Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God

[promethean75]

I, too, am starting to understand and empathize with god. All this time, as an atheist, i was going about it all wrong by condemning god for being an asshole.

But that's what i am. I too am an ego driven narcissist surrounded by fools who likes to fuck with inferior things for his own pleasure. Therefore, condemning god would be like condemning myself, no?

[Fairy]

I, too, am starting to understand and empathize with god. All this time, as an atheist, i was going about it all wrong by condemning god for being an asshole.

But that's what i am. I too am an ego driven narcissist surrounded by fools who likes to fuck with inferior things for his own pleasure. Therefore, condemning god would be like condemning myself, no?

Yes, what you condemn in other you condemn yourself.

Experience is internalised as about me, or identity. The guidance is felt. Underlying powerlessness plays out as seeking to feel powerful. Insecurity plays out as seeking to feel secure. Unworthiness plays out as seeking to feel worthy. Fear plays out as seeking to feel love.

[Perspective]

Thank you for your feedback. I did look at the forum but to view discussion, it seems I must open an account. Maybe I can view videos without that. Good idea.

Personally, I see the agnostic view as most logical, when it comes to a belief in a higher power (God), but practically, it makes more sense to use our power of belief to work for us, rather than against us, including a sense of priorities (highest GOoD).

It really depends on how God is defined. It seems much more rare to define God than to argue about it. If God is intelligent design, we are walking proof. But I think God is more than that.

What are your beliefs?

I believe God is personal, not merely a sort of "force" or "out-there-ness." But then, I'm a Christian, so that goes along with that.

Most Christians I know believe differently than that - they see Jesus as God & external, despite Luke 17: “The kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU.”

So, now I’m curious how you came to see God as personal & not external.

[Perspective]

I personally don’t think about God in the ordinary Christian traditional style. I’m not a Christian. I believe no human being was ever born a Christian. It’s just a false label people have attached to. It’s a secondary identity. Not a real character. God for me simply means life, and how life has been able to lift itself off it’s own starting block. To me, that’s all a miraculous mystery, it’s very God like.

Some drawbacks of Christianity in my opinion is that it tends to make some followers of the doctrine feel morally superior or at least induces moral superiority in them. It makes them blind to their own manipulations and judgements. It leads to extreme moral policing and judgement, to the point of hypocrisy and delusion. Makes them walk away from emotional truthness and actually deeper into sin as they begin to slander and judge even someone who might be or definitely is completely innocent.

I have observed similarly. I grew up Christian+ but it took me a while to recognize some insane immorality. The dogmatic teachings of Jesus as human sacrifice scapegoat tend to be applied in interactions with others - blaming anyone who questions their immoral beliefs.

Yet, there are good aspects of Christianity, ie loving God/truth & others as oneself - as top priorities. My personal opinion is Saul, Constantine/Eusebius & others corrupted Christianity in ways to make it “anti-Christ.” Eg., If you, “put on the mind of Christ,” you carry your cross rather than shift it to make an innocent person pay.

[Perspective]

I, too, am starting to understand and empathize with god. All this time, as an atheist, i was going about it all wrong by condemning god for being an asshole.

But that's what i am. I too am an ego driven narcissist surrounded by fools who likes to fuck with inferior things for his own pleasure. Therefore, condemning god would be like condemning myself, no?

I think God/truth is unique for each person & as you suggested, we project our own aspects. Most people do this subconsciously. I went through an atheist or agnostic period when I was questioning everything. I think each person needs to go through this to sort of clean out his mind to figure out what is the highest GOoD & what isn’t.

It seems a lot of atheists look at all the suffering & say, “If there was a god, this would never happen.” But as Leibniz said, “This is the best of all possible worlds.” The ability to choose is the only way to accomplish what’s needed. And that means some immorality & suffering. We are God’s hands, so we have the ability to choose to do good or not, as does everyone else. And how can we gain strength without resistance - how can we grow without growing pains?

Sorry to be so preachy - mostly reminding myself.

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you for your feedback. I did look at the forum but to view discussion, it seems I must open an account. Maybe I can view videos without that. Good idea.

Personally, I see the agnostic view as most logical, when it comes to a belief in a higher power (God), but practically, it makes more sense to use our power of belief to work for us, rather than against us, including a sense of priorities (highest GOoD).

It really depends on how God is defined. It seems much more rare to define God than to argue about it. If God is intelligent design, we are walking proof. But I think God is more than that.

What are your beliefs?

I believe God is personal, not merely a sort of "force" or "out-there-ness." But then, I'm a Christian, so that goes along with that.

