I expected so. No problem.
Are you sure you do?Firstly I am not an outsider I understand the Christian message and feel a kinship with others who likewise understand it.
I ask because there are a lot of folks who think they do, but who clearly don't. A lot of folks mistake real Christianity for something they have formerly thought Christianity was, or for a religion comprising everybody who says they are "Christian," or for one or another of the denominational institutions, or even for a bland positivity toward all such entities. But none of those things is genuinely Christian.
If they are judgmental or critical of other religions whether Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim or of Atheists; who are helping us understand the physical world, I am not on board with that.
Wait. What does "I am not on board with that" mean, other than that there are some religious positions you are "judging" and "being critical of"?
It would mean you reject, or are "not on board with" all exclusive "religions," which at minimum, would mean you reject Judaism, Islam and Christianity, along with conservative Hinduism, traditional Buddhism, and certainly Atheism (since it denies legitimacy to all religions).So how far does such "inclusivity" actually prove to be inclusive?
As for native peoples in primitive societies, they did good with what they had and had wisdom in their attitudes to nature.
Their "wisdom" was not very great. Remember that cannabalism, human sacrifice, enslavement and scalping were all invented by "natives." And their "attitude to nature" was not one of benign coexistence, but rather one of fearful, animistic shamanism.
I'm not making that up, of course. Go and look at how any real-world native culture lived and what they believed, and you'll find the same thing.
I think perhaps what you're channelling is a thing called "the noble savage myth," which arose in the 18th Century, but became a sort of viral belief thoughout the 20th Century. The "noble savage myth" is the belief that ancient peoples are all somehow "closer to nature" and "more in touch with the spiritual," or "in harmony with the planet," and that by admiring them, modern people can become more authentic, environmentally pure or in touch with true nature. Such a belief is indeed expressed in something like Disney's "Pocahontas," wherein the little native girl sweetly communes with animals and trees, and the more modern European West is portrayed as industrial, greedy, violent and subhuman.
Of course, it was always a myth. The historical facts quicky make that clear. Natives were ordinary human beings of the same type as the Europeans; and as such, were just as capable of extraordinary cruelty and destruction, lacking only the power and means to actualize that to the same scope. To the limit of the means they had, they were as wicked and destructive as anyone.
Of course all humans in a dual system can choose right or wrong and that choice plays out in all times and climes.
We could -- and probably should -- pause on that thought. For if that's true, then you must be referring to some conception of "right or wrong" that transcends "all times and climes," as you put it. That is, you must be looking at these "systems" from an outside, objective position: for othewise, what basis would we have for calling anything they do, anything that 'fits' the system, "right or wrong"?
And if some "systems" do "wrong," as you say, then such systems are not the ultimate context or arbitors of the good.
Is that what you meant to imply? Because without that implication, one cannot say what you said.
Yes. He has been quite explicit about that. For example, He says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt. 11:28) That's an open offer for anyone. And, of course, I could point to many, many more such offers...like John 3:16, John 1:12-13, Romans 10:9...You choose Christ but has he chosen you?
Is He on board with your view of human nature...
I'm on board with His. If, on any detail, I'm wrong, it's Him who is right.
This isn't my view...that's your gloss on what you think might be my view, but it's not correct....which even though flawed is, as a work of the Creator, at heart pure gold.
Very poetic...but not my belief at all, nor anything Biblical, I have to say.Life is not a Puritan hell but a joyous adventure, a novel written by a Master Dramatist that has good and evil, and choices, the diverse paths will merge in a higher age when all is understood.
That sounds like Materialistic Determinism, I have to say. I don't now know whose view you're speaking about. It's certainly none of mine.Mankind is no more responsible for good and evil, before choosing, than it is for the dual system it finds itself in:
In this situation “faith alone” is a very dubious doctrine.
Well, if Materialistic Determinism were true, "faith" would not be merely "dubious": it would be impossible. Like everything else, the apparent "choice" involved in faith would merely be an illusion. The fact of predetermination by material causes would be the deep truth of everything.
Of course, then it wouldn't matter at all what one "believed." Belief would have no effect on anything. It would merely be a dumb terminal in the middle of a material cause-effect chain.
I think you don't know what "faith alone" actually means. It refers to the fact that one cannot be saved by works; it does not mean "don't do any works."There is much work to be done and faith alone is not going to accomplish it.
Faith itself doesn't mean mere "wishful thinking," and passivity, you know. It means, "Trust God, and then take action on that."
