Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Would you please explain how “… the world is … an essential part of the redemption of all humankind" ?»

I can try, but since I am not a Christian myself, my idea of redemption may be different to the author's.

Essentially, this comes down to the story of Goldilocks and the three bears:

Father-Bear's porridge was too hot, Mother-Bear's porridge was too cold, but Baby-Bear's porridge was just right, not too hot and not too cold.

So some other worlds, like heaven, are too nice, too pleasurable, so nobody there cares about and makes any effort towards their salvation. Other worlds, like hell, are too horrible, one suffers there so much they cannot even think about their salvation.

But this particular universe with this particular planet Earth, is just right, it has the right mix of pleasures and pains, it is our field of action where we toil to get results, where we experience free will, where we have the opportunity to experiment and learn, to struggle and eventually find the value of doing good and keeping away from evil, then from there discover the way out back to God.

A prisoner in a golden cage is busy admiring their cage.
A prisoner in a Russian torture chamber only writhes in pain awaiting the next strike.
But a prisoner in, say, a modern Australian prison has all the time to constantly ask, "how do I exit this place?".

The exit is right here, in this universe, on this planet, in that regard we humans are even more fortunate than the angels!

Dear Paul,

I loved Monty Python.

Ever watch "Horrible Histories on TV?"

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks for sharing your interpretation of what the author meant by his statement that “the world is … an essential part of the redemption of all humankind”.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing exactly what the author, himself, meant, nor of how Peter Sellick interprets what he meant by the statement.

Your guess is as good as mine. I’m afraid we’ll never know.

I should add that I find significative the credence Peter accords to Karl Bath’s statement that “The aim of creation is history".

Peter explains that God only has a historical interest in his creation : “Do not look for the work of God in nature, His fingerprints will not be found in the rocks or the DNA or in geological eras. God reveals himself in history …”.

In other words, God does not intervene in his creation.

That appears to be consistent with the Christian doctrine of “by your faith alone you will be saved” (i.e., not by any direct or indirect intervention of God ).

From this one may deduce that miracles are of one’s own making – or purely fortuitous.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

As I already wrote in my first post here, I disagree with Karl Barth's statement that "The aim of creation is history".

According to my Hindu view, God does not need to "intervene" in nature because nature and everything in it is ALREADY God, because there is nothing but God.

Accordingly anything we see, anything we experience, every moment, including the fact that we are able to experience, is a miracle, so miracles are the rule, not the exception. If our mind is pure and unclouded by our material notions and desires, then we can find in the rocks and DNA not just "God's fingerprints" but God Himself!

«That appears to be consistent with the Christian doctrine of “by your faith alone you will be saved”»

By your faith alone you will make consistent efforts to purify your mind, thus be saved.
But to have that unshakable faith, you need God's grace.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Yes, Yuyutsu, thanks to our long and countless exchanges here on OLO, I have now come to understand some of the basic Hindu concepts and beliefs.

.

Hi Yuyutsu and Banjo Paterson,

A great thought provoking discussion. Throw this at you, and I would appreciate both of your opinions, thank you in advance. Has humanity misunderstood "God" and the reality of "God" completely. The notion of God the 'Sky Father' a physical being, or God as a abstract sprite existing within the universe, both being totally wrong. Rather should we think of "God" as being within ourselves an inseparable part of ourselves. Put it this way, was Buddha right when he said the ultimate goal for us is the attainment of "enlightenment" and once reaching that state of nirvana was he saying we had become "God". All of us are "God", yet none of us are "God".

For centuries man could only understand God within his own reality of a physical world, therefore God had to be a physical being. Then scholars tried to explain God in a non physical sense, such diversion might have got one branded as a heretic, with very unpleasant consequences. Today most believers still cling to the notion of God as a physical/spiritual being, any other concept is beyond the ordinary persons comprehension, and therefore simply a matter of faith, without understanding.