Most Christians I know believe differently than that - they see Jesus as God & external, despite Luke 17: “The kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU.”

Well, some commentators opt for the variant reading of "within":

"The phrase "in your midst" can also be translated as "within you" or "among you," leading to various interpretations. Theologically, this suggests that the kingdom of God is a present reality, embodied in the person and work of Jesus Christ." (The Study Bible)

"The kingdom of God could not be said to be in the hearts of those Pharisees to whom the Master was especially directing his words of reply here. It should be rather understood in the midst of your ranks; so Meyer and Farrar and others interpret it..." (Pulpit Commentary)

However, let's grant that it says "within." The question becomes, what does it imply? Does it imply that the Kingdom of God is latent within all human beings, or only within those who belong to Christ, as a result of salvation -- that it's a transformation of the inward man, not a universal possession of all men, including those who, like the listening Pharisees, hate God and are hypocrites? It's ambiguous, at best, if all we look at is that little phrase, "within you."

I think that to be fair, we would have to build a theology from more than one verse here. We'd need both the immediate context and the larger Scriptural context, in order to delimit the proper meaning of the saying. We would, as the Pulpit Commentary suggests, have to decide what Jesus meant in the presence of the Pharisees as well as the disciples.

And given that the rest of Scripture invites the interpretation I suggest -- that it refers to Christians, not to everybody -- but in no way invites the one you suggest -- that it means "within all human beings already," (assuming I'm understanding your objection), then I submit to you that there are good reasons why I don't believe in the Gnostic reading of that lone verse.

So, now I’m curious how you came to see God as personal & not external.

"External"? Did you mean "internal"? I'm not sure of what your question is here. Sorry.

By "personal," I simply mean that God is a "Person" in the larger sense of having a specific identity, will, volition, nature, and so forth, as "persons" inevitably do: in fact, I suggest that the very concept "personhood," with which we are all so familiar, is derivative from God's primary "Personhood," since we are, as Genesis says, "created in the image" of God. We are "persons" because God, our Creator, is a "Person."

I trust this clears that up.

[Perspective]

Well, some commentators opt for the variant reading of "within":

"The phrase "in your midst" can also be translated as "within you" or "among you," leading to various interpretations. Theologically, this suggests that the kingdom of God is a present reality, embodied in the person and work of Jesus Christ." (The Study Bible)

"The kingdom of God could not be said to be in the hearts of those Pharisees to whom the Master was especially directing his words of reply here. It should be rather understood in the midst of your ranks; so Meyer and Farrar and others interpret it..." (Pulpit Commentary)

However, let's grant that it says "within." The question becomes, what does it imply? Does it imply that the Kingdom of God is latent within all human beings, or only within those who belong to Christ, as a result of salvation -- that it's a transformation of the inward man, not a universal possession of all men, including those who, like the listening Pharisees, hate God and are hypocrites? It's ambiguous, at best, if all we look at is that little phrase, "within you."

I think that to be fair, we would have to build a theology from more than one verse here. We'd need both the immediate context and the larger Scriptural context, in order to delimit the proper meaning of the saying. We would, as the Pulpit Commentary suggests, have to decide what Jesus meant in the presence of the Pharisees as well as the disciples.

And given that the rest of Scripture invites the interpretation I suggest -- that it refers to Christians, not to everybody -- but in no way invites the one you suggest -- that it means "within all human beings already," (assuming I'm understanding your objection), then I submit to you that there are good reasons why I don't believe in the Gnostic reading of that lone verse.

So, now I’m curious how you came to see God as personal & not external.

"External"? Did you mean "internal"? I'm not sure of what your question is here. Sorry.

By "personal," I simply mean that God is a "Person" in the larger sense of having a specific identity, will, volition, nature, and so forth, as "persons" inevitably do: in fact, I suggest that the very concept "personhood," with which we are all so familiar, is derivative from God's primary "Personhood," since we are, as Genesis says, "created in the image" of God. We are "persons" because God, our Creator, is a "Person."

I trust this clears that up.

Thanks for clarifying.

If the idea “God is experienced (kingdom/realm is) within you” were more specific, wouldn’t it lose universal application? And where else would you experience God except within you?

