[K]

To start the thread out, let me lay out why I don’t believe in Christianity, to help give you some ideas where to start:
1. Lack of good reason to believe it.
2. Belief that when intelligent, sincere, learned people disagree, the only thing one can know for sure is that humans are bad at figuring out this topic. In a 50/50 controversy where each side thinks the other is wrong, the only thing I can be sure of is that at least 50% of people are wrong.
3. Not nearly as important as the first 2, but an objection to a non-redemptive Hell as being logically compatible with a universe created ex nihilo by a perfectly good being. The mental acrobatics necessary to accept this usually end up destroying my ability to understand the meaning of words in the Bible.

[Lelouch]

1. Lack of good reason to believe it.

As with any belief system, there are numerous reasons why people believe in Christianity. These can include personal experiences, historical evidence, philosophical arguments, and scientific discoveries. For example, the historical evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is compelling, and many people find this evidence convincing. Additionally, philosophical arguments for God’s existence, such as the cosmological and teleological arguments, provide further support for Christianity.

2. Belief that when intelligent, sincere, learned people disagree, the only thing one can know for sure is that humans are bad at figuring out this topic.

It is certainly true that intelligent, sincere, learned people can disagree on matters of faith. However, this does not necessarily mean that all positions are equally valid. It is possible for some positions to be more logically consistent, supported by better evidence, or more in line with the teachings of the Bible. Furthermore, while there may be some areas of disagreement within Christianity, there is also a great deal of agreement on essential doctrines such as the existence of God, the deity of Christ, and the importance of salvation.

3. Not nearly as important as the first 2, but an objection to a non-redemptive Hell as being logically compatible with a universe created ex nihilo by a perfectly good being.

The concept of Hell is a difficult one, and there are different views within Christianity on the nature of Hell. However, it is important to understand that Hell is not a punishment that God desires for anyone. Rather, it is the consequence of human sin and rebellion against God. God is perfectly good and just, and He cannot simply overlook sin and evil. Therefore, Hell exists as a place of separation from God and punishment for those who choose to reject Him. However, Christianity also teaches that God has provided a way of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and that all who turn to Him in repentance and faith can be saved from the consequences of sin.

[jayceeii]

My argument would be for Christ, but not for Christianity. I’m sometimes concerned I’ll be mistaken for someone who wants to throw out all religion, when instead I’d argue for a higher (and realistic) religion. If you know the human capacities, then you know it is beyond those capacities to make the kinds of remarks Jesus made consistently. You see it in the Christian liturgy, how they always set aside a portion for “the Word of the Lord,” that those remarks have an otherworldly or heavenly standpoint. They also typically include a reading from Paul as well, and I think this is because humans are uncomfortable with the way Jesus spoke. As they better heed Paul they bear witness Jesus was different.

What you see in the words of Jesus (or I’d say of Buddha) is the Mind of the Creator presenting to His people. These are things God decided before they were presented, even did the Incarnation give longer speeches than Jesus and Buddha combined. Behind every word there is, “I am God, this is what I will say.” If you can get this sense that Jesus was not like a usual man, then you can wonder what else He was. There are fine points here, since as Jesus predicted there are many pretenders to the throne of Christ. But I have seen these are universally bad, unable to rise to a truly detached and selfless position. If there is a God and He appears upon Earth, then you know you have a soul and its fate is good.

I’m afraid I can’t stand behind the miracles of the Bible, including the Resurrection. And to me the notion of eternal hell points a finger at human hubris, that they believe so readily they’d be worth tormenting eternally. To put it another way, why would God create a soul only to condemn it, not just temporarily for the sake of reformation, but forever? Hell would take a lot of resources and power to sustain, were it so constituted! The human judicial system reforms many, one would think that just a little licking of fire at one toe would cause a sinner to repent, instead of being cast into a place where he’d want to repent with all his heart but not be allowed. But I think since Jesus mentioned hell, there is some negative fate, although those undergoing it might not think it negative.

The world has been sure God longs for a reunion with man, but I am not convinced that it is so. Though speaking wonderfully, Jesus also spoke cryptically, with secondary meanings. There is no straightforward interpretation of Jesus’ remarks that leads to Christianity as it has developed, which I have said could be called Paulianity instead, as it rests more on Paul than on Christ. For instance Jesus promised eternal life, but not direct entry into Heaven after one lifetime. You can never find where He said what Paul interpreted. John 3:16 does not say, “whosoever believes in Him will go to Heaven when they die.” People presume, saying, “What else can it mean?” and Christianity is based on rumor, not Jesus’ direct Word. It can mean other things, lengthening the road to Heaven.

[Lelouch]

Christianity is founded on the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of humanity. Without Christianity, there would be no recognition of Jesus’ role in the salvation of humanity, and any higher religion would not include the crucial aspect of Jesus’ teachings and actions.

It is true that Jesus’ teachings and actions were exceptional. However, it is also important to note that Christians believe in the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding believers and empowering them to do extraordinary things. Therefore, it is not necessarily evidence against Christianity that Jesus’ teachings are beyond human capacities.

Regarding the miracles of the Bible, including the Resurrection, Christians believe that these events demonstrate the power of God and the truth of Jesus’ teachings. While it is understandable to question supernatural events, Christians believe that faith in God includes accepting the possibility of miracles.

Christians believe that God is just and loving, and that the existence of hell is a consequence of human free will to choose to reject God’s love and grace. While it may seem harsh, Christians believe that God gives every person the opportunity to accept His love and forgiveness, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make that choice.

Christians believe that the Bible as a whole, including both Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of the apostles such as Paul, provides a complete understanding of God’s plan for humanity. While there may be different interpretations of specific passages, Christians believe that the overall message of the Bible is clear: that God loves humanity and desires to be in a relationship with us, but that sin separates us from God and that Jesus is the way to bridge that gap.

While it is understandable to have questions and doubts about specific aspects of Christianity, the foundational belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of humanity is crucial to the Christian faith.

[jayceeii]

LL: Christianity is founded on the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of humanity. Without Christianity, there would be no recognition of Jesus’ role in the salvation of humanity, and any higher religion would not include the crucial aspect of Jesus’ teachings and actions.

JC: Jesus isn’t really much of a starting point for higher religions. Granted, this was the Creator and Jesus made good use of His small opportunities (one can ask why He was not given broader opportunities for copious discourse, since the need of man for guidance is great). Christianity came out as Jesus wanted, but there’s a far larger story being written.

LL: It is true that Jesus’ teachings and actions were exceptional. However, it is also important to note that Christians believe in the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding believers and empowering them to do extraordinary things. Therefore, it is not necessarily evidence against Christianity that Jesus’ teachings are beyond human capacities.

JC: The Holy Spirit’s effects are shallow and temporary. Sin can’t be driven from the sinner. I’m not expecting Christians to change. They are where they’re supposed to be.

LL: Regarding the miracles of the Bible, including the Resurrection, Christians believe that these events demonstrate the power of God and the truth of Jesus’ teachings. While it is understandable to question supernatural events, Christians believe that faith in God includes accepting the possibility of miracles.

JC: Yes, they do. And they’ll wait.

LL: Christians believe that God is just and loving, and that the existence of hell is a consequence of human free will to choose to reject God’s love and grace. While it may seem harsh, Christians believe that God gives every person the opportunity to accept His love and forgiveness, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make that choice.

JC: You’ve got the formula down! And it’s easier than quantum physics!

LL: Christians believe that the Bible as a whole, including both Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of the apostles such as Paul, provides a complete understanding of God’s plan for humanity.

JC: This is just funny to me, since it’s not even part of a fragment of an actual plan. They wouldn’t say the plan is complete if an architect showed them an upright pencil saying, “Such will be the tower.” The plan given from the Bible appears to be that of a simpleton. For instance ten commandments, really? Didn’t humanity need thousands of these? “OK God, give us your ten, fine, you’re done. Now let us write thousands of laws per nation.”

LL: While there may be different interpretations of specific passages, Christians believe that the overall message of the Bible is clear: that God loves humanity and desires to be in a relationship with us, but that sin separates us from God and that Jesus is the way to bridge that gap.

JC: Nice theory, riding roughshod on the Lord’s back! But He may not like it, you know.

LL: While it is understandable to have questions and doubts about specific aspects of Christianity, the foundational belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of humanity is crucial to the Christian faith.

JC: You’ve got it in general terms but the specifics are missing. Your arguments are coarse and your sense about the real world akilter. At least you learned some formulas.

[Johan]

I don’t agree that Jesus words were somehow uniquely special and something people at the time were incapable of, so I can’t follow you down that path.

[jayceeii]

I appreciate this “from the horse’s mouth” honesty, as the saying goes. Now strictly as a matter of logic, if things are as I say then you have given the reason God would not be eager for a reunion with humanity. For, if they cannot tell Him from a common shepherd, or if they aren’t interested in discriminating between false and true claims to be the Lord, then they are neither excited by ideas of God, nor by their own existence (which could only be sustained eternally by God). So if Jesus walks among them they say, “Oh, you are just like us, who cares?” If Jesus is fundamentally different and the creatures are totally blind to it, is this His problem or theirs? And Jesus could not enter that society or enjoy companionship with those people, for they would not allow Him to be honest about who He is, even though He can explain His differences patiently and at length, as well as explaining to them why it would be important to their eternal fate, to really witness God.

[Lelouch]

I can understand the perspective presented in this statement. However, I would like to offer a different perspective that takes into account the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Christianity is founded on the belief that God loves humanity and desires a relationship with us. This is demonstrated through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to reconcile humanity with God. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that God would not be eager for a reunion with humanity.

You suggest that if people cannot tell God apart from a common shepherd or aren’t interested in discriminating between false and true claims to be the Lord, then they are neither excited by ideas of God nor their own existence. This is a flawed assumption, as people can still have a deep sense of spirituality and purpose even if they struggle to discern the nature of God. Additionally, as Christians, we believe that it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to recognize the truth of God, not solely our own abilities.

