Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The God Delusion
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I've recently been reading Plato's dialogues and I can see why early Christians were so taken with them. They put this sort of idea into words that are as eloquent as I've ever read. This side of monotheism is actually quite appealing. It's all the other stuff that bothers me.
Actually matter being neither created nor destroyed is a fundamental law of science. It's called the law of the conservation of matter and energy. There isn't anything controversial about it hence it being a law.
Yes, they do. Life has even been observed coming into being in a lab setting. Provide the necessary conditions and life happens all by itself.
With respect, you are probably getting this idea from a creationist website rather than from an actual source of science. This will help correct your knowledge.
The problem that I have with the above is that it is a claim lacking evidence. Science has a naturalistic explanation of how the universe and life formed and the really nice thing about the naturalistic explanation is it has evidence supporting it instead of just claims.
I did ask you how you reconciled your beliefs with science and you did respond, thoroughly, so I thank you for that.
Good luck with your evangelism. While you are here might I recommend becoming Buddhist?
Um, no, there are other logical (and more importantly, demonstrable) explanations for the beginning of life on Earth than God. There are numerous models of abiogenesis currently being explored by scientists.
Yeah, but according to your beliefs God created everything, including those who don't believe he exists and those who don't agree with the bible in regard to what sin is etc.
So, it's your God's fault he created things that pissed himself off.
So two sins make a right (e.g., killing the children of people who kill their children a la Deut 20:16-18 is just)?
Yes, there is much controversy surrounding this law. Matter naturally moves away from other matter/decomposes (I think this is Brown's Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and 2. Energy + matter = destruction, not organized, functioning life.
I object to this statement. No scientist has EVER been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life.
All men have a sense of God, but not all admit it, due to a defeater.
The defeater always is built upon their own human reason which they attempt to place above all else. In other words, they have built a system on an error, that they are able to arrive at full truth all by themselves. It is an error because by making themselves the supreme arbiters of truth, they place themselves outside the universe. But since they are inside the universe, they cannot view the universe objectively.
The error can be viewed by analogy with closed systems, such as an engine in a car. By controlling the input into the car, and closing (limiting) the system itself, one can measure output and come up with reliable results. By studying this system, physical laws can be determined, laws which already exist. But the results of studying the closed system can only be applied to an open system, such as weather, with limited value. There the physical laws learned from closed systems, such as an engine or any other closed system which can be measured with precision, have only limited application to the open system, and thus weather cannot be predicted with much reliability. And even the closed systems themselves have limited value in ascertaining physical laws with certainty, since there is always a range of error within probability, however small. Furthermore, an "open" system such as weather on earth, when viewed from outer space, is itself a closed system, yet human reason is limited in how to interpret it and make reliable coclusions. Thus human reason can draw conclusions from the limitations of human experience, but ultimately falls short somewhere.
So although a human being is born with a God-sense, he may not admit it due to his error in believing that his reason is supreme. Since by relying on his own limited sense of reality, he comes to wrong conclusions in application to the ultimate open system, the only truly open system, God, who is infinite. Thus man, who is born with a sense of God, can never fully understand who and what God is on his own, and if he try, he introduces a defeater which leads him to a false understanding of God and to a denial that the infinite, ie God, exists, against his own created God-sense.
To rely on pure reason is irrational. Most of the "measurements" of modern science are speculative, at best. Men think they know a great deal, but what they "know" is generally based on a model of assumptions, which if all true would render their theories sound, but if one of which is not, the whole conclusion is rendered tenuous.
Yes! Human reason is the enemy! If we can only remove reason, we can be open to the Truth™!</sarcasm>
Not all killing is unjust. It is only cold blooded murder which God forbids. The law distinguises between manslaughter and premeditated killing.
As Christians, we must embrace mystery. To believe these mysteries does not mean that we reject or avoid reason and scientific methods. No, we use them as long and as far as they will take us. But we recognize their limitations, and in the end we always surrender ourselves and our findings to the highest and truest authority—the Word of God.
Among whom? Among scientists or creationists?
True, it's the amino acids, or the building blocks of cells that have been observed forming readily. Take those plus time and water and life forms.