Psych-ology (study of the soul) is part of spirituality & learning about God first hand - within.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, some commentators opt for the variant reading of "within":

"The phrase "in your midst" can also be translated as "within you" or "among you," leading to various interpretations. Theologically, this suggests that the kingdom of God is a present reality, embodied in the person and work of Jesus Christ." (The Study Bible)

"The kingdom of God could not be said to be in the hearts of those Pharisees to whom the Master was especially directing his words of reply here. It should be rather understood in the midst of your ranks; so Meyer and Farrar and others interpret it..." (Pulpit Commentary)

However, let's grant that it says "within." The question becomes, what does it imply? Does it imply that the Kingdom of God is latent within all human beings, or only within those who belong to Christ, as a result of salvation -- that it's a transformation of the inward man, not a universal possession of all men, including those who, like the listening Pharisees, hate God and are hypocrites? It's ambiguous, at best, if all we look at is that little phrase, "within you."

I think that to be fair, we would have to build a theology from more than one verse here. We'd need both the immediate context and the larger Scriptural context, in order to delimit the proper meaning of the saying. We would, as the Pulpit Commentary suggests, have to decide what Jesus meant in the presence of the Pharisees as well as the disciples.

And given that the rest of Scripture invites the interpretation I suggest -- that it refers to Christians, not to everybody -- but in no way invites the one you suggest -- that it means "within all human beings already," (assuming I'm understanding your objection), then I submit to you that there are good reasons why I don't believe in the Gnostic reading of that lone verse.

So, now I’m curious how you came to see God as personal & not external.

"External"? Did you mean "internal"? I'm not sure of what your question is here. Sorry.

By "personal," I simply mean that God is a "Person" in the larger sense of having a specific identity, will, volition, nature, and so forth, as "persons" inevitably do: in fact, I suggest that the very concept "personhood," with which we are all so familiar, is derivative from God's primary "Personhood," since we are, as Genesis says, "created in the image" of God. We are "persons" because God, our Creator, is a "Person."

I trust this clears that up.

Thanks for clarifying.

If the idea “God is experienced (kingdom/realm is) within you” were more specific, wouldn’t it lose universal application? And where else would you experience God except within you?

The "you" there clearly isn't universal. It's not everybody. The Pharisees, who were standing right there, could not expect it. He had already called them "sons of Hell" in Matthew 23:15, for example. But He might be saying what I was suggesting: that the Kingdom of God is a matter of inward transformation, such as is described in Romans 12:1-2, for example.

In other words, being in that Kingdom isn't a matter of externals, far less a matter of just being human. It's a matter of being transformed by the spiritual power of God...just as Jesus says in John 3: 4-8, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”

So there is a natural birth, which we all have. But that does not put the Kingdom of God inside anyone, because it creates only physical life, but not spiritual life. There is a second birth, a rebirth by the Spirit of God, which does put the Kingdom of God within you, since it creates spiritual life.

Psych-ology (study of the soul) is part of spirituality & learning about God first hand - within.

If that worked, all psychologists would be the most godly among us, would they not? But knowing about the human thinking processes is not spiritual knowledge. And it's not transformative and reconstitutive of the individual who is doing the knowing, as being born again by the Spirit of God is. Christ here clearly identifies being born again with an activity of the Spirit, and one not understandable to ordinary men who are thinking merely from the natural perspective. And this is what you see in Nicodemus, in John 3: a very intelligent man (historians tell us he was the second most celebrated teacher in Israel, at the time) well versed in Torah (all Pharisees had to memorize it all, in fact) yet unable to comprehend the reality of the Kingdom of God. He needed to be born again, or as it might also be translatable, "born from above."

[Perspective]

Thanks for clarifying.

If the idea “God is experienced (kingdom/realm is) within you” were more specific, wouldn’t it lose universal application? And where else would you experience God except within you?

The "you" there clearly isn't universal. It's not everybody. The Pharisees, who were standing right there, could not expect it. He had already called them "sons of Hell" in Matthew 23:15, for example. But He might be saying what I was suggesting: that the Kingdom of God is a matter of inward transformation, such as is described in Romans 12:1-2, for example.

In other words, being in that Kingdom isn't a matter of externals, far less a matter of just being human. It's a matter of being transformed by the spiritual power of God...just as Jesus says in John 3: 4-8, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”

So there is a natural birth, which we all have. But that does not put the Kingdom of God inside anyone, because it creates only physical life, but not spiritual life. There is a second birth, a rebirth by the Spirit of God, which does put the Kingdom of God within you, since it creates spiritual life.

Psych-ology (study of the soul) is part of spirituality & learning about God first hand - within.