Furthermore, you suggest that if Jesus were to walk among people who cannot recognize His divinity, then He could not enter into society or enjoy companionship with those people. However, this is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who spent time with and showed love and compassion to all people regardless of their religious beliefs or social status. In fact, Jesus often sought out those who were considered outcasts and sinners in society to show them God’s love.

While I appreciate the honesty you presented, I believe it is important to approach these issues from a perspective that is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

[jayceeii]

LL: Christianity is founded on the belief that God loves humanity and desires a relationship with us. This is demonstrated through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to reconcile humanity with God. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that God would not be eager for a reunion with humanity.

JC: I mean reunion with humanity as they are. Jesus would not enjoy human companionship, but He would enjoy angelic companionship. This should have been part of religion, that humans would try to make themselves better companions first to one another, then to the Lord. Jesus said “Love your neighbor as yourself,” then left it totally up to humans to interpret. Ultimately they’ll learn that they have much to learn.

LL: You suggest that if people cannot tell God apart from a common shepherd or aren’t interested in discriminating between false and true claims to be the Lord, then they are neither excited by ideas of God nor their own existence. This is a flawed assumption, as people can still have a deep sense of spirituality and purpose even if they struggle to discern the nature of God. Additionally, as Christians, we believe that it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to recognize the truth of God, not solely our own abilities.

JC: And if the Holy Spirit lets you down, then you’re really in a ditch, aren’t you? What I mean is Christians deny both the Lord and the prophets, as Jesus said the owner of the vineyard would send servants and then his son. All are killed. Without asking questions.

LL: Furthermore, you suggest that if Jesus were to walk among people who cannot recognize His divinity, then He could not enter into society or enjoy companionship with those people. However, this is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who spent time with and showed love and compassion to all people regardless of their religious beliefs or social status. In fact, Jesus often sought out those who were considered outcasts and sinners in society to show them God’s love.

JC: This was all in a fluid situation where the Lord was pressed with a teaching work. It is not a genuine living situation. Did you read of Him playing tennis with the disciples?

LL: While I appreciate the honesty you presented, I believe it is important to approach these issues from a perspective that is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

JC: You mean Paul, not Jesus directly. For Jesus never gave the formula you so love. It is mankind who interpreted “inherit eternal life” as going to Heaven after only one lifetime.

[Lelouch]

I understand and respect your perspective. However, I would like to offer some logical and factual evidence to support the idea that Jesus’ words were indeed uniquely special and not something that people at the time were necessarily capable of.

Jesus’ teachings and parables were not just simple moral lessons. They presented a radical and transformative message about the nature of God, the meaning of life, and the way to salvation. For example, Jesus’ teaching on loving one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, and forgiving seventy times seven challenged the prevailing cultural norms of his time. His message of love and forgiveness was a powerful and transformative force that inspired his followers to live differently and to pursue a higher ideal.

Jesus’ words were often accompanied by miraculous acts that demonstrated his divine authority and power. He healed the sick, cast out demons, and even raised the dead. These signs and wonders were not just impressive feats of magic, but they served as tangible evidence of Jesus’ divine nature and message.

The impact of Jesus’ teachings and life on history is undeniable. His message of love, forgiveness, and compassion has inspired countless individuals and movements throughout history, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement.

While it is certainly possible to disagree with the idea that Jesus’ words were uniquely special, I believe that the evidence supports the view that Jesus’ message and teachings were indeed transformative and powerful, and that they continue to shape and inspire individuals and societies to this day.

[wonderer]

So, I am wondering, what’s going through the minds of Christians when they contemplate replying to the OP?

[jayceeii]

The OP seemed to be asking for another iteration of the Christian formula, that salvation is a free gift, but I brought in a more sophisticated hypothesis, promoting Jesus as representing the Mind of the Creator, who may also have appeared elsewhere. It’s not really a new form of proselytizing, I’m just pointing out what could have been considered obvious if you think objectively about a Creator-God and His relation throughout history to the human race. I mean, Christians admit God took on a body in Jesus, and if God has that power it is logical to suppose He’d use it again, possibly frequently. Then Jesus’ statement that no one comes to the Father but through Him becomes a challenge. He has to be recognized originally, not because He seems popular in one religion or another. This makes sense of Jesus’ remark also, that He had sheep in other pastures. I too have been awaiting the replies of Christians here, also the challenges K said he was ready to bring.

[Lelouch]

The Bible teaches that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that through His death and resurrection, He paid the penalty for our sins and provided a way for us to be reconciled to God.

While it is true that Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, this does not necessarily mean that God could not have revealed Himself in other ways to other people throughout history. However, Christians believe that Jesus is the clearest and most complete revelation of God, and that through Him we can come to know God personally.

Regarding Jesus’ statement that He had sheep in other pastures, some Christians interpret this to mean that there are people who are not part of the Christian faith but who still belong to God and will be saved. However, others interpret this to mean that Jesus was referring to future believers who would come to faith in Him.

[jayceeii]

Wow, it’s like every Christian textbook ever written. You are good at memorizing things. It reminds me of a Flying Nun episode, where they escort the pastor into a bell tower, then start ringing the bell right above his head! A short while later he asks, “Why are they still ringing it?” I was raised among Christians; and yet I am no longer bowled over by them.

[kravarnik]

As I was reading it, it started off well, as if it’s an honest inquirer. But, then, as one reads his “terms” further one realizes that it’s just another prideful materialist/naturalist, who assumes his worldview by and through which he’d be reading anything a Christian would provide.

Which ends up in a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the naturalist is ardently holding to his methodological naturalism, thus always concludes naturalism. The very terms are “rigged”, so to speak, to always arrive at naturalism, thus it’s not an actual inquiry, but more of a setup that is prepared to arrive at the preconceived conclusion – naturalism.

In essence, if all facts are only determined by science, which science is only operating by methodological naturalism, then you could never show the supernatural as true, because anything supernatural by definition transcends the natural, hence all witness and evidence for the supernatural is rendered false aprior due to the assumed epistemology of methodological naturalism. Therefore, as already said, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby methodological naturalism is assumed as the operational epistemology by and through which we will be reading the evidence(the arbiter or arbitrating epistemology, which will decide what is logically valid, invalid, or true, false), which “naturally” ends up with only naturalistic conclusions.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  kravarnik.

[kravarnik]

So, this is akin to saying “show me music exists without using sounds”
or “show me that anything other, than metal exists, using only the
metal-detector” or “show me color exists, but don’t use light”. The
criterion is biased in favor of a particular view apriori, in the very
metaphysical setup, thus the logical outworking of the epistemology
would always lead to the preconceived conclusions, baked into and
inherent to the biases of the assumed metaphysics. So, my reading of the
OP is it involving biased terms of the discussion, which are not yielding to an
honest consideration of the state of reality.

[tomatohorse]

@k64 I’m pretty much in the same boat as you.

[K]

Good to hear! Hopefully we’ll get some replies from Christians and some nice dialogue.

[Pater]

@K

Fundamentally, most Christians, (including me) don’t believe that anyone can be “convinced” to become a Christian by purely mental exercise. By that I mean that there is the attendant work of the Holy Spirit that brings conviction to the heart of a person who is in the hearing of the gospel message. The conviction is in the form of belief that God lives, that each of us personally and individually have sinned against God and our fellows, and that Christ died to atone for our sins – personally and individually.

In other words, when we hear the gospel, the Spirit is there to confirm in our hearts that the message is true. We then accept the message, by faith, and are reborn into a Father-Child relationship with God, and even friendship with the almighty.

I will add though that it is certainly helpful in removing distractions to accept some realities that are explorable. Hence resources such as this website.

For example, if no God lives, how did you come to be a living, thinking, biological carbon unit on planet earth? If you have accepted the molecule-to-Mozart evolution paradigm, I would strongly encourage you to undertake objective exploration of that paradigm. Most people are comfortable with entrusting their eternal destiny to their high school biology teacher. Hopefully you are not. If you do approach the question objectively, you will find that from the impossible beginning of the universe, to the impossible beginning of life, to the impossible proliferation of life, to the impossible advent of consciousness, we don’t have a clue as to how any of them happened. We do know a lot of reasons at each step why they are impossible by any natural means that we know of. Stuff like that.

Then there are other logical arguments that deductively hold the existence of God and the nature of God. Those are right at hand on this website of course.

If you would like personal, anecdotal experience, I’m happy to share my testimony. I will preface that my faith has been severely tested, and I can explain how and why, and how I came through that.

[Jabberwock]

For example, if no God lives, how did you come to be a living, thinking,
biological carbon unit on planet earth? If you have accepted the
molecule-to-Mozart evolution paradigm, I would strongly encourage you to
undertake objective exploration of that paradigm. Most people are
comfortable with entrusting their eternal destiny to their high school
biology teacher. Hopefully you are not. If you do approach the question
objectively, you will find that from the impossible beginning of the
universe, to the impossible beginning of life, to the impossible
proliferation of life, to the impossible advent of consciousness, we
don’t have a clue as to how any of them happened. We do know a lot of
reasons at each step why they are impossible by any natural means that
we know of. Stuff like that.

‘The complex living thinking unit could not exist without a cause, design or purpose!’
‘I see… where did it come from then?’
‘From a vastly more complex living thinking unit that just exists without a cause, design or purpose!’

[Pater]

An inescapable conclusion.

[kravarnik]

Atheists and their almost complete lack of sense of irony never fail to amaze me.

Of course that if logic necessitates that anything designed, or with purpose, and with a beginning, needs an explanation, then that would require a being without design, without externally imposed purpose and without a beginning, because postulating a being with design, externally imposed purpose and a beginning only pushes LOGICALLY the question further, but does not explain it.

Why is it so difficult to assess such basic logical proceedings for atheists? It is rather obvious that if one says that A movement enabled/actualized externally(by outside cause of the thing moved), then it would require B something that is not moved externally(by an outside cause), for if one postulates the same being in principle – B is just like A, then you’d have to be explaining what externally caused the movement of B.

