thormas

Joseph, there is indeed evolution going on for all, the dog might lose its tail in the next X amount of time and we might no longer need hair on our heads (or anywhere). However, my comments were not mean to be about evolution as it could be said of the future tree (or what the tree will become), or about any 'thing,' that it is complete. However, for humans, with or without hair, their possibility is still before them waiting to be actualized (perhaps more a completing than a completion). I think:)

Not denying the Big Bang, the many suns, the reality of evolution or the laws of thermodynamics but the tree in the yard is fully a tree: it is complete - in some real way. Its 'tree-ness' is not before it, its possibility is actualized (not withstanding what was before or will be after what is now a tree) or, perhaps, another way to say it is that it has no possibility; it is done (saying this I also fully recognize that trees grow but growth does not result in greater tree-ness. However, man or woman are different. On one hand, obviously, a human can only be a human (won't be a tree, rock, dog, etc.) so, in one sense, a human too is complete. However, most of us recognize that in another way, man is not complete; he is all possibility waiting to be actualized (or not). This possibility is not whether one becomes an astronaut, an engineer, a lawyer, etc. but whether and to what degree, a man or a woman become 'truly human.' This Human-ness is the possibility before each of us that is yet to be actualized (and saying this does not deny the reality that some mental, psychological, sociological or perhaps even physical factors can impede or even prevent actualization of what is possible). As, I said earlier, I think this is self-evident (consciously or unconsciously) an accepted reality in everyday life. We recognize that the murderer, the rapist and the terrorist have failed to become, failed to be Human and we affirm this in our language, our descriptions of them: animal, beast, inhuman. And, we celebrate and hold up as a model, an example (a possibility) for all, those among us who have act-ualized their possibility: those among us who are truly Human. In some real way, thing-ness (tree, sun, planet, rock, horse) is given and complete in the first and all moments of the thing. Human-ness is before us; the possibility is given, the actualization is yet-to-be. I suggest this is obvious and self-evident to people, to most people. And, with some introspection and some further discussion on it, the response is, "of course." I am obviously, as been said of such language in this or another thread, stretching the language to fit the reality. If you don't agree, that is obviously, fine.

Tariki, I agree that ".... a mind committed to any metaphysical belief system CANNOT be free, and sets itself up to be "shaken" by reality." However, if a mind uses a philosophical system or language to be able to hear, understand, see Reality, then it not a belief system: it is faith, which is properly understood as response (a self-giving) to the self-giving of Reality. And such giving of self is the only way to be free. I will one day have to listen to Batchelor but for me, empathy is understanding/sharing with another, while compassionate concern is the movement to the other. If a metaphysics of empathy gives self to the other, then they are one.

