contracting some sort of cerebral illness or suffer a terrible accident such as a stroke (apoplexy, thrombosis), I doubt that I could ever forget you or the God hypothesis – even if I tried.

Could you ever forget me, Yuytsu ? Could you erase the idea of me that is in your mind ? Why don’t you give it a try and let me know how you get on.

That said, ideas come and go, and I am not immortal, so you may be lucky, Yuyutsu. The idea of you and God may not last too long in my mind because I might not have too many more years to go.

I hope you haven’t had too much contact with anybody else (diver dan, David f. and others … family, friends, neighbours, your religious community, etc.). They must all have ideas of you in their minds that they can’t forget either.

Are you sure you want to live the life of a hermit for the rest of your life ?
.

You wrote :

« While I agree that You and I do not depend on any idea(s), you seem to believe that we exist - well I don't, nor have you proven so. »

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. I’m sure I could gather sufficient evidence to prove that you and I (and 8 billion others) exist on this planet earth. That is the difference with the God concept. I could not prove that there is a God any more than you or anyone else could. I am sure many ...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

... have tried, but no one has ever succeeded. If there is a God, he/she/etc. doesn’t seem to care whether we are aware of it or not.
.

I wrote :

« “We correspond to reality. God does not. He is just an idea”

You replied :

The only reality is God, it is nonsensical to speak of anything independently of Him, including of ideas - Just like I and You are God, just like every tree and every bird are God, so ideas too are God, yet just like God is not a bird, nor is God an idea »
.

I think that what you mean, Yuyutsu, is that that is what you believe. But there is no guarantee that what you believe corresponds to reality, Yuyutsu. I’m afraid you are taking your beliefs for reality. You are confounding the two. You present your beliefs as established facts. They are not. Neither you nor anybody else can prove that what you claim is exact, that it corresponds to reality.

I suspect that you are simply reciting the religious dogma of your Hindu spiritualism. It sounds very close to the philosophy of the 17th-century Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza and also to that of the Hindu Vedanta tradition whose basic messages are very similar : that God and nature are one.

If you consider that God is just another name for nature, Yuyutsu, perhaps we are beginning to find some common ground, at long last – nature being defined as “the material universe with all its phenomena” (OED) – nothing more nor less.
.

And, finally, you asked :

« But have I claimed that God exists? »
.

Yes, you claimed that “the only reality is God”. The OED defines reality as :

« that which exists independently of ideas concerning it »

In other words, you claim that God exists.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

So you are telling me that I am an idea in my mind.
Thus that I am an idea in the mind of an idea in my mind.
Thus that I am an idea in the mind of an idea in the mind of an idea in my mind.
Thus that I am an idea in the mind of an idea in the mind of an idea in the mind of an idea in my mind.
...

Enough of that!

«I’m sure I could gather sufficient evidence to prove that you and I (and 8 billion others) exist on this planet earth.»

Our bodies (and 8 billion others) indeed exist on this planet earth, no doubt.
That says nothing about you and I.

«I think that what you mean, Yuyutsu, is that that is what you believe. »

No, this is not what I meant.

«If you consider that God is just another name for nature»

I do not. Nature is but an illusory reflection of God.

«It sounds very close to the philosophy of the 17th-century Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza and also to that of the Hindu Vedanta tradition whose basic messages are very similar : that God and nature are one.»

Perhaps Spinoza claimed that "God and nature are one", but definitely not Vedanta. According to Vedanta, nature is how one sees God through the prism ("upadhi") of collective ignorance.

«Yes, you claimed that “the only reality is God”. The OED defines reality as :

« that which exists independently of ideas concerning it »

In other words, you claim that God exists.»

Since existence is only an idea and since that which exists is dependent on that idea of existence, if I were to take the OED seriously, then I would have to conclude that there is no reality.

The only reality is God, which does not exist nor depends on anything, including on existence.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks, Yuyutsu.

I guess we have done just about all we can on this thread. I have found it quite positive. We have definitely made some progress – but we still have a long way to go.

I look forward to learning (should I say, understanding) a bit more of your Hindu spiritualistic beliefs and God concept during our next conversation.

.