Yes, I read the bible from cover to cover multiple times and using reason concluded it portrayed a deity I had no interest in. Seemed odd that a deity would put the first humans up against the devil and then judge them for being deceived. Especially when the deity was said to be omniscient.
This is a question I find interesting to think about:
When a Christian says 'You need to be saved'. what are they saying one needs to be saved from? The answer is ironic I think. We need God to save us from himself. We need God to spare us from his angry side and show us his loving side.
My reason tells me this god sounds like a human with a serious personality disorder. You disagree of course which is fine.
OK, so what's the distinction in the case of God commanding the Israelites to "not leave alive anything that breathes," which would have included innocent children that you say were being sacrificed to Moloch? How is authorizing their extermination along with their parents just? Is it considered just simply for the fact that God said it was cool? If so, how convenient for 'People of the Book' that the atrocities they commit are considered just in the eyes of the Lord while others are not.
I was with you until "we always surrender ourselves and our findings to the highest and truest authority—the Word of God."
Well, you must know that it is only man who has the option to murder (and it was Gods command that those people be killed). If God so wished he could wipe us off the face of this Earth (and rightly so!). "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) "The punishment for Sin is death" (Romans 6:23). So in Gods view, nobody is "innocent".
So God must punish according to justice. God is the standard for justice... not man made laws. The punishment rises with the dignity of the one insulted. Insult a homeless man, and you'll probably get off easy. Insult a judge, and the punishment is severe. Insult God, who is infinitely worthy of your love, loyalty, respect, and admiration? The punishment is infinite. An eternal Hell. But God is love, and sent His Son. (see my profile for post on gospel)
I'm on a Buddhist forum to discuss Buddhist topics, not to debate the veracity of your beliefs. I fully support your faith in Christianity, you can believe in whatever you want. If you want to discuss our similarities instead of our differences I would be all for it; instead you've come to try and prove the existence of God, which is impossible. I'm not interested in your proselytizing. If you're only here to convert people, you're not going to get very far.
A creationist cannot be a scientist? I object to that as well... But among scientists this is controversy known, yet generally not discussed as it is a blow to their self esteem.
Since God justice His perfect, His justice must be satisfied. So in short the Father Sends His Son to the Earth (same divine essence of the Father, but a different person of the trinity). Jesus is Born of a virgin Mary, and walks on this Earth living a life in perfect accordance with the law. That is to say, He loves the Father, with all His heart, mind, strength, and Soul. with every action, thought, desire, etc. This life of Christs can be imputed to us by faith in Him (falling on Him as our only hope). Christ then goes to the cross, and the Father in love for us, pours out His Holy wrath which was to be poured out on us in Hell (Christ was infinite). And the punishment which you and I deserve was satisfied (The justice of God was satisfied). So yes, to show us His loving side, he had to to spare us from His angry side.
I explained this in the above post. And it is far from fine if I'm right.;)
God is a spirit and therefore non corporal. No property of matter may be ascribed to Him. He has no extension in space, no weight, no mass, no bulk, no parts, no form, no taste, no smell. He is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17 6:16). in this sense He cannot be proven. However, His existence can be supported with the created order, and the inerency, logical consistency, Historical and archeological validity of the Bible, etc etc etc. But for what its worth, I don't intend to convert a single soul on this forum. As I said God generally does all things indirectly. In this case through me, maybe.
I would like to hear the similarities of Christianity and Buddhism. I mean this with no disrespect.
And what exactly did these children do that so insulted God, being born? What assholes.
Hm, this is probably what I should've said. Good form, mugzy.
I'm not even here to discuss the existence of God. It was an accident that we even got on the topic. I was responding to a post that clearly misrepresented the Christian faith. As people often do.
Yeah, funny how that sort of stuff just happens, eh?
I don't think so.
The majority of Buddhists in the west are disillusioned, and very jaded ex-Christians. I was a Roman catholic before I came to Buddhism.
Nothing would ever persuade me to go back to that.
Many on here know a darn sight more about Christianity than you give them credit for.
I would suggest you seek information on Buddhism a lot more, and discuss god (his existence or anything else) a lot less.
Very much so yes. Can I help it that you guys have a healthy sense of curiosity? You're the ones asking all the questions, not me. What good would it do to leave someone in the dark, when the light is just a click away?