It seems rather self-evident and known in experience that human beings are not merely things, along side of other things, that are encountered in the universe. We are more....more than mere things, more than objects. I am is not it is. There are various hypotheses that have and continue to be made and then investigations undertaken of the human body in an effort to preserve and prolong human life. In these cases, the body is seen as a thing but the person whose body is being examined or investigated, is not and is not treated as (just) a thing. This seems to be evident in the care given when the results of the investigation are delivered and sometimes even the distance that some medical professionals try to maintain when delivering that news. The body is investigated, the person is treated with concern - because the person ....is recognized as more; this is, seemingly, a given. Also, we have 'issues' with those among us who treat other human beings as things or objects: the objectification of a woman, the bullying of a transgender person as an object of scorn, a child pornographer, the serial killer's fetish that he values at the expense of a human life, and on and on. So, agreeing with Steve, there is a need to have a hypothesis, investigate and thus have evidence to build a body of knowledge on with further hypotheses and investigations. However, people (unless they're wacky) don't investigate their wife/husband, children, friends or (most) relatives nor could one ever truly know them by having a hypothesis about them and then investigating it. Again, sure, let's have a medical investigation or examination if someone's kid has a physical, emotional or mental problem and/or difficulty, but getting to' know' that kid will take more than that. To know them, another has to participate, has to 'be' in their lives, in them! Human beings are not, first and foremost, objects to be investigated, we are subjects who can be truly known (and know another) in relationship. Steve, as you say "we apparently have a brain that is capable of a sort of participative sharing of emotions with others; an ability to empathize with another person's suffering or joy. We sense when something is not quite right with a spouse, friend, and so on." But still, the actual sharing of emotions, the empathy and our sensing is done in relationship. And, following your thought, I, too, have had dogs since I was a kid, have 2 now, love them like crazy and agree that they can sense when things aren't quite right and exhibit guilt feelings from time to time. However (and please include the address of those closest to you in your response so I can copy them), I don't and never will 'know' the dog (or relate to it) like I know my wife, my daughter (this, of course means more presents under the tree for me:}) or my best friends. I disagree that it is 'the "more" that we believe in that keeps us imprisoned by self.' Rather, and again, it seems evident that the ones who fail to see 'more' in their fellow human being than things/objects, are imprisoned in themselves (never truly participating or being in another's life) and/or literally imprisoned. And it is those human being who truly give themselves to another by participating and being in their lives, that are truly free and interestingly enough have become even More. Stretching words a but here but if human is not merely something you are but something you do, then those who give, participate, even 'leave self behind' because they are for another, are 'more' Human. And isn't this also self-evident in our words and actions: we say of the hero cop, the fireman on 911, the soldier who sacrifices self for another, the brother who gives a kidney for a sister, 'what a fine human being, what a good man/woman,' we hold them up as examples for us all; they are among the most human of us. And of the rapist, the killer, the terrorist, we say, ' what an animal, they're a beast, they are in-human.' We, recognizing their objectification of others, treating others as things (to be disposed of), has left them bereft of their humanity and we recognize their lost of 'humanness' in our words. So, what is meant by the 'more?' A thing is in some way complete, there is no possibility. A rock, a tree, a lizard, a horse, even my beloved dogs - they are what they are, all they are 'meant' to be. The living thing can grow to adulthood, can learn things, including tricks, they can 'love' and sense my needs, but my dog is complete. Human being has an open space before him/herself. She/he is capable of more, not only doing but being more. Human is not merely a species, a thing we are, it is a possibility we can become. We are more: it is our possibility.

Man is known (and treated) as an object or 'thing' in certain ways: medical sciences make man the 'object' of their study and we are better for it. And, there are others ways in which man has been known and treated as a mere thing (Nazism, terrorism, murder, rape, etc.) and we are worse for it. So, it seems evident that we can 'know (things) about' man, however, since man is 'more' than a thing, he can never be fully or truly known by the sciences. However, most of us would say, we do 'know' others. This is a participative knowing: we know another because we are 'taking part' or 'engaging' or 'in' their life. This is not the study of an object, it is knowing a subject: it is experiencing/knowing another. This knowing is most evident in one's engagement with his/her spouse/lover, child and friend. I don't know much about fairies. I would first look, thinking they are either objects (like a rock) or allowing that they could, like human beings, be 'more' but still have some thing like properties that could be seen, I think, therefore, I would know in short order if they were under my shed. However, if they did exist and were 'more' than mere things, the only way (method) to know them would be to participate in their lives, which in this case, would begin, I guess, by getting under the shed. Having answers? The empirical sciences employ one model of knowing (of things) that is secondary to the participative knowing of (human) being. Just ask your spouse or lover how he/she wants to be known. And you already know the only way to 'have answers,' real answers about your wife (or husband) is to be in the trenches with them, to 'know' them. And that relationship started because there was a self-revelation of/by each person which called for or elicited faith: a response and commitment to the self-giving of the other. And it is in the self-giving and receiving that we know.

Rom, I would never look under another man's shed. Did I mention science? I mentioned lack of proof. Be that as it may, the study of things (or entities) is the model of knowing appropriate to the empirical sciences. If man is more than another mere object or thing in the universe, then the scientific model of knowing is not adequate to the subject of man or knowing man. But, as indicated above, there is no here either.

"Each of these cases are a direct result of chemistry in the brain." But it seems that some believe they there could be more to a human being - and neither side or any other side can definitively prove its case.

Welcome Lemony, look forward to discussions. Just out of curiosity, why are they pretending it is a non issue?

Batchelor is another Englishman, along with Christian authors Macquarie and Hick. What is in the water there? Another book goes in the Amazon Cart, thanks Tariki. I hope they allow us to bring some books into the next phase of the journey as the list is too long to complete even if one lives long.