So, yeah, it’s rather self-evident that if one says design requires explanation, postulating something else designed would require explanation itself – thus, we do not actually explain a being’s ultimate cause, but only its immediate, temporal cause, which does not explain the possibility of said design, but only its actuality. It’s not a logical wonder why we arrive at the explanation of design at an undesigned being. Because if we arrive at a designed being, we didn’t explain design.

[Jabberwock]

No, it is not me who is logically inconsistent.

Either complex, thinking, living minds require cause, design and purpose or they do not. Take your pick.

[Pater]

Yes, it’s you. We are arguing for a supernatural cause and you impose natural constraints. Circular and logically inconsistent.

[Jabberwock]

No, I do not. Answer the question: do complex, living, thinking minds require a cause or not?

[Pater]

This is a sort of ridiculously tiny hill to so rudely defend, don’t you think? Perhaps because you know that the larger arguments are already lost?

God is, by definition, uncaused. By definition, the first cause. You must breathe a thankful sigh of relief to discover an answer to your question that avoids the infinite regress fallacy, which is metaphysically impossible, as you know.

[Jabberwock]

Again, I am just pointing out the painfully obvious contradiction of your views. You seem to believe those things:
1. Living thinking minds require design.
2. God is a living thinking mind.
3. God is undesigned.

You cannot hold all three views without being logically inconsistent. In order to maintain logical consistency of your views, you have to give up (at least) one of those claims. That is all.

[Pater]

Easily solved, since you have misstated my views. My view is that God is the uncreated first cause, and that no living, thinking mind could come into being by natural means. These views are logically consistent.

[Jabberwock]

Either you believe that living, thinking minds require design or not. Do you?

[Pater]

False dichotomy. “Either you believe cars are red, or you don’t. Which is it?”

I think I’ve given my views on the subject.

[Jabberwock]

No, that is not a false dichotomy and your example does not reflect my question. If you have asked ‘Do cars require to be red?’ I would answer: ‘No, cars are not necessarily designed’.

Similarly, either all living, thinking minds are necessarily designed or they are not. There is no other option. So: are living, thinking minds necessarily designed? You seem awfully reluctant to share your ‘known views on the subject’.

[Pater]

My “known view” is that I’m not all that interested in a slog through the “special pleading” swamp. You’re pretty predictable.😏

If you’re aiming a different direction, please explain how the exposition of my beliefs that I already listed doesn’t answer your question.

[Jabberwock]

Again, I am just pointing out that you are unable to point out the exact difference between minds which allows some of them to be undesigned, while necessitates others to be designed. If I said that all cars are seemingly designed, except the red ones, you would correctly point out that ‘redness’ is rather irrelevant to why we consider design when we think of cars. But that is the exact thing you do with our minds and God’s: the very properties that, in your opinion, point out to design are actually the ones that we share with God. If you can point out the exact difference that allows God to be undesigned, just do it. Only defining God as such is not enough.

[Pater]

It’s an interesting argument that you’re offering since you seem to be denying the existence of brute facts, when in fact your have to rely on brute facts for your own metaphysic.

You would agree that the definition of any thing is not the thing itself. In this case, you say that “just the definition” of God isn’t enough warrant to qualify God for the special pleading of qualifying the statement “all minds are designed” with the phrase “except God’s mind.”

I counter with the assertion that one point of God’s essence is that He is uncreated, timeless, and all powerful. That all other minds are the product of His creative power.

Thus, in the case that God exists, it would be illogical to make the claim that axioms that apply to His creation also apply to Him. It’s a category error. God is the only member of the MGB category, while all other minds occupy the “created being” category. Therefor, rules that apply to one category don’t apply to the other.

You offer a claim for examination – “all minds are designed”, and demand a response. I would say that “all minds are designed” applies to every mind except Gods mind. Different categories. I realize that’s a circular argument if my goal is to prove that all other minds are created, but that wasn’t your question. In the context of your question, mind design is a given.

[Jabberwock]

Your ‘category’ defense simply does not work, if you insist that God is a ‘living thinking mind’ and humans are ‘living thinking minds’. If so, they are all in the same category called ‘living thinking minds’. If even one member of this category, i.e. God, does not have a property of requiring design, then the category as such does not necessitate design. That is how logic works.
And again, to be successful in your design arguments, if you want to argue that (some) minds require design, you have to point out the exact property of those minds which NECESSITATES design. Can you do that without asserting the same?

[Pater]

Right. Your logic failure is the attempt to anthropomorphize God. Different categories in spite of your protests.

We say that minds must be intelligently designed because of the intelligent information required to create and operate a mind. We also hold that the intelligent information required to create and operate other minds comes from the mind of God. In other words, God is the creator of all things, and the source of the intelligent information. As such, God’s mind has the property of containing all the information necessary to create other minds. Other minds don’t have that property.

As I mentioned earlier, this seems way obvious, and to argue that this is an actually significant logical hurdle doesn’t make a lot of sense. Just my opinion.

[Jabberwock]

Again, the logical failure is on your part.
‘Minds’ is a category. If we define a necessary property for a category, then ALL members of that category must share that property. For example, if we define the category of ‘living things’ as those which have the property of being alive, then we must exclude any entity that is not alive from that category. That is pretty basic and it is somewhat embarassing that I need to explain those things to you. Especially if I have to do that repeatedly.
If you allow an exception for a property (i.e. if some members of the category may have that property and others do not), then the property of that category is not necessary anymore by definition. If you allow for a mind that does not require design, then you cannot say ‘minds require design’. At most you can say ‘some minds require design’. But then you have to explain why exactly some minds require that, even if others do not. Yet you seem completely unable to delineate the actual difference between God’s mind and other minds as far as the said requirement is concerned. So far you have just asserted such difference (just like I have predicted), without actually providing any reasoning for that requirement.

If I said to you ‘all cars require fuel for driving, except red ones’, you would naturally enquire what exactly makes red cars so different that they can run without gas. Surely you would not be satisfied with ‘Red cars are obviously different category from CARS, because they are RED!’, if I have not explained how exactly redness prevents fuel consumption or how blueness requires it. Yet you do exactly that in your arguments.

[Pater]

I going to stay nice. As I said (a number of times) God is a separate category in all things. My understanding is that you are trying to include God in the “all minds require design” premise. I pointed out that that is false. I also pointed out at least one important difference.

Here’s another. God’s mind can discern the thoughts and intents of your mind. Would you put your mind in the same category as His?

[Jabberwock]

Sure, I will be nice, too. Seemingly, you do not understand what ‘category’ is. When you call God a ‘mind’, then you put him in the category of ‘minds’. In other words, you say ‘God shares specific properties that we attribute to all other things we call minds’. If you believe that God does not fit that category (or any other), the solution is very simple – just do not call him a ‘mind’, then he will not be in that category. It is not that hard, is it?

[Pater]

Yeah, I think we’re fine. Perhaps you could take the Platonic view – God has the real mind, and all others are shadowy reflections.

Anyway, (again) I think most folks would look at your argument as “Spock being silly again.” Not a lot of philosophical weight, if I may say. Adding the juvenile insults takes away whatever serious ground you think you occupy.

[Jabberwock]

So your last recourse is to deny you have a ‘real mind’? Interesting.

[Pater]

And yours is to offer a straw man? That’s absolutely a white flag.

[Jabberwock]

White flag? You are so desperate that you even bring up Platonism just to avoid an answer to a simple question…

So, if you are not surrendering, just answer two simple questions:
Is God a mind?
Are you a mind?

[Pater]

If I’m desperate, it’s to remain respectful in tone.

God has a mind, and I have a mind as well. The two minds are different from each other, in that mine is created by His. His thoughts are different from my thoughts as well. For example, my thoughts follow each other, I doubt God’s thought processes are like that.

I’m reminded of the film “The Cabin” wherein the actor playing God is chilling in a deck chair, eyes half closed, and says “you have no idea what I’m doing”.

Anyway, you’ve lost this argument. God’s mind, though very different from our minds, is still called a mind. Our minds require a great volume of intelligent information to form. That intelligent information comes from God’s mind. God is the creator, we are the created.

This nicely prevents an infinite regress, avoids brute existence, and strongly supports intelligent design. It also means that we very correctly accept that there are differences in necessary realities between God’s mind and any other mind.

I have an uncontested “back-of-the-mind” theory that every relevant philosophy has some shred of truth at its foundation. Platonism is no exception. Ideal objects or abstractions existing as necessary ontology “out there somewhere” are better explained as having existence in the mind of God.

You’re greatest barrier to effective communication of you viewpoints is your contempt for Christians, repeatedly implying that we must be stupid, and in fact are stupid. Hence your unwillingness to accept that anything we say could actually be correct.

That’s a big mistake my friend, as you are no doubt realizing.

[Jabberwock]

If God is a mind and you are a mind, then both those minds, even though different, both are included in one category, called ‘minds’. Agreed?

[Pater]

I think it’s not accurate for me to make the statement “I am a mind.” It’s more accurate to say “I have a mind.” I’m even less likely to agree with the statement that “God is a mind”.

How does that affect the trap that you think you’re setting? 😄

[Jabberwock]

Not a trap, just a clarification that will highlight the issue I see with your views.

I think ‘having a mind’ is more problematic for you than for me, as on that view God is partite and must have something beside a mind, but it does not matter much.

OK, so ‘God has a mind’ and ‘Pater has a mind’. Thus you are both in the same category of ‘entities having a mind’. Agreed?

[Pater]

Yes I agree.

[Jabberwock]

If you are essentialist (which seemingly you are), then each mind in that category must have some essential properties that determine that it belongs to that category. Agreed?

[Pater]

Yes I agree.

(I don’t know why my previous answer to this didn’t post – certainly I hit a wrong button)

[Jabberwock]

Great.

If there is a property that pertains to only some members of the category, then it is a non-essential one. If God has a mind which does not require design, while other minds do, then the requirement must be due to some non-essential property of some minds which is not necessary for the category. That means that minds as such (essentially) do not require design. Moreover, God’s mind cannot have any non-essential property that requires design. Agreed?