Touché. Well played, my persistent friend.
I think its cool to write a book about why you find atheism to be true. It is even cool to try to bring about a positive social change. But I think that to the extent that it is possible cooperation and respect among different views will bring a greater number of 'good ends'. Angrily burning signs and so forth doesn't cut it. This happens in many movements such as ecology and could even enter into the rights for gay marriage. A good ideal gets taken over by someone who has a rigid view themselves and does not make a compassionate dialogue where both sides are respected and valued. Of course we can't all just sing koom ba ya and there are going to be practical disagreements that can be settled partially by raising consciousness of your issue.
Going back to something earlier I often hear that atheists say THOU SHALT NOT BELIEVE something that CANNOT be proven. I always ask them if they love their mothers. Or beer or whatever. Something they love. Then I ask them to prove to me that they aren't lying about their love. Its not a perfect argument but the point I am trying to make is that a belief in a God is a very personal choice. It would be like I go in McDonalds and start arguing with the customers that the food is unhealthy. Even if its true and even if your tax dollars are going to medical costs from such unhealth.... even so I would find such behaviour distasteful.
I recall the Da Lai Lama's arguments for why we should not criticize other people's religions. And I had my own metaphor that I gleaned from an essay by HHDL. Its like someone is on a raft and you sink their raft because you want to give them a better one. But they never get the better one, what had worked for you, because they cannot live the same way as you they have their own unique needs.
The Vatican's conformity to this world, and de-confomirty to scripture denies them biblical credibility as a 'true church'. It was Martin Luther who surfaced the doctrines of the Early church before it fell into apostasy with the Roman Catholics. But later in History (somewhere in the early 1900's) carnal Christianity was introduced, and today America is in the midst of wolves. But the great majority of the population are still unaware that Christianity is not about saying a prayer "Jesus, please come into my heart". Most of the professing converts in the world either (I don't think this is an overstatement) live Christianity legalistically-which is works salvation-as the pharisees lived, or they simply trust in the prayer which they said all those years ago, which is also works. They do not rely on the blood of Christ, which is the starting point for all genuine Christians. This is because many of them have never heard the true interpretation of the gospel and perish through lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Furthermore, the Bible teaches that the evidence for conversion can be seen by the life one lives, as they are a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17), with a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26). This means that they are not only IN CHRIST, counted righteous. But given new motives, new rules, and new aims. See this article if you want assurance of your salvation.
Matthew 7:19 - Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
James 2:17 - So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
when we breath out our life is fading away irrespective of the fact that we know/not know that we are dieing
if there is no in breath in the next moment do we live in the next moment?
(do not bring arguments such as there is artificial breath etc. please)
breath in and out helps not to break the body but keeps the continuation of it
to live we need to think and for that we have the mind
as soon as there is an in breath the mind activates or thoughts come into mind
at this very instance, do we have God in our mind? Does God send thoughts into our mind?
we behave according to our thinking pattern and it is enriched by what we have learned from our parents, friends, society, school, books etc.
where does God involve in changing our thinking pattern?
Now I understand that is not the Christian viewpoint (to Christian poster) but I am just sharing my own experience of how prayer to God (to me) feels a lot like meditation... Most specifically like metta meditation.
(sorry to go off topic but I wanted to share that)
This seems to bare a striking resemblance to humanistic relativism.
It is spiritual transformation, and results in a will to change our thoughts. It is not the instantaneous transformation of our thinking patterns which our cultural upbringing has so thoroughly implanted. When man sinned in the garden, God took the light from man by which he could see God desirable above all things. As a result, man was left to pursue this word: pleasure, power, esteem, status, etc. True converts will to think, and behave righteously out of love for their master, because they are reunited to God through Christ, and no longer are blind to see His desirability. Hope that helps... This question was directed at me, or no?:-/
Yes but the point I'm trying to get across is why call it Christianity if its not?
Why not form a cult like Joseph Smith and make a little cash on the side? :rolleyes:
Its a matter of truth, and life, and death. not about what feels good.