I was basing my comments on the work of biblical scholars, not only their work on the gospels but also research and insight into 1st C Judaism and their beliefs. Given that, it seems that Jesus did expect the literal establishment of the Kingdom on earth and soon, in the lifetime of some of his disciples. Paul also, at first, hoped for and expected to see the establishment of that Kingdom. It also seems accurate that Jesus was executed for being the King of the Jews, such a King was expected to establish the literal Kingdom. If I remember correctly, Jesus did not state that he would be the King (for obvious reasons) but if you look at the role he believed the 12 would play, the question is, if he was their leader now, who would be their leader when they assumed their positions of authority in the Kingdom to be established? Some scholars have allowed that Jesus talked of his role with the 12 and that his betrayal by one of them led to the charge. I recognize that not all research and interpretation is in agreement and I am still reading and learning, but this seems to be the 'take' by highly respected scholars. Having said all this, I think it is fine to reinterpret the Kingdom for a modern audience and speak of consciousness and an ongoing 2nd coming - I just don't know if that was what the historical Jesus and Early Church believed. And given that it seems the historical Jesus predicted the Kingdom in the lifetime of his disciples and it didn't happen, he was wrong. For me, that is okay because he was a man with the worldview of his time and a Jew of his time who shared much with his people while also having an 'insight' into or understanding of God, that still results in us saying: Messiah, Son of God, Incarnation of God. Burl, I have understood it as a genre but also a description of an individual who held apocalyptic beliefs.

Rom, I think I lost you on the first sentence. I do lean panentheistic but also recognize, as was said earlier in this thread, that in these kinds of discussions we 'strain words to their limits - and perhaps beyond.' Plus it is classical theism I have moved from, there is a 'theism' (can't remember the actual term right now) in the writings of some theologians that is intriguing. To call God Abba, Love or even Person, is both an ontological 'statement' about being and an existential statement about man. In other words, to call God Abba or Love is to say something about man's stance before or response to Being/God. Paradoxes abound! To be saved is to be made whole, so one could suggest that even if there were no need for salvation or forgiveness, man still stands in need of God to become whole or truly Human.

I agree that we can have a conceptual/intellectual understanding yet not LIVE it and that the ultimate "story" is Reality itself. I also am a non-theist. Perhaps at some point you can explain Pure Land Buddhism grace. For a 'neo-thesit' or pantheist, grace is simple Reality giving being (Self), so that all might be. I think theology and these kinds of discussions must, of necessity 'strain words to their limits - and perhaps beyond.' I will have to think on your 'recognition that I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs rather than because of them.' However, for me, if a moment of being saved is presented, there is ultimately a decision to take it and thus be saved. I guess I differ in that without "free will" there is no possibility of real 'dialogue' or relation with/to Reality. There is a bit of a paradox though in that I recognize that I am both from and of the very being I choose in order to be (my truest self and More).

Tariki, "to LIVE truth beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp. I do not relate it to any particular "story." I understand this to suggest that all the great stories speak to Truth, not exactly sure what you mean by 'beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp.' Seems that is always part of truth although it is a reality that must be lived not merely thought about. Also, I think I get your emphasis on the 'mercy of God' but still seems to me that the mercy must be 'met and accepted' by man (i.e. choice). Just some questions while watching football.

Rom, Wasn't talking about dragons, was talking about, as you indicated, 'must' become a story as captured in thou shalt (seemingly a command) as opposed to thou mayest (definitely a choice for or against). If it is about dragons - what dragons? If a Story didn't resonate why would one 'become' it? Thou may presupposes choosing, so not sure of your point.

No one becomes any Story unless they so choose. We began talking about Stories as providing Answers (or Truth or Meaning) to Greeley questions and, it would follow, if a Story resonated in one's life, it could be accepted - if not, it would not. No 'must' or 'should' is demanded. I think it would also follow that for the one for whom a Story resonates, it would be 'my' story. The counter to Nietzsche's 'thou shalt' is Steinbeck in East of Eden, Timshel: 'Thou Mayest.'