[jayceeii]

I like this Jabberwock. Shrewd argument. By saying there is a category of “mind” that applies to both God and creatures, you disallow that design is an essential characteristic of a mind. Furthermore if you say God’s mind is not but created minds are, you are forming two categories which potentially break the supposedly overarching category since to be designed or not would have to be one of the fundamental properties of mind.

The person is left stating that design is fundamental, but not essential, which is fairly meaningless. To resolve it one might have to say God is referred to as having a mind only for creaturely comprehension of what He is, and that the created minds might never understand what an uncreated (and immeasurably vast) mind would be like, needing to begin with their own thoughts and experience. So interacting with the Incarnation a man would be exposed to what looks like a mind but is really something incredibly different.

[Pater]

Yeah I think we’re getting nowhere. Like you’re on the similar logical path that ends with “men can have babies”, and I’m going to say “no, men can’t have babies, that’s obvious.”

All of God’s properties exist necessarily as properties of God. That seems to be definitionally non-controversial.

Human properties are created by God, and many of the human properties that God created are categorically similar to Gods properties. Seems obvious as well.

If the actual subject is “where does the information come from to build a mind?”, it seems unlikely to come from inanimate sources, natural fundamentals, since there are no known analogous examples. Not even close, just like men being unequipped to bear children. The information to build a mind must come from an intelligent source.

But go ahead, please make your point.

[Jabberwock]

You have agreed that God’s mind and human minds share some essential properties that make them ‘minds’. You also believe that God’s mind does not require design and human mind does. The logical conclusion follows that the difference must be in properties which are non-essential to the category of minds.

[Pater]

Okay.

[Jabberwock]

OK, so now what remains to be determined are the actual non-essential properties of the minds that require design. I have asked you about them several times and one of the answers was:

We say that minds must be intelligently designed because of the intelligent information required to create and operate a mind.

But when we examine that statement in the view of essential/non-essential properties of minds, we can see that it cannot be the explanation. All minds seem to contain intelligent information, so it appears to be an essential property of minds (God has intelligent information in his mind and we have intelligent information in our minds). Given that there are instances of intelligent information that is not designed (in fact, it is uncaused), the claim ‘intelligent information must be designed’ must be false.

So, unfortunately, in this case you have failed to describe and explain a non-essential property of some minds that requires design.

[jayceeii]

“Having intelligent information” is such a loose description of a mind, that it must be admitted humans and ants both are in the category of those who have such minds. Now instead of looking from man to God, you can look from ant to man. Are you going to say your thought processes have anything in common with those of an ant? You’d have to guess that with so few neurons an ant must barely see and barely stagger around after sugar. Surely it lacks every faculty of cognition, even the most basic, that humans have.

Further ants are unable to think meaningfully about men, so why expect men to think meaningfully about God? I’d expect angels too are staggered to consider God’s Mind.

[Lelouch]

Our understanding of God is limited and we cannot fully comprehend God’s nature or mind. Therefore, any attempt to compare our minds to God’s mind is inherently flawed as we are not capable of comprehending the full extent of God’s intelligence and creative power.

The fact that our minds share certain properties with God’s mind does not necessarily mean that they were not designed. In fact, it could be argued that the similarities between our minds and God’s mind provide further evidence for design. If our minds were created in the image of God, as many Christians believe, then it is reasonable to suggest that they would share certain characteristics with God’s mind.

The argument that you are making is a type of logical fallacy known as a false equivalence. You are attempting to equate the properties of our minds with the properties of God’s mind, despite the fact that we cannot fully comprehend God’s nature or mind. Therefore, your argument is flawed as it is based on a false premise.

[Lelouch]

From a Christian perspective, the existence of living, thinking minds points to the existence of a divine creator. This is based on the argument from design, which asserts that the complexity and intricacy of the universe and living organisms suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

The Bible also supports the idea of a divine creator. For example, in Genesis 1:1 it states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Additionally, Psalm 19:1 states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

Furthermore, the concept of free will, which is a fundamental aspect of human existence, suggests that we were intentionally designed. If we were not intentionally designed, then our ability to make choices would be the product of chance or randomness, which would undermine the idea of moral responsibility.

[Lelouch]

Many Christians believe that living, thinking minds require design, as they view the complexity and intricacy of the natural world as evidence of a Creator. They argue that the presence of intelligent design in nature points to the existence of God, who is the ultimate designer and creator of all things.

One of the most commonly cited pieces of evidence for intelligent design is the fine-tuning of the universe. This refers to the fact that the physical constants and laws of the universe appear to be finely tuned to allow for the existence of life. For example, if the gravitational constant were slightly stronger or weaker, the universe would either collapse in on itself or expand too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form.

Another piece of evidence for intelligent design is the complexity of living organisms. The intricate structures and functions of living things, from the smallest cells to the largest animals, are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. For example, the human eye is a complex structure that allows us to see and process visual information in incredible detail, and many argue that it is too complex to have arisen through natural processes alone.

[Lelouch]

I would argue that the apparent contradiction in the views you mentioned is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of God and the concept of design.

Christians believe that God is the creator of the universe and everything in it. As the creator, God is not subject to the same rules and limitations as His creation. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that God requires design in the same way that His creation does. God is self-existent and eternal, and His existence is not dependent on any external factors.

The concept of design is often associated with the idea of a purposeful arrangement or plan. While it is true that living thinking minds exhibit signs of design, this does not necessarily mean that they were created for a specific purpose. From a Christian perspective, the purpose of human existence is to glorify God and enjoy a relationship with Him, but this does not mean that every aspect of our physical or mental makeup was specifically designed for this purpose.

In light of these points, it is possible to reconcile the three views mentioned above without being logically inconsistent. Christians believe that God is a living thinking mind that is self-existent and eternal, and that while living thinking minds exhibit signs of design, this does not necessarily mean that they were created for a specific purpose. Therefore, it is not logically inconsistent to hold these three views simultaneously.

[Lelouch]

All things in existence have a cause, and that cause is God. This belief is based on the principle of causality, which states that everything that exists has a cause. This principle is supported by both logic and empirical evidence.

From a logical perspective, it is difficult to conceive of something coming into existence without a cause. The fact that complex, living, thinking minds exist is evidence that they were caused by something or someone. It is reasonable to conclude that this cause is an intelligent and powerful being, which Christians believe is God.

There is empirical evidence to support the idea that complex, living, thinking minds have a cause. The scientific study of the origins of life and the universe provide evidence that there was a beginning, a point at which everything came into existence. The existence of the universe itself, with its intricate design and complexity, points to the existence of a Creator.

The existence of consciousness, free will, and moral reasoning cannot be fully explained by purely materialistic theories. These phenomena suggest the existence of a non-material reality, which Christians believe is the soul or spirit, created by God.

[Jabberwock]

Our understanding of God is limited and we cannot fully comprehend God’s nature or mind. Therefore, any attempt to compare our minds to God’s mind is inherently flawed as we are not capable of comprehending the full extent of God’s intelligence and creative power.

Either we know God is a mind (i.e. has specific properties that are attributed to ALL entities in that category) or we do not. A thing that is in principle incomprehensible cannot be described and put into known categories.

The fact that our minds share certain properties with God’s mind does not necessarily mean that they were not designed. 

Of course it does not necessarily mean that. The issue is when someone claims that the very same properties are necessarily designed in some minds and undesigned in others.

The argument that you are making is a type of logical fallacy known as a false equivalence. You are attempting to equate the properties of our minds with the properties of God’s mind, despite the fact that we cannot fully comprehend God’s nature or mind. Therefore, your argument is flawed as it is based on a false premise.

No, it is not false equivalence, because I am specifically asking about the same (identical) properties. If our minds and God’s mind do not share any property, then by definition cannot be in the same category (‘minds’), as a category is a set of things which share the same properties.

Christians believe that God is the creator of the universe and everything in it. As the creator, God is not subject to the same rules and limitations as His creation. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that God requires design in the same way that His creation does. God is self-existent and eternal, and His existence is not dependent on any external factors.

That is essentially special pleading, but that is not the point of my argument. I am just pointing out that the general principle must pertain to all identical properties.

All things in existence have a cause, and that cause is God. This belief is based on the principle of causality, which states that everything that exists has a cause. This principle is supported by both logic and empirical evidence.

If EVERYTHING that exists has a cause and God exists, then God has a cause. If you deny that God has a cause, then you have to deny your own principle that everything has a cause.

The fact that complex, living, thinking minds exist is evidence that they were caused by something or someone.

Not if you believe that a complex, living, thinking mind of God exist without being caused by something or someone. Either complex, living, thinking minds as such require design or they do not.

The existence of consciousness, free will, and moral reasoning cannot be fully explained by purely materialistic theories. These phenomena suggest the existence of a non-material reality, which Christians believe is the soul or spirit, created by God.

But God himself is non-material reality and you believe that God exists without a cause. Therefore, a non-material reality can exist without a cause.

[Lelouch]

I believe that complex, thinking, living minds do require cause, design, and purpose. This belief is grounded in the Christian worldview that sees the universe as having been created by God, who imbued it with purpose and design.

From a logical standpoint, it makes sense that complex, thinking, living minds require a cause. This is because everything we observe in the universe has a cause, and the existence of complex, thinking, living minds is no exception.

There is evidence to support the idea that complex, thinking, living minds require design and purpose. The evidence comes from the characteristics that make up our minds, such as our ability to reason, make decisions, and experience emotions. These characteristics are not the result of random processes but rather the product of intentional design.

Additionally, the Bible provides evidence for the idea that complex, thinking, living minds require cause, design, and purpose. According to the Bible, God created human beings in His image, imbuing them with purpose and design. This belief is supported by the fact that humans have a unique capacity for creativity, self-awareness, and moral reasoning.

[kravarnik]

Knowledge of basic logical distinctions and categories are on high demand among modern atheists, especially laymen.

Providing an efficient and material cause only explains a being’s actuality, but not its possibility. For example: if I ask “why do I exist?” and you answer “cause you have parents, duh!”, it only provides an efficient and material cause, but not formal and final one.