John 14:13 - Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Prayer is like a wartime walkie talkie. Not a domestic intercom... "oh waiter, could you bring me another banana pudding?" Anything that brings benefit to the kingdom you may ask of Jesus and he will give you. Need more humility? You may have it. Need to pay the rent? The Lord provides for His own. How bout that new extravagant vehicle? Its unlikely God will help you there as the more luxury one has, the more spiritually dull they become. Need joy? Meditate on scriptures about Joy, and ask the Holy spirit to enlighten the eyes of your heart. But I can assure you, if you pursue joy through any other thing than the person of Jesus Christ, than God is not listening. We cannot even talk to God without the Holy Spirit which we can only have through the Sons interceding for us.(Hebrews 7:25)
Romans 8:26 - "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
Also,
Hebrews 12:6 - "For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons."
Christianity is not so much about feelings as it is about reality. As a Christian you will not live a life of pleasure. It usually starts rough (with discipline from God), and with assurance of salvation comes joy like you've never had (which sometimes happens instantly). There is a difference between joy and pleasure. And Joy is much more desirable. Nor is it wise to trade a drop of pleasure, for a sea of wrath! The Christians joy comes from his hope of heaven. To dwell in the presence of God will fill us with such ecstasy that unless you were supernaturally strengthened you would be destroyed, by your own pleasure, and joy which are at this point synonymous.
Psalm 16:11 - "In your presence there is fullness of joy, in your right hand are pleasures for evermore"
I have a really hard time reading this with a straight face. It sounds so dirty.
I am of the belief that God is beyond concepts and non-concepts. God is not being or non-being. God is God and God is not God. The word "God" is just a label. It is pointless to try and label God or ascribe personality traits (such as jealousy, anger, etc) to something that is far beyond what our mind can comprehend. That is the belief I arrived at through extensive personal searching, not by being told what to believe by years of being a strict Christian.
Some things just don't make sense, especially in regards to the God of the bible. With the examples you provided, there are far too many human judgments and errors being made by a supposedly infallible being. If God exists, why would "he" eternally punish "his" own creations for the free will they were given? If God is all-pervasive, God would be in hell as well as heaven simultaneously. Therefore it would stand to reason that it would be impossible to ever be truly separated from God.
These concepts are not something that can be explained the same way by every single person. We all see things differently.
I have read the bible cover to cover many times. I was tired of trying to make my beliefs match those of the bible, because it just didn't work. Not to mention the fact that I was quite ashamed of being associated with ignorant, bigoted jerks who use the bible and God to justify their hatred and violence.
It is like the warming rays of the sun that help a flower to open.
But it is the opening and the clear seeing that is liberating. And you don't have to see pleasure. You can see all sorts of distressing stuff but since you have that love to cradle the negitivity it helps you to see it clearly.
"The purpose of the Holy Life does not consist in aquiring alms, honour or fame, nor in gaininng morality, concentration, or the eye of knowledge. That unshakeable deliverance of the heart, that i, indeed is the object of the Holy Life. That is its essence. That is its goal." - Shakyamuni Buddha
So I reflect on that and I reflect on the words 'deliverance of the heart' and what that means to me. To me it means something higher than pleasure like you say. But is something very vast that you open out to. I know that a practice is valuable when it feels liberating. Not because I read it, or heard it spoken by someone I respect. But because I personally feel it.
In buddhism it is believed that if the mind did not have the ability to know things. To know when it knows something. And when it is confused. IF the mind did not have that quality then there would be no possibility for liberation from suffering. Because we wouldn't be able to see what is liberating. We wouldn't be able to see connections in our life and act intelligently in reponse.
Its why people take drugs, and look at pornography. If your not getting it from somewhere, your going to seek to get it from somewhere else because its why we were made.
I will attempt to answer your questions. I truly hope this helps you.
It is not pointless to try to label Him if God is the original pattern of all other beauty (they are His traits to begin with), Wisdom, Power, and Love, etc, etc. Holiness is who God IS. When God said, "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14) He said this because He cannot say, "I am like Him". He cannot point to something or somebody outside Himself. Gods Holiness is not something merely ascribed to moral purity. Holiness is who God IS (Exodus 15:11, Isaiah 6:3). He is completely other. If I were to compare a flaming archangel, to a bacteria which one would be more like God? Neither, as God is an utter alien.