If that worked, all psychologists would be the most godly among us, would they not? But knowing about the human thinking processes is not spiritual knowledge. And it's not transformative and reconstitutive of the individual who is doing the knowing, as being born again by the Spirit of God is. Christ here clearly identifies being born again with an activity of the Spirit, and one not understandable to ordinary men who are thinking merely from the natural perspective. And this is what you see in Nicodemus, in John 3: a very intelligent man (historians tell us he was the second most celebrated teacher in Israel, at the time) well versed in Torah (all Pharisees had to memorize it all, in fact) yet unable to comprehend the reality of the Kingdom of God. He needed to be born again, or as it might also be translatable, "born from above."

Just because a young woman doesn’t have children doesn’t mean she is incapable or that she doesn’t have potential. Similarly, the kingdom (realm) of God is within everyone. Just because someone has never experienced it, doesn’t mean the potential is not within them.

Since you brought up a scripture, I’ll share a similar one:
“Except ye be born again, ye cannot SEE the kingdom of God.” -John 3:3
To me, being born again is looking within (to the good & evil) & letting the evil die or be transformed/born to better. And it happens by learning and understanding - being able to see clearly. And I think philosophy as well as psychology helps with this.

Jung saw no dividing line between psychology & spirituality. By “psychology,” I don’t think he meant the screwed up field of psychology today, but rather the personal “study of the soul.”

[Immanuel Can]

Just because a young woman doesn’t have children doesn’t mean she is incapable or that she doesn’t have potential.

Maybe, but Jesus says the Kingdom of God isn't like that. Instead he says, "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

Since you brought up a scripture, I’ll share a similar one:
“Except ye be born again, ye cannot SEE the kingdom of God.” -John 3:3
To me, being born again is looking within (to the good & evil) & letting the evil die or be transformed/born to better. And it happens by learning and understanding - being able to see clearly. And I think philosophy as well as psychology helps with this.

"To me"? Well, we can all have "feelings" about what we might prefer to think, of course; but to Scripture, that's not how to understand that passage.

We might add this: "...in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God." (1 Co. 1:21)

[iambiguous]

Do you fear the Reaper?

Then the part where any number of Christians will claim they are not afraid of dying because they "just know" they are going to Heaven. Still, if this assumption is based on a leap of faith or a wager, there may well be a part of them that has doubts.

On the other hand, there are those like IC and the RF folks. In other words, beyond leaps and wagers and Scripture, they insist there is actual evidence -- historical and scientific -- that permits them to know that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

And, for some of us grappling with a fractured morality, an essentially meaningless existence and oblivion, of course there is going to be an interest in exploring this evidence.

I personally don’t think about God in the ordinary Christian traditional style. I’m not a Christian. I believe no human being was ever born a Christian. It’s just a false label people have attached to. It’s a secondary identity. Not a real character. God for me simply means life, and how life has been able to lift itself off it’s own starting block. To me, that’s all a miraculous mystery, it’s very God like.

The existence of existence itself is something I have never been able to wrap my head around. And, sure, a God, the God is one possible explanation. But over and again, I find myself coming back around to the part where what we believe about God is one thing, and what we can in fact actually demonstrate is true about His existence another thing altogether.

And then the part where this God-like "miraculous mystery" is accompanied by any number of deeply disturbing "acts of God":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Which is why Harold Kushner struck a chord in suggesting that, alas, the loving, just and merciful God of Abraham is not omnipotent.

Some drawbacks of Christianity in my opinion is that it tends to make some followers of the doctrine feel morally superior or at least induces moral superiority in them. It makes them blind to their own manipulations and judgements. It leads to extreme moral policing and judgement, to the point of hypocrisy and delusion. Makes them walk away from emotional truthness and actually deeper into sin as they begin to slander and judge even someone who might be or definitely is completely innocent.

In the interim, we have all those who embody any number of conflicting One True Paths. It's the Christians who are damned from their frame of mind.

And I guess I would have to agree with Immanuel Can. I too believe God is personal.

Okay, how then would you distinguish this from, say, Maia's Intrinsic Self? Apparently, Pagans come to their own personal conclusions regarding Nature and one or another God/Goddess. Through them they "just know" intuitively what the right thing to do is. And yet again, with so much at stake here on both sides of the grave, how does this really make much sense "for all practical purposes"?

I personally don’t think it’s necessary to be a Christian to understand God, because God is of my own private understanding of what I perceive God to be.

Sure, if this works in providing you with a frame of mind that allows you to anchor your Self to something in the way of a "transcending" religious font, thus providing you with some measure of comfort and consolation, that then becomes the bottom line, of course.

