.

(Continued ...)

.

4. « … believing in "No God" is often also an important step along the path to God. »

That may be, Yuyutsu, though I’m not so sure about the “often”. The corollary, of course, is that « believing in "God" is often also an important step along the path to “No God” » - and, in this case, I am more inclined to believe that the “often” really does apply.
.

5. « They may well adopt atheistic attitudes and mistakenly consider themselves to be non-religious »

Once again, Yuyutsu, I think the inverse is just as true – perhaps even more so.
.

6. « … you must be specific about what you refer to as "your belief". » - this, in response to my comment : « In the meantime, your brief explanation to Foxy would seem to indicate that your belief was not the result of a personal choice.»

[ I had previously asked you (page 29 of this thread) : « What about you, Yuyutsu ? How did you come to believe in God ? How do you know what He wants ? » ]

You replied to Foxy (page 31) :

« One thing is that I simply cannot remember what blessed me to turn to God because it was lifetimes ago, I cannot even tell how many »

If you “turned to God” as you say, Yuyutsu, it can only be because you believe there is a God. If you did not believe there is a God, you would not say that you “turned to God”. It’s as simple as that.
.

7. « If you like to explore this question of personal choice, I can suggest that you try the test in:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/newcomb »

I was unable to open the link you provided because my computer indicated the site was not safe. However, not to worry, I am reasonably aware of the philosophical implications of the notion of personal choice.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...=

.

8. « May I suggest instead, that your comprehension is derailed by the combination of association and dissatisfaction with the Biblical-based religions along with your habitual dependence on Western materialistic scientism? »

I am not “dissatisfied” with any religion, nor their different strands of mysticism, Yuyutsu. I do not adhere to any of them, even though I have been imbued with Christianity ever since I was a child.

I respect everybody’s religious beliefs provided they do not encroach on the freedom of others and cause no harm.

Also, I do not consider that I have an “habitual dependence on Western materialistic scientism”, Yuyutsu. I view everything with a critical eye, as you may have noticed, including Western materialistic scientism.

If I have an “habitual dependence” on anything, it is on logic, rationality, critical thought, and … keeping an open mind on everything.

.

Dear Paul,

Well of course it is dangerous, like always when someone pretends to follow the word of God when it is not. This is not even a grey area unless you can seriously suspect that God indeed told Schlydner to send these letters. Schlydner may be TRYING to turn the secular into the religious, but he cannot, God cannot be fooled!

The question is what can we do about it?

Had we prophets available then in no time they would authoritatively expose Schlydner's lies/delusions, but alas we are orphaned of them, so that is hypothetical.

I rather allow 100 such Schlydner's than accidentally obstruct the true path of even one wo/man to God, for this is all that life is about.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I respect your belief in God, but the Bible speaks of "false prophets" which I assume are those that invoke the name of God to further their own ambitions, by propagating an array of unholy lies. The question is how does one differentiate the false from the true, when often the false is so appealing and seems so good. I don't agree that prophets are not with us today, they are but we just cannot recognise them. A prophet is not the classical biblical holy old man delivering a message of fire and brimstone from atop a mountain, they are much more secular than that. Great prophets today are few, but they are still with us, the Dalai Lama is such a great prophet, but the Dalai Lama is but one in many billions. but there are millions of everyday people who by their words and actions are prophets for good. Its just that most of us don't want to heed the message which is there by their good example, but rather follow false prophets with their message of hate. Hitler was a false prophet who delivered a message of hate, and millions followed, believing he was good. As Buddhism teaches, good is within us, and prophets/teachers like Buddha and Christ can only guide, its up to the individual to set their own path in life.

Dear Banjo,

«They probably receive worse criticisms from every Tom, Dick, and Harry than you could ever imagine.»

Sure, they have a tough skin for abuse and foul-mouthing, but I'm not sure how they react to reasoned, substantiated explanations as for why their position of power and their whole career should have never existed. Still there is also that lawyer.

«If you “turned to God” as you say, Yuyutsu, it can only be because you believe there is a God. If you did not believe there is a God, you would not say that you “turned to God”. It’s as simple as that.»

I am saying so now, retrospectively.
At the time I turned to God, I could perhaps have had no such concepts.

Now "turning to God" is attitudinal, it does not mean that God is in some direction, so I turn my body to face Him, that would be a really primitive notion, it doesn't even mean that God exists, which is also quite a primitive notion. Such primitive notions may be helpful for some children and beginners along the spiritual path, but I think that we are safe to skip them here.

God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation. However all that exists, is in fact nothing but God. All we see, hear, touch, smell or taste, think or feel, without exception, is in fact, in essence, God.

To understand how it is possible to turn to God despite Him not existing, I presented the cinema-screen analogy.

The screen is not part of any movie. While watching a movie, one could turn left, right, backward, forward, up, down, inside, outside, north, south, east, west, whatever, and still not find the screen.

Yet the screen is all there is. What the spectator sees, whether they realise it or not, is the screen.

So long as one is too engaged in the hustle and bustle and excitement of the movie, they are less likely to discover the screen: their eyes see the screen, but they fail to recognise it.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I was unable to open the link»

Strange, it opens in my browser.

I find this Newcomb paradox, when well-presented, encourages deep contemplation about personal choice. Nevertheless, it is presented elsewhere as well - try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KxJ6eTY9bA

«I am not “dissatisfied” with any religion, nor their different strands of mysticism, Yuyutsu. I do not adhere to any of them, even though I have been imbued with Christianity ever since I was a child.»

Could it be that your childhood's Christianity, though consciously discarded, is still affecting you deeper than you know, both positively and negatively?

You say that you keep an open mind on everything, then why not have another look at the cinema-screen analogy without any Christian/Biblical glasses which tell you in advance what God can or cannot be?