DB, I appreciate that while you find some of my points uncomfortable, you pursue mutual understanding through dialogue. When I was 12-13, my church elders argued the John 14-16 approach, but I had to find my own truth. Everyone does ultimately, you can’t progress spiritually without that. Jesus is saying, in effect, you’ve seen me, what I am, my wisdom, love and compassion, that should be sufficient for you to have faith. Some of the disciples want something else, but that something else appears to be external to them. I have faith in my teacher, Goenka, but not just because of his qualities. I have faith because everything that I have been able to test through my own practice accords with what he teaches, with what he is. This is the approach that Goenka, like the Buddha, pursues: don’t believe something because I or anyone else says so, test everything, gain your own experiential knowledge. So while even non-Christians can have faith, from what we know, that Jesus had exceptional qualities to which we should all aspire, that is not sufficient.

I think your summation of my earlier points is incorrect. It’s not a question of when “something 'bad' happens … we then realize our natural reaction might be to 'strike back', then detach ourselves from this, (knowing that our normal human reaction would create further conflict within ourselves) and go about our business as if it didn't happen.” No, we have to deal with the world. And the process I described is not at that surface, cognitive level, it’s understanding at the deep experiential level the fundamental reality of change, eradicating the tendency to react, realising that there is no substantive, ongoing “me” to take umbrage at others’ actions, knowing that by reacting you harm both yourself and others. It’s hard to grasp without practising.

And I’m not a Buddhist, I don’t promote Buddhism, I can’t speak for it. The Buddha’s teaching does not offer “a framework which gives hope,” it gives you a path to come out of suffering through developing your own wisdom. (346 words!)

As I said before the GB's jump in and start talking rot. Sells "The religion of Israel was unique among the nations because it was shaped by experience, they reflected on history." This is such a silly statement I don't know where to start. All religions are shaped/invented/transformed by the people that believe them.
And as for DB's comment that Genesis 1 follows closely the current understanding of how the universe was created and life on earth started, well it just reminds everyone that you don't know much about the subject at hand. The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. Now I assume being a missionary your theology is up to scratch so it most be your understand of modern science that is lacking. Science is investigation not revelation.

John, that was very well put, it is hard for those that live within fantasy to see what is real and what is fallacy. Christians always fail to accept that the book they follow is complete fiction, in relationship to the original interlineal texts of both the old and new testaments.

Philo, Sells, “God is not being, he is Spirit.” define spirit and its expression. With the dubious history of religion and the current delusions displayed by the evangelical churches and their expressions through tongues etc, this spirit probably comes out of a bottle.

It is ludicrous to believe what Christians say, when they always refer to text that has been re-translated many times. The only true source of what is contained in the letters of the bible (new testament), is from the original texts. Then you have to determine which translation you are going to interpret, Nestlé-Aland 26 Greek Text, 1894 Textus Receptus, 1991 Byzantine Greek Text etc, or the numerous others that can be found within the Vatican and jewish archives, plus the many historical English, French and Latin versions.

Then you have to consider the other historical information that is a available that christians always fall to mention. The Nag hammadi, dead sea scrolls, the Nadan fragments, the 60AD compilation and the 9 other original letters that have been left out. Three of those are communications between Mary Magdalen, Sarah, (John in the bible)and others.

John 14-16 that BD refers to, is a modern US version. When you read that along side the interlinear text, you will see how deep within fantasy these people live. He may tell you that it is the modernising of religion, but unless their god or jesus has actually sent them down these translations, just like the bible, it is just the words of ordinary very superstitious people.

Sometimes, you almost admire their tenacity, but then being in merry go round mode, going round and round using the same old lines, is proof enough of where their minds are stuck.

I always liked the following argument:

1. God is a marvellous thing that functions like an immensely complicated wind-up watch.
2. The existence of an immensely complicated wind-up watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.
3. Logically, therefore, God must have been created by some sort of maker of immensely complicated wind-up watches.

Given that the only maker of immensely complicated wind-up watches that I can think of is homo sapiens, I must conclude that God was very probably created by homo sapiens.

The alchemist,
Your spirit is who you are, your core personality. It is not your body, it is the unseen impact you have made; how you have impacted this planet, with your ideas, your communications, your love or hate etc.

God is not a being: God is the spiritual qualities of character, and he exists independent of the physical, but has chosen to be revealed through the physical lives of those that bless mankind and this planet with His graces.

That's all fine and good, Philo - but then why are you so infernally dogmatic about he/she/it and why do you spend so much time denigrating other people's versions of he/she/it?