Simply I just trust in the process of life that’s living as me, a process I have zero control over, and that is a good thing as it feels as though I’m already being carried effectively, and it’s just so easy to surrender to this mysterious and miraculous process.

Zero control over? As in a life that has unfolded only as it ever could have? A mysterious and miraculous process such that any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...can all come to convince themselves that their own path really is the sole path to, well, whatever they need it to be.

[iambiguous]

Dear Dr. Craig, It seems to me that the kalam cosmological argument falsifies Buddhism and Hinduism, at least in their most common historical forms since they both teach that the cosmos is eternal. The cosmos goes through periods of chaos and rebirth, but it is eternal nonetheless in this view. Have you discussed the kalam cosmological argument with any Buddhists and Hindus? If so, what was their reaction to the argument? Thank you. Steve, U. S.

DR. CRAIG: I agree with Steve that the kalam cosmological argument, if sound, invalidates pantheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

So, what can he tell them other than "you must come around to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior or...or you are damned for all of eternity."

DR. CRAIG: While I've never had a debate or dialogue with a Hindu, I have done with a Buddhist. When I was speaking in Hong Kong at the University of Hong Kong I had a dialogue with a Buddhist monk, a woman in fact, and we discussed the arguments for God's existence. I think they fared very well.

Again, what am I missing here? Either this Buddhist monk comes around to Christianity or she burns in Hell along with all the other infidels.

Clearly, any number of Christians genuinely believe they must proselytize for Christ because, indeed, what is at stake here is the fate of our very souls.

[Fairy]

I personally don’t think about God in the ordinary Christian traditional style. I’m not a Christian. I believe no human being was ever born a Christian. It’s just a false label people have attached to. It’s a secondary identity. Not a real character. God for me simply means life, and how life has been able to lift itself off it’s own starting block. To me, that’s all a miraculous mystery, it’s very God like.

Some drawbacks of Christianity in my opinion is that it tends to make some followers of the doctrine feel morally superior or at least induces moral superiority in them. It makes them blind to their own manipulations and judgements. It leads to extreme moral policing and judgement, to the point of hypocrisy and delusion. Makes them walk away from emotional truthness and actually deeper into sin as they begin to slander and judge even someone who might be or definitely is completely innocent.

I have observed similarly. I grew up Christian+ but it took me a while to recognize some insane immorality. The dogmatic teachings of Jesus as human sacrifice scapegoat tend to be applied in interactions with others - blaming anyone who questions their immoral beliefs.

Yet, there are good aspects of Christianity, ie loving God/truth & others as oneself - as top priorities. My personal opinion is Saul, Constantine/Eusebius & others corrupted Christianity in ways to make it “anti-Christ.” Eg., If you, “put on the mind of Christ,” you carry your cross rather than shift it to make an innocent person pay.

Yes, you carry your own cross.

I personally interpret that to mean I am responsible for my own actions, I must therefore bear original witness in the moment as being the only one to be held accountable and to suffer the consequences that is paying back self accrued karmic debt. Cheating the pay back debt, is like lying, which is the opposite to living the actual living truth that can never lie or cheat, or deceive you, or betray or abandon you.

To carry your own cross is to cancel out your own burden of sin. It’s a metaphor for being carried by the Christ already in you. The Christ consciousness, conscious of it’s own inner intuitive conscience. Which is already a given.

[Fairy]

Then the part where any number of Christians will claim they are not afraid of dying because they "just know" they are going to Heaven. Still, if this assumption is based on a leap of faith or a wager, there may well be a part of them that has doubts.

On the other hand, there are those like IC and the RF folks. In other words, beyond leaps and wagers and Scripture, they insist there is actual evidence -- historical and scientific -- that permits them to know that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

And, for some of us grappling with a fractured morality, an essentially meaningless existence and oblivion, of course there is going to be an interest in exploring this evidence.

I personally don’t think about God in the ordinary Christian traditional style. I’m not a Christian. I believe no human being was ever born a Christian. It’s just a false label people have attached to. It’s a secondary identity. Not a real character. God for me simply means life, and how life has been able to lift itself off it’s own starting block. To me, that’s all a miraculous mystery, it’s very God like.

The existence of existence itself is something I have never been able to wrap my head around. And, sure, a God, the God is one possible explanation. But over and again, I find myself coming back around to the part where what we believe about God is one thing, and what we can in fact actually demonstrate is true about His existence another thing altogether.

And then the part where this God-like "miraculous mystery" is accompanied by any number of deeply disturbing "acts of God":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Which is why Harold Kushner struck a chord in suggesting that, alas, the loving, just and merciful God of Abraham is not omnipotent.