That is: it’s still unclear what makes it possible for me to exist in the first place(what allows it, or makes it possible), and what’s the reason for my existence. That is: efficient and material causation usually only explain particularity, but not universality – possibility and formality, that is.

[Lelouch]

The suggestion that a “vastly more complex living thinking unit” just exists without a cause, design or purpose is not consistent with either Christian theology or scientific evidence. The idea of an infinite regress of causes, where each effect is explained by a prior cause, ultimately leads to an unanswerable question of what caused the first cause. Therefore, it is reasonable to posit that there must be a First Cause, an uncaused cause, which is responsible for the existence of all other things.

Furthermore, the suggestion that a “vastly more complex living thinking unit” exists without a cause, design, or purpose is also inconsistent with the scientific principle of parsimony, which states that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is usually the best one. The idea of an uncaused, purposeless, and complex entity is not a simpler explanation than the idea of an intelligent Creator God who designed and brought into being all living things.

[K]

Hi @Pater,

Thank you for the reply,

I’m curious, are you Calvinist? Your description of how belief works sounds like the one I hear most from Calvinists? Anyway, if belief is the work of the Spirit, not the believer, then what should one do? Just wait for the Holy Spirit to act? I’ve heard the gospel more times than I can count, and while I did believe it, I no longer feel I have warrant to believe testimony on religion, and thus no longer have warrant to believe the Gospel. It’s been about a decade now since I lost my faith and despite prayers to open the eyes of my heart, I still don’t believe. What would you do in such a situation?

As for the question about how we got here, I’m agnostic. I don’t know the answer and don’t believe that I should pretend to. So, I agree that a purely naturalistic explanation of the universe falls short on multiple accounts. I however also think there are a number of issues with the Christian account. In my experience, when I talk to atheists, they defend the holes in the naturalistic explanation while poking additional holes in the Christian account, and vice versa when I talk to Christians.

Based on the testimony of many Christians, they did not come to a belief in Christ by first accepting a logical proof of God’s existence and then deducing that such a God would logically be forced to have a Son, incarnate Him, and then sacrifice Him for the sins of the world, but rather the belief in either Jesus or the Bible came first and led to belief in the other, which then implied the existence of God. If I strongly believed that God didn’t exist or if my decision about what to do hinged on that raw fact, I’d spend more energy on that question. Since I’m open to the possibility that God exists, I’m instead trying to find out if there are any reasons for Christianity that I’d find convincing.

If you feel your testimony is necessary to illustrate some point you’re making or would be uniquely helpful to me, feel free to share. However, since the way I lost my faith was by losing faith in testimony as a source of truth, I think its unlikely that testimony alone will change anything for me.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply!

[Pater]

Perhaps a slight misunderstanding. The Holy Spirit brings conviction of the truth, accessing the faith that God put in you – that you were born with. When we come to belief, it’s an act of agreement with the Spirit of God. It’s not an act of of imposition by God.

My guess – unfortunately – as you grew up and got “educated”, your sense of regret or guilt over your sin began to wane, aided by atheist teachers who don’t believe sin exists. And the expansion of your interests began to include activities that wouldn’t fit at Sunday School. Most importantly, you did little to nurture your fledgling “belief” in Jesus. At least that’s the usual scenario of someone losing their faith.

But I could be wrong.

As far as distinctions amongst your choices for which God you might choose to worship, there are basically two categories. One categories includes all the gods whose worshipers embark on a program of self improvement. Enlightenment. Bodhisattva-hood. Atharvaveda. We have one devotee who frequents this forum, in fact. The gist being that our responsibility is to conform ourselves to a higher standard of peace and brotherly love. It’s not just the eastern religions – it includes some pseudo Christian denominations as well as some new age religions.

The other category includes belief in a Savior. That God Himself became a man, and sacrificed Himself in an unequalled demonstration of maximal love. That category only has one God, one faith, one baptism – though it has many denominations, practical traditions. One God, one Savior.

It acknowledges that our self improvement efforts invariably fall short. It’s a religion that relies on honest faith, rather than hopeless works for relationship with God.

I’m personally not a Calvinist in my understanding of scripture. I would describe myself as Molinist with regard to that particular question, as in God’s determination and so on.

So basically, my understanding is that you have two category choices for which god to believe in – the one God that offers a Savior, or all the others who don’t.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[K]

Ah, gotcha. Ok, so believing is an act on my part. I, in turn, do my best to act according to my principles of what is moral and prudent. One of these is to only believe that which I have warrant to believe, and not to believe anything simply because I want it to be true. Having believed in Jesus and not believed in Jesus, I can tell you that the former was more fulfilling and enjoyable, but I feel it would be wrong of me to believe without good reason, just as it would be wrong for me to believe in any other god because I wanted it to be true.

No need to guess on how I lost my faith – I can tell you. I agree that the scenario you described is the usual scenario, but that was not mine. I grew up with a Christian mother and Deist father, accepted Christ at age 3 (and other times later as my understanding of what it meant matured). In high school, my life revolved around Christ. I saw everything I did through the lens of scripture and wanted most deeply to glorify God with my life. In college, I went through a deep depression where I felt like God had forsaken me and that I should not exist. I clung desperately to God through it. Afterwards, the darkness lifted and I began a long healing process. I volunteered as leader at my youth group and spent a lot of time fellowshipping with others. I still couldn’t feel God the way I used to before the depression, but I could see His work in others’ lives. I continued going on mission trips and sharing the gospel even though I felt a little left out for not having the emotional experiences my brothers in Christ reported. Then a number of things came together to lead me to the conclusion that human testimony wasn’t reliable. I watched a contentious political election, read on human psychology, learned about witness reliability, and heard sincere yet false testimony from many of the same people who had told me how God was working in their lives. I told the youth leader about my doubts and continued serving the kids there with his blessing. For a couple years I kept having my whole social life be church-based, but felt growing distance between my doubts which I couldn’t resolve and everyone else’s self-confidence. When work made me move cities, I tried out some churches, but eventually stopped going since I didn’t have the relationships and wasn’t getting anything out of the preaching. Since then I’ve continued to live in an uncomfortable agnosticism and occasionally go to church or read scripture. This Easter, instead of going to church to hear some sermon aimed at the normal easter crowd, I decided to read Dr. Craig’s chapters on Jesus. I found a lot of his arguments would be persuasive if I believed his facts, but was unable to verify those facts from any sources except other Christian ones. I then decided to make this post and another asking about what facts atheists and Christians agree on. It’s my way of occasionally making myself open to believing again.

As for categories of gods to believe in, there are lots of ways to slice it. For every characteristic of God, you have gods with and without that characteristic (ie loving and unloving, persons and non-persons, all-knowing and not all-knowing, etc). As for the category of offering a savior or not, I have no reason to believe one over the other.

[Pater]

K said: “I have no reason to believe one over the other.”

>>>>> I would first say that that’s false. Second (as a consequence of first) I would say we generally believe what we want to.

[K]

I agree that we generally believe what we want to. That’s what I’m trying to avoid. If I were to believe what I want to be true, I think a universalist version of Christianity where everyone goes to Heaven would be my choice.

[jayceeii]

This looks like a classic case of thwarted energies. Perhaps you are longing for a more spiritual life than waiting around for the Holy Spirit.

“Dive deep, O mind, dive deep in the Ocean of God's Beauty;
If you descend to the uttermost depths,
There you will find the gem of Love.”

Ramakrishna’s major command was: Go Forward.

http://greatmaster.info/sriramakrishna/ramakrishnaparables/talesparablesramakrishna1-174/

Jesus said seek and ye shall find, and that He had sheep in other pastures. I’d guess this meant He knew Christianity wouldn’t fulfill the needs of all, where the only step to meditation is the drastic one of monkhood. Starting in the 1960s many Christians began seeking guidance in the East.

Some of the paths are faulty, but here is a place that is both contemporary and safe:

https://ourstairwaytoheaven.com/

[K]

Thanks jayceeii,

Some interesting ideas here. I need to do some more reading about them 🙂

[Pater]

jc said:

“Jesus said seek and ye shall find, and that He had sheep in other pastures. I’d guess this meant He knew Christianity wouldn’t fulfill the needs of all, where the only step to meditation is the drastic one of monkhood.”

>>>>>Your guesses are another example of believing what you choose to, since all of the available evidence falsifies this.

Jesus was speaking to Jews, about Christians. He knew His followers (the Christians) would come out of every nation and every religious tradition to become Christians. Sheep, from different pastures, sharing the same faith, all of them hearing the voice of the same (and only) shepherd.

Why would you claim that Christians can’t meditate unless they become monks? This is also obviously false. Many of us can inadvertently make false claims through earnest error. Others are wolves in sheep’s clothing, offering a different gospel than the one that saves.

[jayceeii]

Actually it’s a mystery, isn’t it? The words Jesus used can be interpreted either way. If things are as I say and God appeared also as the Buddha, then those who hear the Lord’s voice in the Buddha too, would be part of the one flock, with one shepherd. And it doesn’t have to be something that is happening universally right now, as the Lord when He reveals addresses vast epochs. At the same time those who cannot hear the Lord’s voice in the Buddha, would be denying Jesus, and He’d deny them before His “Father.”

By meditation I mean an intense inner discipline through concentration, with the intent of transforming consciousness. I don’t mean reading the Bible, but sitting with eyes closed and looking within, in a new kind of work, upon consciousness itself. In practice among Christians only monks and nuns practice such inner disciplines. The rest may have “devotional periods” but these are undertaken mainly with the intent of self-comforting, not self-transformation. In fact most Christian churches prohibit regular meditation, saying that the people should not look within, for various pretexts, like are listed here:

https://rosilindjukic.com/eastern-meditation-differs-biblical-meditation/

A wolf in sheep’s clothing would be one who intended to inflict immorality on the people. Instead I bring a higher morality, genuine support for joys and relief of sorrows.

[Pater]

@jc: Actually it’s not a mystery – it’s pretty plain. Jesus was talking about Christians, not including non-Christians.