Two great biblical scholars that I respect, Dale Allison a committed Christian and Bart Ehrman an agnostic, agree, with others, that Jesus was indeed an Apocalyptic Prophet and that the various sayings have their origin in the historical Jesus. The further interesting dilemma to wondering if 'this generation' passing away and thus showing Jesus was wrong and not fully Divine is that if he knew the end would come while his disciples still lived, this would call into question whether he was really human. Simply because humans can't see and make such predictions: look at all those who have said the world will end in say 1789, and then 1817, and, okay, it will really end in 1948 and on and on. No one has ever been right and I am more than grateful for that. I have come to recognize that Jesus was a human being, like us in all ways, and a Jew of the 1st C CE when many of his people were expecting the end and the promised deliverance from God. Although I think he 'stands out,' he agreed with the worldview and the religious expectation (which he built on) of his people. It seems, agreeing with the Baptist, the he did expect the Kingdom to arrive and he was 'desperate' to get people to listen, repent and change their lives in preparation of the coming of their God - but that mean a change 'now'. Within this he told the story of the God in whom he trusted and lived. I wonder if during the time he took to prepare to go public (early 30s) and standing on the shoulders of those who went before him, he "grew in wisdom, grace and knowledge' and came to 'know' the God that (he believed) was present and would come in fullness. I'm still reading on this but he did indeed seem to be a unique teacher and although God was considered Father by the Jews, to address God as Abba (Daddy) was, I believe unique. Both Ehrman and Allison have books on Jesus, the Apocalyptic Prophet and Allison's book on 'Constructing Jesus' is a commitment but worth the read. The bottom line for me is that Jesus didn't have knowledge about God, in other words, he didn't (primarily) know 'things' about God (including when God would end it all), rather Jesus 'knew' God (participative knowing, the way we know a friend or lover) or to continue the Meister Eckhart comments from another thread, Jesus 'got rid of (mere knowledge of things about) God' because he was doing God, i.e. Love. And I think in this we have Divinity (Love) in Humanity as Humanity becomes Divinity (Love). Jesus, for me (and not exclusive of other Stories), is True Son of Abba; he does what the Father does and is. Finally, he did make a mistake about the end coming before his disciples passed away, but then again, he was human.

Steve, HOPEfully it is a bit more, especially since some/many in the world might not be in anyone's version of heaven. And, on a lighter note, my moment will soon be 'shopping' which I consider a little bit of hell:)

If I understand you, you have an excellent point here Tariki. As Soma said earlier about Eckhart, I pray to God to be rid of God, so too I often wonder if we speak of Jesus (and the Christian Story) to be rid of Jesus (to be rid of all Stories). By that I mean, the point is not to merely tell the story, however packaged (although that is necessary for it to be heard in the first place), the point is to be the Story. The point is not to worship Jesus, it is to be Jesus; the point is not to worship God, it is to be God: Divinity in Humanity, in each and every one of us (incarnation or giving flesh to Love in Man), so Humanity can be Divinity. Some Church Father (Augustine?) said, 'God became Man so Man can become God' and another spoke of deification (still not pantheism because what I am called to become, I am not, it precedes me). I have Macquarie's Principles of Christian Theology here in my office (originally read in 76 and reviewing it presently) and now reading another Englishman, but this a woman, named Georgina Morley's book, 'John Macquarie's Natural Theology - The Grace of Being.' And Hick is/was a giant and one of my favorites. Enough theology for now, I have to go shopping for my wife as we attempt to finish decorating for Christmas weeks before the day, as opposed to finishing it, as we typically do, on 12/24. Such an accomplishment would be heaven!