We can cannot fully comprehend God as He is infinite, and we are finite (Hence an eternal heaven) But this does not mean we cannot know Him if He has chosen to reveal Himself to Mankind. He made us in His image for this purpose. To know Him.
For man to be made in Gods image is to say that man and women can reflect and reproduce at our own creaturely level the holy ways of God. And in one sense we are truly human to the extent that we fulfill it. Genesis 1:1-25 sets forth God as personal, rational (having intelligence and will), creative, ruling over the world He has made, and morally admirable. (in that all He creates is good). So Gods image will reflect these qualities. Verses 28-30 show God blessing the newly created humans an setting them to rule creation as His representatives and deputies. THe human capacity for communication and relationship with both God and other humans appears as a further aspect of the image. To be created in the image of God also means to have an eternal soul, or spirit (Gen 2:7), as personal and self conscious, with a God like capacity for knowledge, thought, and action. It also means to be morally pure, a quality which was lost in the fall, but now being progressively restored in Christ (Eph. 4:24, Col 3:10).
I interpret what I learn in light of scripture, to see if it adds up. I do not accept any doctrine or any other teaching, unless it aligns with the word of God.
This is where it gets complicated.
I know its a very weighty doctrine. But its what the Bible teaches. That God chose His children, before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). If God saved some certain individual with regard to who they are than that would be works/Lordship salvation no different from legalism which the pharisees taught. The unconditional call of God apart from all human distinctives is the means by which God maintains his purpose of election (His choosing of who will be saved). If he did not call men without regard to their distinctives, but instead called them on the basis of their distinctives, then God's purpose of election would fall to the ground. God would become like a political candidate up for vote going from precinct to precinct to see if he might be elected Lord. God would propose, but man would dispose. The size and make up of God's constituency would be owing finally to the vote of man. The success of Christian missions and the possibility of converts from every tongue and tribe and people and nation would depend finally on the vote man. But the apostle Paul, being inspired by the Holy spirit, knows nothing of such a God. Instead he says that God set his favor on Jacob and not Esau before they were born so that HIS purpose of election might stand, not on the basis of their deeds but only on the basis of his call... the call that accords with his purpose of election.
This verse says it all: Romans 9:11 - though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad in order that Gods purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls. And when Paul raised the question in verse 14, "Is there injustice on God's part?" He says, no, and quotes Moses (in verse 15): "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." And when he raises the question in verse 19, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" He answers in verse 21, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"
Furthermore, a sin is only sinful because of the attitude of the heart in doing it. When humans sin, we are by definition rebelling against God. But in ordaining human sin, God doesn't rebel against himself. Rather, he ordains our sins with good ends in mind, which makes the act of ordaining them not sinful, since the attitude of his heart is not rebellious but righteous. Some biblical expressions that seem to support this understading are Genesis 50:20 and Romans 11:32.
Many people consider Hell to be the absence of God, but Hell is described throughout the Bible as a place of fire. Fire is figurative language to signify the presence of the divine (1 Kings 19:12, Psalms 50:3, Isaiah 66:15). Hell is to be eternally in the presence of God. Heaven is to be eternally in the presence of God, with a Mediator.
Hebrews 12:29 - for our God is a consuming fire.
Proverbs 29:25 - The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe.
It's one thing to believe in a deity of some sort as that can't be proven or disproven, but the god of the bible is very easy to disprove if one accepts the evidence of the physical sciences such as biology, astronomy, geology etc. If one doesn't accept the sciences as evidence then there is no point in discussion with such a person as they reject current knowledge in favor of an ancient text.
To answer your earlier question, no, creationists are not scientists. They don't do any science, they just misrepresent science and tear down straw men.
The earth is billions of years old, humans have existed for a couple-few hundred thousand years with the same anatomy as today for 50-100,000 years. Chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor 6 million years ago. There was no need for a creator as the big bang explains the origin of the galaxies and the matter and energy always existed and always will and the building blocks of life form readily with appropriate conditions being met. The god of the gaps has been squeezed out of existence.
Sorry.
above statement too, like our upbringings is given to us by Someone and we have to believe it as true
but it is not hard to behave righteously with unconditional love if we are wise enough to know the difference between right and wrong
Don't you just hate how people get to burn in hell for eternity when predestination makes it so clear they never had a chance? It takes faith to be saved, but only God can give man that faith and he only gives it to whom he will.