It’s interesting that you put “Father”, since Buddhism is a non-theistic faith tradition. No creator. No God. No Savior. Just Devas and double talk and self-reformation in endless cycles. The teaching is mostly sleepy zingers, and half-truths accompanied by rampant immorality.

No thanks, friend. The eastern religions have no common source to Christianity.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[jayceeii]

Your mind sees what it sees. Other minds may see other things, and you don’t see them.

There are in fact many millions today who while not calling Buddha “Father” or Creator, do hear the voice of objective goodness in His teachings, as Jesus said His sheep would hear His voice.

You avoid citing specific remarks of the Buddha as half-truths because it is too difficult to do so. You won’t look here, and you won’t look at Swedenborg.

You call me friend, but haven’t bothered to ask if I regard you as such. Friendship must be two-way, not one-way, crushing the other to his will.

[Pater]

Well, that’s my bag, man – crushing other confused souls to my will. Just how I roll.

Anyway, I was talking about your half-truths. I don’t spend a lot of time reading Buddha or Swedenborg these days, though I have in the past.

Again, you seem to hijack most of the threads with a non-Christian, off-topic perspective, as you advocate for your religion, which has the usual effect of shutting the thread down.

How friendly is that, my friend?

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[jayceeii]

I’ll give you this, you make my days interesting. I think you accused me of lurking before, but now it is hijacking. I’m not here to found a religion, but to examine truth.

Friendliness shouldn’t be defined as only what the person wants to hear. If someone seeks and speaks the truth is is already friendly, as it might raise awareness about what is real.

These threads stop for a lot of reasons, and a digression in an interesting direction is not necessarily an insult to the thread. Flashes of insight might not always be well-organized.

[Pater]

Please keep in mind that folks have genuine questions about Christianity, or some aspect of Dr Craigs work. And that it’s considered poor forum etiquette to derail threads with off-topic comments.

“Flashes of inspiration” are better explored in a separate thread, where they can stand or fall on their own merit without distracting from original discussions.

[jayceeii]

You seem to have some kind of impression that I am a “force” at the forum, that I am driving people away, distracting them, or misleading them. Instead if you examine any response to any of my posts it is plain no one is taking me seriously in the slightest degree. My posts are ignored and are having no effect upon the ongoing conversations.

In most threads I will post once or not at all, unless someone responds whereupon etiquette requires that I interact with them, as favorably as I can. Most first posts of mine are in response to the OP, and if you doubt it you can ask and I can explain how they are related. But when someone brings up a side point I try to address it there instead of forming a new topic, as it normally takes one or two exchanges before it settles down. If the forum has too many new discussions, especially short ones, this can be confusing too.

I wish you could explain why you alone at the forum have the impression I am having an effect on the people here. The rest seem aware my ideas are unlikely to influence anyone.

[Pater]

I think most people on the forum might agree that your viewpoints are not Christian, but pagan and devilish. The doctrines of demons, as the scriptures say. But they aren’t comfortable telling you that. So they just stop talking.

Others who have had less exposure to the variety of religions might mistakenly think your viewpoints are somehow in line with Christianity. You seem to want to claim Jesus Christ as a prophet or “holy” man without revering Him as God. But that’s never explicitly stated. So someone might be fooled.

I don’t have a problem with telling you these things, and I’m betting that there are more than a few readers who are nodding their heads.

[jayceeii]

Did you take a poll? I’d repeat you seem to have a vision of people caring what I write, that you can only support by saying they stop writing. I think most are dismissing me as irrelevant and unimportant, drawn from the fact things carry on as though I am not here.

When I write about angels, how is this demonic? When I write about the Creator literally visiting the planet that He made in a human body, how is this pagan? You are mud-slinging, which is to say picking up indiscriminate criticisms that may apply other places.

My aim is for a world or part of the world where the people genuinely support one another’s joy and alleviate one another’s sorrow, according to authentic Golden Rule Thinking. This is objective morality, aiming at universal joy, as the Creator intended.

[kravarnik]

But, now, let’s apply what Christ said to you specifically, jayceei:

– Do you drink His Blood and eat His Flesh, for His remembrance, as He teaches?
– Did you baptize yourself, as He teaches that without Baptism one cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven and enter it?
– And He says that if you listen to Him, then you’ll listen to His Apostles(in other words, they teach what He teaches): so, do you submit, as Saint Paul teaches, in spiritual matters to those more able, than you are – to righteous laity, wise elders, Holy Bishops, deacons and presbyters?
– Do you gather with us, like Saint John teaches, that if someone is “of us”, that he will gather “with us” and that if someone is “not of us”, then he will “schismate from us(separate from us)”? If so, what Church you receive the Eucharist from? What Church baptized you? The Liturgy of which Church do you attend and celebrate?

And if you carry yourself as a deacon(one that instructs others of the faith), or as a Bishop – a spiritual father, someone who so exceeds into proper knowledge of the faith, that he teaches others and leads the Liturgy, – then, as Saint Paul teaches, who laid hands on you to consecrate you as such? Because, Saint Paul instructs: only the spiritually able and knowledgeable in the faith are to be consecrated deacons, presbyters and teachers of the Church – people of particular character with particular virtues that have to do with discipline and right knowledge?

You’re a false pretender. Someone who claims to hear Christ’s voice, yet does the exact opposite of that same Voice that was uttered and recorded objectively in history for everyone to see: when Christ preached openly the teachings of the faith, which are recorded in the Gospels of His Apostles. How come the subjective voice of Christ you claim to hear contradicts the objective Voice He uttered in history for everyone to see and hear? Should we say that the Gospel of Jayceei(that you receive form Christ’s voice inside your head) trumps the Gospel of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark?

[kravarnik]

“Your mind sees what it sees. Other minds may see other things, and you don’t see them.

There are in fact many millions today who while not calling Buddha
“Father” or Creator, do hear the voice of objective goodness in His
teachings, as Jesus said His sheep would hear His voice.”

Let’s continue with that:

– God is not Father
– God has no Son
– There is no resurrection
– There is no Final Judgement
– There is no Heaven
– There is no Hell
– There is no clergy, or Church
– There is no real sin
– Totally opposite and contradictory views on eschatology, compared to Christians
– Christian mysteries, or sacraments, are rejected(you don’t believe you need Christ’s flesh, or blood, in order to be saved; nor believe that you need Baptism)

Let’s examine practice and deeds as well, not only teaching:

– Saint Thomas, an Apostle of Christ, was murdered by Far Easterners when preaching to them
– Early Christians, those who most intimately and closely knew what the Apostles taught, rejected gnostic views as heretical in their Councils(where matter and the flesh, as Far Eastern mysticism teaches, is evil – that’s why they have no conception of resurrection, precisely due to no conception of matter’s possibility to be incorrupt, but only of reincarnation till nirvana, or a state of transcending the flesh and matter, is attained, thus one is freed from matter and the flesh)
– Historically Far Easterners have persecuted Christians

Perhaps, we may conclude, that your mind sees things that are not there? Are you again falling into your purely subjective relativism and cannot be bothered by the objective facts, thus your claims are guided by what you “feel” is the case, rather than what reality presents the case to be? Are you mistaking your imaginary phantasms for reality again? But reality has spoken; history has sealed it; the present concurs it: the two cannot be reconciled both in doctrine and in practice, as the doctrine of each is contradictory to the other; and the practice of each is, often, harmful – and in the case of your tribe, the Far Eastern mystics, even fatal and lethal, to the other.

You crucified Saint Thomas. Christ teaches His Apostles: if they listen to Me, they’ll listen to you. If you and your spiritual guides listen to Christ, they will listen to Saint Thomas, but they crucified Saint Thomas. The same way the Jews crucified Christ. Because they can’t accept His teachings, not because they agree with each other and Christ was basically teaching what the Pharisees were; or Saint Thomas was teaching what Far Eastern gurus were teaching.

Repent.

[Sophie]

Kravernik, why do you think you are some internet hero? Hero of what? You appear to be atheist or agnostic, I’m not sure which. I’ve not read through many threads. All I see is that this fellow, Jayceeii makes valid points. I don’t want to eat God’s flesh or drink his blood. I’m not a cannibal and I’m not a vampire.

[kravarnik]

Because I use my extraordinary powers to help the people of the internet? Haven’t you seen me in action already?

What are you even talking about, though? The Eucharist is taught by Christ consistently and even in the episodes where He teaches it, people like you(that reject the concept) are portrayed:

“Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

Here’s you now:

“On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ⁶²Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before”

Christ taught the Eucharist not only in the Last Supper, where He instructs His Apostles to do that often in remembrance of Him, but elsewhere He teaches that the Eucharist is also needed for unity between Himself and the faithful. Actually, He expresses that this unity that is achieved between the faithful and Him, is the unity He, the Son, has with the Father. The Eucharist is literally the closest connection you can have with Christ, as it is relating to Him in the most intimate way, the way He relates to the Father and the Father to Him, the Son.

So, please, if you’re going to speak unprepared and don’t know even the basics of Christ’s teachings, then what business do you have in proclaiming who makes “valid” Christian points? You don’t know even the Scriptures apparently(since you seem lost to how important the Eucharist is, as taught by Christ in the Scriptures), but you go to say who makes good points?

So, indeed, much like the ungrateful Jews, when Saint Moses saved one of them being oppressed by the evil Egyptian(demon), so as to labor for the evil Pharaoh(Satan), instead of praising the Living God, they went to condemn the Holy Saint, the God-Seer Moses, sending him into the wilderness. You two with jayceei are in the same basked, counting yourselves among “the people of God(Jews and Christians)”, yet rebel against those, through whom God slays the demons that oppress you into laboring for falsehood. Now, clearly, I am no Saint Moses, but you two clearly are like the ungrateful Jews.

If you deny the Eucharist, then this is the doctrine of demons. No Christian would ever teach that you don’t need eat Christ’s Flesh, or don’t need to drink His Blood. Of course you do, as He taught that very clearly and even lost disciples. People like you, that is. That were “offended” by the teaching and found it too hard to accept.