Tariki, Popular science may indeed be more popular than the latest books by theologians or biblical scholars although I don't take that as a measure of their value. I guess we could also compare popular science books to the reading of Milton, Spencer, Shakespeare, Homer, Lawrence, the poetry of William Carlos Williams, histories of the world or the biographies of great persons of note. When presented with these names, many in the younger generations might google them rather than read them. Years ago, the late Andrew Greeley, a priest, sociologist and novelist wrote (in his book The Jesus Myth) that each of us needs at least some 'rough and ready answers' to the great question(s) of life. I sometimes wonder where moderns get such answers - but that is for another thread. I have always looked on Truth or Meaning or Greeley's answers (if such exists) as that which, although the same for all humanity, must 'present' Itself to (or, conversely, be discovered by) men and women where they are found, in the great diversity of humanity. The Christian Story is one that has spoken to much of the world, while the same Truth has been presented in the Other Great Stories of humankind. Some like to hear and compare different stories or might be drawn to a story that resonates more profoundly in their lives wherever and whenever they live. For me, the Christian Story is (or can be) highly relevant because like all of our Stories it attempts to speak Truth/Meaning about us. Even 30 years ago when I taught religion/theology, the typical response was, 'why didn't anyone ever explain this to us before in this way?" So, because Christianity is one of our Stories, because it is about us, because it attempt to provide answers to Greeley's questions, it must be salvaged/reformed/re-presented so it can he heard perhaps for the first time by ever new generations (and the older ones who now find it lacking in relevance). To that point, you could say, "incarnational reality of the Living Word can manifest in ways beyond the wisdom of the wise" and, although true, I doubt it would speak to many of us in today's world. But there are ways to say it that could be heard, understood and therefore ‘give’ life. In addition to Dunne, I have read the works of two Englishmen, one I discovered in the 70s, the other right before his death in 2012: John Macquarrie and John Hick. These are guys who 'passed over' into the thought worlds of philosophy, science, poetry, language, metaphor (and perhaps other Stories) to see with fresh eyes and explain in a new way what they knew or suspected was always there (in the Christian Story). As for those who have called you "the son of satan", "the voice of satan", even "the anti-christ" - they never understood and sadly, perhaps never will. It is bullying, just like is done in all walks and ages of life and tells us more about the bully than the subject of their scorn (but you are in good company). I do understand how one can get tired but just as you find peace in your grandchildren, you find what is new, what was there in your children - and the possibilities, all the possibilities of a truly Human life are presented again. I think there are always possibilities plus as a wise man once said to me of the bullies, ' you can't let the a--holes win!'

Soma, I guess it depends on the Christian but not all seem to be confined or imprisoned. For example, many Catholic Christians in the USA are called cafeteria Christians in that they pick and choose what to practice or what to include in their ethics: birth control, divorce and remarriage, acceptance of gay marriages, abortion (in some cases), women priests, etc. And I'm not sure if many listen to the local bishop when he tells them for whom to vote or not vote. I think this is not only healthy but perhaps can someday lead to changes or reformations because it points to a divide between the leaders and the people. It also, perhaps, suggests many Christians are ripe for a retelling or 'upgrade' in the Christian Story. However, I do admit that other Christians follow their faith to the letter of the law or leader. I also don't think all/most (?) Christian leaders have power in mind but truly believe they are 'doing the Lord's work' and keeping the people 'faithful' to God's word. I disagree with their interpretation but don't automatically think they are bad people. As for the Trumpeter, although I agree there is racism and mean mindedness in our society and some/many (?) Christians voted for him, I think the motivation was less religious than perhaps fear and a desperate need for change that many perceived would not come from the usual politician. Steve, I actually think the opposite but of course it probably depends on the individual. Just as it is often said that education is wasted on the young and many 'older' men and women would love to go back to college, I find many older people are the ones reading about religious topics and attending the lectures of people like Spong and Bart Ehrman (typically at the latter I am the youngest one there). As for where we end up, I admit I do have more than a passing interest.

I don't see the present 'reformation' coming from leaders in funny hats, speaking from pulpits (although some would say Francis is of interest). Rather, reformation and the need for reformation come not only from the common human beings as mentioned but from theologians, philosophers, mystics, biblical scholars, who, believing Christianity has something of great value to present, attempt to reinterpret or re-present the Christian Story for today's world. And although they might have some thought on the continuation of life beyond death, their eye appears to be on the depth of meaning in (THIS) life rather than upon a 'reward' in the next. One can respect, support and/or participate in such events as the Rickshaw Challenge and many similar events in the UK and the USA, and while they might be new chapters and verses they are not the only ones being written, told, retold and lived in the world. But, then again, are they 'new?' The story of helping self, helping others and lifting up a community is one that has been told before, even 2000 years ago and also in other lands by other people and other wise men. I love Eckhart, sometimes he is easier to understand than other times, but always worth the effort. I have wondered for a while whether God was ever 'in himself.' Or if God/Being's very 'nature' is to 'let be,' then must there always be creation, creating? Would a ‘God’ in Himself be God? Certainly, such a God could never be known but of what value (for lack of a better way to put it) would God in himself be?

Tariki, I agree that the "whole thought world of a Transcendent Personal Being....." is gone, at least for many people. Thus the need for and the ongoing efforts of a 'reformation.'