Some drawbacks of Christianity in my opinion is that it tends to make some followers of the doctrine feel morally superior or at least induces moral superiority in them. It makes them blind to their own manipulations and judgements. It leads to extreme moral policing and judgement, to the point of hypocrisy and delusion. Makes them walk away from emotional truthness and actually deeper into sin as they begin to slander and judge even someone who might be or definitely is completely innocent.

In the interim, we have all those who embody any number of conflicting One True Paths. It's the Christians who are damned from their frame of mind.

And I guess I would have to agree with Immanuel Can. I too believe God is personal.

Okay, how then would you distinguish this from, say, Maia's Intrinsic Self? Apparently, Pagans come to their own personal conclusions regarding Nature and one or another God/Goddess. Through them they "just know" intuitively what the right thing to do is. And yet again, with so much at stake here on both sides of the grave, how does this really make much sense "for all practical purposes"?

I personally don’t think it’s necessary to be a Christian to understand God, because God is of my own private understanding of what I perceive God to be.

Sure, if this works in providing you with a frame of mind that allows you to anchor your Self to something in the way of a "transcending" religious font, thus providing you with some measure of comfort and consolation, that then becomes the bottom line, of course.

Simply I just trust in the process of life that’s living as me, a process I have zero control over, and that is a good thing as it feels as though I’m already being carried effectively, and it’s just so easy to surrender to this mysterious and miraculous process.

Zero control over? As in a life that has unfolded only as it ever could have? A mysterious and miraculous process such that any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...can all come to convince themselves that their own path really is the sole path to, well, whatever they need it to be.

The measure of comfort and consolation is drawn only from the enlightened knowledge that everyone is being lived perfectly in every moment.

Everyone is being lived. No one is living independently in and of themselves separate from life living itself perfectly, for there is no one that is not already life living itself perfectly.Even amid the chaos and the darkness, perfection reigns supreme.

The separation is illusory, appearing real.

Total surrender to what is, is both the lock and the key.

Jesus the man was an exemplary illustration of what the total surrendering to life, looks and feels like.

Did Jesus die, no, Jesus is a metaphor for eternal life living and breathing here today in life itself as and through every conscious and non conscious separate singular unique expression of the same Christ consciousness.

[Fairy]

Dear Dr. Craig, It seems to me that the kalam cosmological argument falsifies Buddhism and Hinduism, at least in their most common historical forms since they both teach that the cosmos is eternal. The cosmos goes through periods of chaos and rebirth, but it is eternal nonetheless in this view. Have you discussed the kalam cosmological argument with any Buddhists and Hindus? If so, what was their reaction to the argument? Thank you. Steve, U. S.

DR. CRAIG: I agree with Steve that the kalam cosmological argument, if sound, invalidates pantheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

So, what can he tell them other than "you must come around to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior or...or you are damned for all of eternity."

DR. CRAIG: While I've never had a debate or dialogue with a Hindu, I have done with a Buddhist. When I was speaking in Hong Kong at the University of Hong Kong I had a dialogue with a Buddhist monk, a woman in fact, and we discussed the arguments for God's existence. I think they fared very well.

Again, what am I missing here? Either this Buddhist monk comes around to Christianity or she burns in Hell along with all the other infidels.

Clearly, any number of Christians genuinely believe they must proselytize for Christ because, indeed, what is at stake here is the fate of our very souls.

What is at stake could possibly be the human psyche’s greatest challenge. You know what my dark night of the soul was about? Nihilism.It felt like a death. Even though I’ve never actually experienced death. Isn’t that a divine paradox.

I’m here alive, I experience being alive. I’ve never experienced being dead.

To me, the most obvious thing is being missed. What if death isn’t real. What if there’s only life living infinitely for eternity.

Rational logic points to the obviousness that nothingness cannot be. There’s always going to be something and this something cannot know what this something is until after it comes.

On earth as it is in heaven, thy will be done, thy kingdom come.

This is all pointless? Right?
This is where divine humor helps. You know what, I want to be a nothing because i don't really have a choice, the only choice is to avoid looking at the truth. And the truth will set you free.

The illusion that you are a separate form, with the will to choose is the divine place of opposites. To be or not to be that is the question. Questions arise to the sense of a separate self, in the place of multiplicity. Where choice is to live or die.

Choose life. Or, choose death, just try killing your self, who ever you think that self who can be killed is?

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Infinity with a twist.