[kravarnik]

Just notice how well the Lord has spoken. What sublime Creator we have! One that is not only a Creator, but a Savior! Not only One, who creates and saved, but One who creates and saves in His Providence guided by His Love.

Indeed, He has spoken so wisely, because He has foreseen rebels that would go against the Truth unadulterated. And He spoke with such words, as to specifically contradict YOU, yes, YOU Sophie, and those like you. For look at the way He says it – He loads the concept with such substance and content, that its rejection becomes too burdensome, too costly. Let us look closer now:

– “you have no life in you(unless you eat His Flesh and drink His Blood)”
> Look at how Holy He makes the Eucharist. He stacks it with Life. He stacks His Flesh and Blood with so much Life, that you need to eat and drink them, for that’s how you have “life in you”)

– “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
> Behold! Read and understand; or if not, then listen and understand! He says that in order to be resurrected into eternal life, you need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood!

– “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”
> I am telling you, the Lord speaks amazingly and sublimely! Indeed, in order to banish all doubts of metaphor, all accusations of literalism, He goes to concur the truth “my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink”. It’s as if He speaks and addresses precisely you, the one that allegorize His Flesh and Blood, or outright reject it.

– “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ⁵⁷Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”
> Look, He now stacks His Flesh and Blood not only with Life, but also with Love, for He says that in doing so, you attain to unity with Him, closest to the unity He has with the Father.

In no way can a Christian deny the Eucharist and say it’s not something Christ taught, or something that He taught, but we don’t need to do; for He has stacked the very concept, the very ritual, with so much meaning, that one’s denial of it costs too much.

Thus, we conclude, that to say you can have the true Christ without the Eucharist, is false, as He Himself let go the disciples that rejected the Eucharist, but labors not to recover them; or revokes not the teaching in order to recover them. No, rather, He affirms the teaching even more strongly in light of the unfaithful’s “occasion to take offense”.

Actually, this is what makes our Lord special, Holy, unlike any other false pretender before and after Him. For He gives Himself. Indeed, all other false pretenders, prophets and teachers of other religions, come to teach you about some external idea; or they present themselves merely as “mediums” of the truth. Not so with Christ. Our Lord is truly supreme. The Son came to Earth to teach about Himself, the Truth; and you participate in no external mediums, but in Him, in His Flesh and in His Blood, who are real food and real drink. As the Jews themselves said: He teaches as one with authority, unlike the other prophets, or like the lawmakers, scribes and judges.

No, He is the Truth and the Life and the Way. He has come to Earth to reveal Himself, to teach about Himself in His own Person by His own actions. If you believe you can get to Christ through external mediums, or means, outside Himself, such as believing Buddhist teachings, or Hindu ones, or Muslim ones, as if what He taught, He Himself, is insufficient, then you’re not of Christ, because you believe you can reach God through external means(idols) that are not God Himself.

You and jayceei need to repent and embrace the actual Christ and His True Gospel.

[jayceeii]

Sophie, at first I regarded your posts about eating God’s flesh and drinking His blood irreverent, since Jesus did in fact give these symbols to the Christians for an outward form of worship. But now I see your greater point, that this isn’t exactly healthy or wise, and might not hold in the long-term once humanity learns not to steal from God’s Earth.

[kravarnik]

Perhaps, you were in the back rows in Church, or somewhere in the distant crowd around Christ, so you may have misheard what He said. Thank God, our Lord, Jesus Christ, that some of His Apostles wrote it down, so that those who misheard, or misunderstood, do not skew and pervert what He said.

Here’s how Saint John recollects the teaching:

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.”

Christ never taught His Blood and Flesh as metaphors, or symbols, but as real. We are not Manicheans.

[Unknown Member]

You might find what you’re looking for here:

https://thegrandkingdom.wordpress.com

[Unknown Member]

John wrote in Revelation that Jesus told him to write what he was shown in visions, so he did, and it was published in 96 AD. This chart showing the prophecy fulfilled in 1914 was made by a man whose number is 777 on Boxing Day in 2010. Interestingly, 96 + 1914 = 2010, and according to a theory that the Psalms correspond to the years 1901-2050, Psalm 14 is ‘The fool has said in his heart there is no God’ and Psalm 110 is ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’

[Sophie]

Tsar, this looks superstitious to me…

[Sophie]

It’s hard for me to listen to you kravenik. You talk about eating God’s flesh and drinking his blood. I’m not a cannibal or a vampire. Are you? I don’t understand how being a cannibal is holy. Maybe you are an atheist or agnostic, I’m not sure which.

[Unknown Member]

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is only a metaphor. The disciples didn’t understand it either.

[Sophie]

Tsar, It’s kind of sick if you think about it in real terms. God is not flesh and blood to begin with. So why should I eat or drink anything that resembles taking the life of what God created?

[Unknown Member]

So don’t think about it in real terms. It’s a metaphor. It’s like saying grace before a meal, and the wine is like a toast to Jesus.

[Jabberwock]

That is not what the Catholic Catechism claims:

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species
is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the
perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments
tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and
blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ
and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”
“This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude
the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but
because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

[Unknown Member]

I’m not Catholic.

[Pater]

@K : “No need to guess on how I lost my faith – I can tell you. I agree that the scenario you described is the usual scenario, but that was not mine. I grew up with a Christian mother and Deist father, accepted Christ at age 3 (and other times later as my understanding of what it meant matured). In high school, my life revolved around Christ. I saw everything I did through the lens of scripture and wanted most deeply to glorify God with my life. In college, I went through a deep depression where I felt like God had forsaken me and that I should not exist. I clung desperately to God through it. Afterwards, the darkness lifted and I began a long healing process. I volunteered as leader at my youth group and spent a lot of time fellowshipping with others. I still couldn’t feel God the way I used to before the depression, but I could see His work in others’ lives. I continued going on mission trips and sharing the gospel even though I felt a little left out for not having the emotional experiences my brothers in Christ reported. Then a number of things came together to lead me to the conclusion that human testimony wasn’t reliable. I watched a contentious political election, read on human psychology, learned about witness reliability, and heard sincere yet false testimony from many of the same people who had told me how God was working in their lives. I told the youth leader about my doubts and continued serving the kids there with his blessing. For a couple years I kept having my whole social life be church-based, but felt growing distance between my doubts which I couldn’t resolve and everyone else’s self-confidence. When work made me move cities, I tried out some churches, but eventually stopped going since I didn’t have the relationships and wasn’t getting anything out of the preaching. Since then I’ve continued to live in an uncomfortable agnosticism and occasionally go to church or read scripture. This Easter, instead of going to church to hear some sermon aimed at the normal easter crowd, I decided to read Dr. Craig’s chapters on Jesus. I found a lot of his arguments would be persuasive if I believed his facts, but was unable to verify those facts from any sources except other Christian ones. I then decided to make this post and another asking about what facts atheists and Christians agree on. It’s my way of occasionally making myself open to believing again.”

>>>> Thanks for this explanation. I have just a couple observations.

I first heard the gospel from Fannie Mae Herschberger, our Amish babysitter. It was around Easter, and I had asked her if her family had chocolate bunnies for Easter. I was around 5 years old.

She explained that Easter had nothing to do with chocolate bunnies or egg hunts or even family dinners, but rather that we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus who was killed by the Romans on a cross for our sins. I distinctly remember her careful pronunciation of the word “sword” as she described the Roman soldier running it through the heart of our Lord, and forgive her the technical mistake. (It was a spear)

I believed every word, and even remember wandering out into the yard in a sort of daze, the full weight of my sin on my 5 year old shoulders. As I said I believed every word, and felt a deep sense of gratitude.

About 20 years later, I was out jogging in a fairly exclusive neighborhood (Ano Voula) on the southern end of Athens Greece. Having been a believer for many years, I reviewed in my mind all the blessings I had experienced. I was a “spy” by profession, had a gorgeous wife, a classy apartment about a half mile from a beautiful beach on the Mediterranean Sea, Mercedes sports car, and genuine joy.

I was contemplating how, as a Christian, I was living a blessed and protected life. That God had made even a fallen sinful world to treat me with respect and dignity, and that as Christians, we should be living rich, healthy, insulated lives.

Nothing could touch me.

What I didn’t know as jogged along with those thoughts occupying my contemplations, was that God had prepared a tiny, viscous, extremely loud dog, that came diving out from under a car to attack me. It’s whole head was made of snarling teeth and screaming barks, and it didn’t hesitate to fearlessly sink it’s teeth into any flesh it could find.

My theology was instantly challenged. God doesn’t always protect us from the demon possessed dogs of the world. The world is that way because He wants to allow the world to be that way. That’s for our ultimate good.

Kids that grow up in the church end up getting bombarded with all kinds of contradictions, based on doctrines that may be earnestly well-intentioned, but ultimately dead wrong. What happens then is that our minds notice the contradictions, which disturbs the peace of our child-like faith.

So many things that we are taught turn out to be false. So many people that we respected as “good Christian’s” turn out to be weak failures. We expected a good life with a good marriage and happy kids and a thriving profession. After all, we are insulated from evil things by the protection of a good God who loves us.

So why then would any of us find ourselves face down screaming into the carpet, having lost all of everything we care about. How could it be that a good God lives, when all we see is the broken destruction of everything we ever hoped or dreamed for?

Technically, “faith” is a different substance than beliefs based on what we see. Faith is an intentional commitment to believe, often in spite of what we see. And God generally rewards us with validation and confirmation of our faith following times of testing. My view is that He doesn’t allow testing beyond our capacity, and that times of severe testing are testaments to the degree of His confidence in our ability to stand for our faith. So you have the ability. The testing then is for the validation of our strength.

Many fall away because God or people didn’t meet their expectations. Your exercise must be to rely on that simple, childlike faith that you were born with, and put distractions in their proper place. There are no perfect churches, perfect people, or perfect Christians, so you can’t rely on those to base your belief in God.