Steve, I think it is the reformation that each new age needs: their 'answer' must be retold in the language of their present day, recognizing the world view that exists at that time. Their answer, their faith must be able to be 'heard' and resonate with their 'present' experience. I think theologians like Baum, Macquarie, Hick and Spong have been leading voices attempting to do that. I, definitely, think we have missed something: as many have written, for generations we took the 'word' of God much too literally and took comfort in inerrancy, lost the humanity of Christ in his divinity and looked upon God as another being, albeit, it a supreme one. And this just to name a few. But even with this (reformation), there must be the choice (in this case) 'to be' Christian, which is also a choice to self- actualize which is also to express (to be) divinity (at least in a finite way). This is what gets lost, this is what is difficult. As a philosopher might put it we get 'lost' in beings and forget being. I agree that Chesterton's comment could be applied across all faith answers, but we were talking about Christianity and a post Christian era. I agree with the psychological comfort for some but for others it has always been more, one could say it has given Answer, Meaning, Life. I have never bought that it merely is an opiate for the masses. I agree it is faith (again not mere belief in creeds) but the nature of knowing in faith (in theology) is, as in existentialist philosophy, a participative knowledge - different in kind from objective, empirical scientific knowledge and from wholly subjective emotion. But it is the same (participative) knowing that exists for the runner, the parent, the friend and the lover (at least I think).

I guess things might turn on how one defines 'knowing.' I believe we are all agnostics, in that we simply do not know - definitively. However, few/none of us leave it there. Out of such agnosticism comes a decision, a faith decision: to give oneself over to a possible answer that resonates in each person's life (I distinguish faith which is a response of the whole person from mere belief in a creed or set of propositions). For some, the decision is that there is no answer, while others decide and accept that we can never know whether there is an answer or not, and for others there is an answer. In all cases, according to one's understanding, one commits to the decision. Atheists that I know appear fully committed to the understanding that 'this is it' and there is nothing else; this stance impacts how they understand and live life. So too, 'committed' agnostics accept that there may or may not be an answer and seem (to me) content. Others, believe there is an answer and that such an answer or meaning is part and parcel of what is called God. (BTW, this is not an evaluation of the ethics of any of these persuasions as it is evident in experience there are exceptionally 'good' human being and others not so good across all). Typically in human relationships, we reveal things about ourselves but first and foremost, there is self-revelation: we reveal, we give ourselves. So too with 'divine revelation,' it is primarily and properly understood, not as information about God, but as the self-revelation, the self-giving of God (or what some might call Being or others Life). And Faith, as in the other examples, is man's response: in this case, it is the giving of self over (and into) Life/God/Being. As for knowing: I only, for example, really know running by running, in other words by doing it. So too, If one believes that Life is Love (that is it's meaning, the reason to be, the be all and end all) - then one does love (compassionate concern for other). This would lead me to say I 'know' that love is the 'stuff' of Life because I do it and see life enhanced, created, empowered. So to mirror Rom: Do I have any answers? As being religiously inclined I answer this way: Do I think I know? Yes, I think so. Do I know? Again, Yes. Do I think anyone else knows? Yes. Does anyone else know? Yes or at least I suspect. Can I prove what I think I or others know? No. So do any religious texts have the answers? Seemingly for some of those who decide or suspect there is an answer or something to know. It is the understanding of these answers and whether they speak to one's present life, whether they resonate in life, that matters. How do we determine the veracity of these supposed answers? Science goes only so far: some truths - being in love, being a friend, being a father - have to be done, have to be lived. And it is in the doing that one (truly) knows. So too God, for the one who makes such a faith decision: one can only know by 'doing' God/Love, by being God/Love. However such 'knowing' is based in faith (relationship) and sustained in hope/trust (as is friendship, love, etc,). As to Steve's point about all the time to find the Truth to no avail. I have long wondered if it is to be found or lived. Many of us have 'found' love (as in being in love) because we live it - but even though it has been found still, each of our children, and all children, must 'find' it themselves. We can provide some guidance, shower them with love so they know it, provide the example of our "being in love with another' but still they must make find it, make it real, make it flesh in their lives. Love has been found and it avails us all, yet it is always before us, always must be lived (by both we who are already in love and the countless others who have yet to find and live it). As with love, so with Truth (Christianity's Truth might be expressed as God in man so man can 'become God'): the finding is one thing, the being, the doing is the true measure. Post Christian era, a failed experiment? An era in need of a christian reformation definitely but I lean towerd Chesterton's assessment: not tried and found wanting, found difficult and not (really understood or) tried.

Welcome!