I don't really understand how anyone can worship a being like that, but I don't have to. Glad those days are over for me. I hope you too will soon be able to shed the weight of that shackle and be free. Words cannot describe the feeling of liberation I felt when I realized it was all a fiction. I no longer had to convince myself the god of the bible wasn't a monster. That took a lot of mental energy.
Until your given a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26) you cannot do it for the right reason, which is out of love for God. People often do good things for self centered reasons. Like "pleasure, power, esteem, and status". I may think I'm lowly in spirit, but what if I'm boasting in my humility? I may admit I'm boasting in my humility, but what if its a pose?:eek:
Amen.
LOVE R.C. Sproul! Are you referring to any specific Book, or argument?
Jonathan Edwards-who I'm sure your familiar with-had the same struggle as you with election.
"From childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God, and his justice in thus eternally disposing of [dealing with] men, according to his sovereign pleasure. But never could give an account, how, or by what means, I was, thus convinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a long time after, that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s Spirit in it but only that now I saw further, and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it. However, my mind rested in it; and it put an end to all those cavils and objections. And there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, in respect to the doctrine of God's sovereignty, from that day to this; so that I scarce ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it, in the most absolute sense, in God’s shewing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and hardening whom he will. God’s absolute sovereignty and justice, with respect to salvation and damnation, is what my mind seems to rest assured of, as much as of any thing that I see with my eyes, at least it is so at times. The doctrine has very often appeared exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God." (Jonathan Edwards, Selections [New York: Hill and Wang, 1962], pp. 58-59).
Buddha's Teaching says we are deluded with this so called 'self'
if you are interested you can read the discussions threads 'self-nonself', 'anatta' etc. in this forum and get an idea
we do not have to believe Buddha's Teaching until we see there is a truth in it
we can not hide from the result of what we have thought/spoken/done even though we think we can hide from others
if there is a cause there is an effect, so no point in boasting
Sodom & Gomorrah
Noah's Ark
Red Sea Crossing
Mt. Sinai
Crucifixion site of Christ
I appreciate this info, and I'm sure Buddhists are very moral people. But I think the difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that the practice of righteousness does not eliminate any immorality from your record. Past or future. Hence the guilt remains, and also the judgment. (if there is a God of coarse) To eliminate these things It takes a savior. Not a mere mentor.
do you just go on believing?
just ponder on these two questions, no need to answer
wish you happiness!!!
Actually, yes it does.
We cultivate positive kamma in order to redress the balance of negaitve kamma, and eliminate it.
When we are fortunate enough to be reborn in a human realm, we take this opportunity and advantage to cultivate positive kamma.
We do our own elimination and cultivation.
There is no need for Guilt or Judgement, both of which are illusory hindrances, and Mind-games. They are actual designs to hold a person back, and enslave them into a mind-set that is inhibiting and unproductive.
When our 'mentor' does a perfectly good job of showing us the Path, why would we need anything else?
If we'd needed a saviour, don't you think we would have invented one by now?
Oh how I agree with you, Jason. And we've got a pretty hefty advocate in Calvin's own favourite: Saint Augustine of Hippo. I've been trying to locate the precise reference to his comments on the Two Books that God inspires (Scripture and Nature) but, my memory failing me (eheu fugaces!), I googled and came up with an interesting blog:
http://groansfromwithin.com/2010/08/25/augustine-evolution-and-two-books/
The vehemence and absolutism of the OP, so contrary to our usual debate (!), makes it hard for someone like me (if there are any) to express a completely different view and reclaim the name of Christian. Indeed, I am sure that Cifrado would deny me that name.
May I nail my colours to the mast? There really are times!
It's all stories, folks! Heaven, salvation, enlightenment, Ultima Thule. The one that fits for me is that Fede is absolutely right, we need a mentor - or mentors.
The story that makes sense of the world for me is that the Christ is a statement, in time, of both here-and-now Mystery and the reality of what Teilhard calls the Omega Point: ontology and teleology. The Buddha is the supreme guide through the here-and-now Mystery.
He can try but he'd have to get past me first.
One word that runs contrary to the generosity and tolerance of his hosts and he can leave by the dogflap.