I just watched a short series (8 episodes) called “Jury Duty”. While totally non-religious, it’s a great illustration of life on earth. Ron’s (the hero) judgement at the end was especially delicious. Imagine reviewing all the events of your life, along with the actors who provided the context for your challenges.

Without the challenges, no one could know what a hero you are.

[K]

Thanks for sharing your story Pater. I also thought God doesn’t test people beyond their ability. But my ability was not as great as I imagined. Strangely, it wasn’t the hard times that made me lose my faith. I went through those and “the Lord gives and the Lord takes away. May the name of the Lord be praised”. But when I see people believing all kinds of false things because they want to, and I see the harm it causes, I don’t feel I have a right to believe things counter to the evidence. If that was right, then why not believe that God just wants us to be happy and would never hurt us? Why not believe that I’m a good person? Surely those are also both things I want to be true, despite having no evidence.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I wish there were a way humans could help each other figure out this life.

[Sophie]

Guy, I’m not jewish and I still have no plans to eat flesh or drink blood. I don’t care about your outward signs that prove nothing. Jesus only appeared in a small section of the world and it’s not like the whole world was condemned since they didn’t know about a eucharist because they were born somewhere else. I don’t think God condemned them then and I don’t think He condemns them now. You, on the other hand, are a different story, and I think you like judging and condemning people. It feeds your “hero” mentality. Maybe if you showed a little humility once in a while, you might actually see that God doesn’t honor a “hero,” but a humble heart.

[kravarnik]

“Guy, I’m not jewish and I still have no plans to eat flesh or drink
blood. I don’t care about your outward signs that prove nothing. Jesus
only appeared in a small section of the world and it’s not like the
whole world was condemned since they didn’t know about a eucharist
because they were born somewhere else. I don’t think God condemned them
then and I don’t think He condemns them now. You, on the other hand, are
a different story, and I think you like judging and condemning people.
It feeds your “hero” mentality. Maybe if you showed a little humility
once in a while, you might actually see that God doesn’t honor a “hero,”
but a humble heart.”

What are you even talking about? You’re incoherent. Did you pay attention to the topic and the replies herein?

That jayceei guy made the claim that you can see Christ in Buddhism, because they fundamentally teach about the same thing(Christ and Buddha, or Christian theologians and Buddhist ones), so I showed him how many things that Christ teaches are not present in Buddhism, and not only, but how they are contradictory to each other, thus they cannot teach about the same thing fundamentally.

No one is trying to be a “hero”. As you see, I myself call for the extraordinary and supernatural need of Christ, Christ as He truly is, because we need Him, His Blood that is given for the Covenant. This much He teaches openly and in no “dark riddles” – He clearly teaches in the quotes I provided that His Blood is real drink; and at the Last Supper, He teaches that the wine the Apostles drink are “His blood given for the Covenant”.

If you have no plans to drink His Blood, then OK, do as you wish. The topic of my posts are not your plans, or Sophie’s vision of life and plans for the future, but what Christ taught and whether it can be reconciled with Buddha > and you got hang up on the Eucharist in my examples(and a facetious title “Internet hero” that I use every now and then on online profiles, which is a weird thing to pick on me for) of how many things Christ teaches taht are exclusive to Him and not found in Buddha, or even in contradiction to Buddha and Buddhism.

Please, pay some attention. This isn’t about you. It’s bigger than you. It’s bigger than me. It’s bigger than us. It’s about Christ.

[Sophie]

Sorry, Pater, I meant that for Kravernik.

[Pater]

I guessed. No worries!

[Sophie]

I like that Jabberwock. That was beautiful.

[Sophie]

I like what you said, Pater, but God really does honor humility over a hero mentality. It’s not bad to be the hero but when does that mentality not mean lording yourself over another? A humble heart never looks to be a hero, but a friend.

[jayceeii]

Whenever a guru says he has conquered his mind through willpower, or advises his students to do the same, it is a sign he has not gone far enough yet. Like in the parable from Ramakrishna he has gone only partway into the forest, perhaps finding the silver but not yet the gold. Those who follow the Buddha’s advice and truly conquer “father self-will,” find no more opposition within where willpower would be required or necessary. All of their thoughts and motives are naturally pure, with no selfish or negative drives.

[Pater]

In the series, one of the jurors (Ron) thinks that he is participating in an actual trial. Every other person is an actor. The other jurors, the judge, the lawyers, the bailiff, the accused and the plaintiff are all actors.

The producers put Ron into a variety of contexts purposely to see what he does in that context. You can imagine that the other jurors are a collection of strange strangers who each have fairly extreme issues.

Ron approached and resolved each crisis as you would hope a human being would – with concern and forgiveness and sacrifice and love. All recorded. At the end, he sat there while they showed him each weird event, and how he responded to it.

They are the ones who described him as a hero. He just did what he normally would do.

At the end of our lives, at the judgement, I can easily believe a similar process of review. Our context in this very difficult world (this world that God allows evil in) allows us to reveal what sort of people we are, as we navigate the challenges we face. Do we love and respect others? Do we allow for their faults? Do we take, or do we give? Do we love our neighbors?

Are we the unintended hero in other peoples lives?

As you say, if so, that would require organic humility on our part. The two are not exclusive.

[kravarnik]

“I like what you said, Pater, but God really does honor humility over a
hero mentality. It’s not bad to be the hero but when does that mentality
not mean lording yourself over another? A humble heart never looks to
be a hero, but a friend.”

Funny thing, God also calls for men to make His Path straight: that is, to get our understanding of His will straight(to understand Him and act as He truly wills for us to act and be).

Part of making that “Path” straight is keeping what’s unclean from what’s clean; what’s Holy from what’s filthy; what’s righteous from what’s falsehood. If you cannot see a brother setting the Lord’s Way straight, in the face of wolves claiming that one of the biggest wolves(those that devour souls) – Buddha, – teaches pretty much what our Shepherd does, is not making His Way straight, Sophie. It’s kind of crooking it, don’t you think?

But, of course, you’d rather shut me down through virtue signaling of how humble you are. Indeed, when we do God’s commandments, they are not one by one: as in, today I will not lie(keep one of the commandments), but will steal(break another). No, we are expected to keep them all, so just as He expects us to “be humble”, so does He expect us to “keep His Paths straight(not to crook them and put words in His Mouth, or skew His will)”. It’s not that complicated, but you’d rather virtue signal how humble you are, to the point of not batting an eye when someone says “Buddha teaches pretty much the same thing Christ does”.

How can that be? Are you humble to the point of not confronting falsehoods made about Christ? You’re THAT humble? Well, if you are that humble, then you’re literally more humble, than the Apostles, because they literally addressed and corrected people, who misunderstood Christ’s teachings in the congregations they founded.

Although, I think you’re mistaking “humility” for “apathy”. I think you’re just apathetic – lukewarm, – but try to sell your lukewarmity for humility. In Orthodoxy we call that “prelest” – a spiritual disease, whereby one perceives one’s self more Holy and righteous, than they actually are.

Anyhow, Godspeed in your plans for the future. May all the Saints that God glorified pray to our Lord, Jesus Christ, to show mercy on us and have us embrace Him, the Truth, so that we see clearly, speak truthfully and act righteously.

[kravarnik]

It is unfortunate that instead of entering dialogue in dignity, you opt for exalting yourself at my expense. Indeed, me the “lording over others” one, speaks and dialogues and clarifies and calls for reading and submitting to greater authorities; but you, the “humble” one(that never lords over others!) tells me to shut up and not contest the point that Buddha teaches the same thing as Christ. Yes, indeed, that makes sense.

Whatever, have it your way. Buddha taught proto-Christianity. Christ taught advanced-Buddhism. Christ never said you need, for real, His Blood and His Flesh(it is only a neat metaphor, beautiful poetry). Voila. Hope you’re happy and your humble spirit is appeased. Everyone is saved. Hell is not real. Pain doesn’t exist. Evil is illusory. We all love each other. Satan actually helps us. And so on and so forth. I guess, humility has us accept all claims by all religions by all people in their all versions.

Man, humility is great. It basically means total relativism, which is nice, because then you don’t get worked up on things(and lord over DA PEOPLES!), but achieve maximal humility, to the point of surpassing the Apostles and the Prophets of the Old Testament themselves. GREAT!

[kravarnik]

Actually, let me have Sophie’s soul rest safely, in the Bosom of Abraham, next to King David, with all the righteous. So, for this purpose, I will now briefly make a creedal confession, hereby proclaiming the truthfulness of perennial philosophy:

– both reincarnation and resurrection is true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both eternal universe and universe created out of nothing, with a beginning point, is true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both Satan is our enemy and Satan helps us is true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both High Church view(that you need clergy and sacraments) and low church views(total individualistic relativism and no need of spiritual authority and clergy) is true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both predestination and total chaos is true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both pantheism, deism, atheism, panentheism, monotheism, polytheism, solipsism, nihilism and all the -isms are true at the same time > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both eternal Hell as conscious torment, temporal Hell as conscious torment, annihilationism, universalism, no Hell exists, positions are true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

– both Salvation as Theosis, Christ Triumphant, PSA and all the possible versions of Salvation are true > whoever shall contest that enters non-humility and becomes “the-lording-over-others one”

Guys, from now on, my confession of the faith is that: the faith is the all-relative, the ever-liquid, the eternal spectrum, whereby “truth” does not really exist, but everything is true at the same time and everyone has his own truth and there’s no such thing as “absolute truth”. All faiths, all beliefs, all worldviews, all philosophical concepts, all paradigms of understanding: they are all true at the same time without any contradiction.

We have clinched the Holy Grail in our hands. It wasn’t the Cup of the Last Supper. It wasn’t the Cup where Christ’s Blood from the Cross is stored. It’s not the Shroud. It’s TOTAL RELATIVISM WHEREBY WE ARE ALL RIGHTEOUS AND IN THE TRUTH! The Holy Grail is modernism and post-modern total relativism, y’all!

The Saints of God labored, and were put to death, so that we achieve this totally relativistic state! What a great revelation from Sophie and jayceei!

[Unknown Member]

TL;DR😄