To Yuyutsu.

Regarding your thoughts that different audience respond differently to the information given, I can agree with that sentiment. But that should not be an excuse to not talk about God, as if that is actually helping someone.

I'll say it again. Any audience can benifit from hearing what is from God. If they believe and apply their new knowledge it is even more benifitual. But if no one says anything to teach you them then they won't have the chance to be better because of it. Just because someone fears how others will react is no reason to not try to bring smeone to God. In the instance of Budda. I don't think all Buddhists believe in God even though they follow Budda's teachings. This shows a lack in the teachings, it's not something that is explained by knowing your audience.

Josephus,

You might argue that it was through their Christian beliefs that these great minds were about to give positive expression to the good ideals of a secular world. I will agree Christianity can, and does, have a positive influence on thinking. There is also negatives to monotheistic religions, and they have a lot to answer for. I can't but help thinking if Christianity was to die today and face "God". He may not send it to "hell" but it might spend some time in "purgatory" repaying past sins, before entering into "heaven".

BTW, those men you speak of, also lived at a time when as far as they were concerned with Christianity, it was also wise to know what side your bread was buttered. And they were certainly wise men.

Hey Josephus,

AC, "one man's modern historical opinion."

Art Thompson is a historian that spent 40 years looking into it, he doesn't post obscure links to other peoples articles, he researches and then writes books.
You shouldn't simply discount things by others more knowledgeable than you that don't fit in with your worldview.

That just makes you either 'willfully ignorant' or 'a person with his head up his ass'

Maybe you should write your own version of history instead?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Subtracting a finite quantity from infinity does not leave a dent in the infinite. In fact, as we know from mathematics also, even subtracting infinity from infinity may leave us with infinity. Hindus are reminded of and inspired by this fact through the prayer: http://swamij.com/upanishad-isha-purna.htm

So the joy and bliss of being one with God, minus some physical pains, leaves nothing but the joy and bliss of being one with God.

In his final days, the near-modern sage, Ramakrishna, had throat cancer and could not eat. He was not bothered by it, but his disciples urged him time and again to pray for healing so he could eat and live, knowing that this was well within his power (just as it was well within Jesus' power to pray and have twelve legions of angels save him from the cross). So eventually he did pray and then God rebuked him saying: "What? You are eating enough through all these mouths. Isn't that so?" http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/gospel/introduction/last_days.htm
Once you realise that all mouths of all people are yours anyway, what's the big deal about not being able to eat through one particular mouth? what's the big deal if one particular throat is in pain?

Surely faith can do miracles and surely Elijah and Daniel were exemplars of faith. But faith is only the means to reach God, not yet the end, for once God is attained, faith is replaced with direct knowledge. I did not have the fortune to know Elijah and Daniel in person, I am convinced that they were quite close to God, but how close exactly I cannot tell. My personal only-guess from reading the bible is that they attained the penultimate state of savikalpa-samadhi, http://www.yogapedia.com/definition/8524/savikalpa-samadhi
That Elijah was [at the time] still not totally united with God, can be indicated from the fact that his spiritual power was not infinite but could still double [2 Kings 2:9-10].

Note also that Elijah's "suffering" and desperation was not for himself personally, but for genuine selfless concern for the well-being of society and others.

Armchair Critic, History is always interpreted from the point of views of those who observe. It might be different from the reality of those who live it. You might write a history of how you understand me from your opinion, but it would be vastly different to how I see myself.

History is written from a political point of view.

To Yuyutsu.

If you read the chapters I referenced then that should clear up everything you wrote about. Infinity minus infinity has nothing to do with what I'm talking about nor the reality of the world, but is based on your philosophy of everyone is god.

As for direct knowledge from God, what's more direct then talking to Him and being in the presence of Him. Again read the chapters I referenced. It shows their personal mental anguish. Not just a concern for others (which happens too, but not in those chapters). Yet, still there is one more example of a person who knows God and went through a difficult trial and was pained in that moment. Jesus before he was crusified prayed about the crusification that was coming. The prayer showed Jesus under that burden and the anguish he held for it. Then while on the cross, one of the things Jesus said was, "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" There are many theological commentary on that statement but regardless it shows a great amount of pain and suffering that He went through.

This isn't a challenging thing to be corrected on. People go through suffering in their lives. Some more then others. Knowing God isn't an excape from going through hard times.

Regarding Buddhism as a means to get out of suffering through the right mindset and through meditation, those are good things. There's nothing wrong with that aspect. But it's still not a better path then one that has God in it.

Not that you've argued what is a better path then another path Yuyutsu, but the truth is what you have argued is neither for seeking which is better, nor confirming based on the reality of the world, or the real situtions in the world.