Ecumentalism

[davidk]

Sartre, Plato and countless others have recognized the problem.

 

We need universals, not just particulars, and an infinite reference point for anything to have meaning. We need a personal beginning to explain man the way he is; a reasoning, personal, communicative, creative man, and who has meaning.

 

We do not need a subjective "perception, introspection and the possiblity of a priori intuition" from every individual. Along with those viewpoints, everything would be meaningless.

 

Who is the infinite reference point man needs as an objective source to personally communicate these universal, absolute truths. What personal, objective, universal, infinite knowledge source gives validity and meaning to man and to all we observe? When you answer this, then you may develop a true theology.

[McKenna]

McKenna:

A finite, human perspective cannot be expected to know everything. But in what limited knowledge we have, we can be certain if it is true.

 

Er...maybe. Philosophically speaking, I'm not sure what we can actually be certain is true. We can only, perhaps, be certain of our own existence, but that doesn't get us very far as Descartes demonstrated when he tried to take his Cogito proof farther and ended up arguing that the pineal gland was the meeting point between the material and immaterial realms...but I digress.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure how God fits into that equation, because as far as I know nobody has yet been able to "prove" God's existence, and so I don't know how we could possibly be certain of that. So I really am not sure what your point is.

 

I'm befuddled. You followed up with, "...events don't have to be factual..." I'm trying to understand.

 

Sorry, I'm not really sure what's so confusing. I said they don't have to be factual if they can be read in a metaphorical light. That's the whole point of myth, or fiction. Did a guy named Gatsby ever live? Well, probably, but not the same guy who was described in the novel, but that's not the point, and that doesn't mean the story is meaningless. Obviously.

 

Certain stories in the Bible I view as "religious fiction" a.k.a. myth. Like the story of Creation presented in Genesis. Factually, it's simply wrong, so far as we can tell logically from the evidence given to us by Creation itself, but metaphorically it is a great story that can be interpreted many ways. Which is why I love it.

[davidk]

Is this the old line; "don't confuse me with the facts"?

 

Descartes wrote philosophically about his skepticism of the existence of the external world but at the same time wrote brilliant mathematical work about how to understand its reality. He was unable to be consistent with his philosophy. His mathmatical work continuously proved it wrong. He could not prove what actually exists, didn't.

 

Since the universe and man are there, the argument is: "no one has yet to prove God doesn't exist". The really impossible work is to explain the universe and man without God. Remember the basic philosphical problem? Something is there rather than that nothing is there.

 

So, you are saying that 'factually' God did not create the "heavens and the earth"? On my post (#78), are you choosing 2a, or 2b, or 2c?

[McKenna]

Is this the old line; "don't confuse me with the facts"?

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Descartes wrote philosophically about his skepticism of the existence of the external world but at the same time wrote brilliant mathematical work about how to understand its reality. He was unable to be consistent with his philosophy. His mathmatical work continuously proved it wrong. He could not prove what actually exists, didn't.

 

Since the universe and man are there, the argument is: "no one has yet to prove God doesn't exist". The really impossible work is to explain the universe and man without God. Remember the basic philosphical problem? Something is there rather than that nothing is there.

 

I didn't say Descartes was a good philosopher. In fact my point was that he wasn't all that great, hence my reference to his pineal gland argument. What I was trying to say is that the only thing we can really be certain of is our own existence, and that doesn't get us very far, as Descartes showed when he tried to take his Cogito proof farther and wound up with some ridiculous philosophical ideas such as that of the pineal gland. But I already said all that in post #102.

 

It's also true that no one has yet to prove that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean they've proved God's existence! I know you didn't necessarily say that word for word, but since that was my point and you chose to disagree with me, it sounds like you're trying to say that we've proven God. Which we haven't. It hasn't been proven either way. I don't even remember why I'm arguing about this...

 

So, you are saying that 'factually' God did not create the "heavens and the earth"? On my post (#78), are you choosing 2a, or 2b, or 2c?

 

Well, scientifically speaking, we can't assert that God did create them, but in any case, no, I'm not saying that. Dear God. Do you really find it necessary to keep an argument going for absolutely no reason? I think you know what I'm referring to as being factually incorrect in Genesis. Why did you choose to nitpick a piece of my post that really was unrelated to my point?

 

Honestly, davidk, I've tried to be respectful, but I feel like you rarely read my posts well enough to understand what I'm trying to say - maybe I really am unclear, but sometimes you return my posts with questions that seem to pick at the most random comment I made and take it out of context. I rarely feel that you are responding to my ideas, rather my word choices. Maybe this is an unfair assessment, but from my perspective, much of our conversation has been this way. I'm not really inclined to continue a conversation that really seems to be going nowhere. Good luck and God bless.

[soma]

I would say the people on this forum believe in God.

 

DavidK I would say you are at your wit's end as to what to do about it.

 

You keep repeating "Where is God?"

 

If we make a response about God you respond "Where is God?"

 

We answer and you more sternly say, "WHERE IS GOD?"

 

The people on this forum seem to have found God and are happy well adjusted in their relationships with God because it is moving, growing and not static. Where is God? is a question you have to answer for yourself. I hope you find God and peace of mind.

 

When people here explain their relationship with the Supreme which is different than mine I don't attack, but am overjoyed and inspired by their love. We are inspired to try to bring our love to everyone at God's party. Not a party where people get belligerent because God is not an abusive, belligerent god, a god who does not love everyone. I hope you find some allies that guide you to a loving God.

[davidk]

McKenna: That was a line from an old joke. I guess I should have typed "lol" after it.

 

My comments on Descartes was a follow up in complete support of that position.

 

Reasonably there is no need to extra-prove something exists when all else depends on its existence. The difficulty is in proving the non-existence of something everything in existence depends upon.

 

On the Creation issue: I understood what you meant, I only asked you repeat it to be certain I not misunderstand. It is germaine because you brought it up, in your position on 'facts'. Genesis was wrong, in its telling of Creation, concludes that when science and the Bible conflict, one should side with "science". Therefore, because one cannot assert the Biblical account with any veracity, it's myth. Usually this position is taken with no full examination of Genesis.

 

I assert, by all facts (scientific, philosophic, and religious), God did create the heavens and the earth and in the way the Bible proposes.

 

----------

 

Soma:

I have made a cursory search of all of the posts here, and truthfully I could not find a single instance of my asking, nor implying, the question of, 'Where is God?', much less be so repetitively.

 

The simple question is to explain why one believes in God the way one does do. You either won't or don't because you 'can't', He's too infinite.( It appears, like claims of my repeating "where is God", one would rather depend on ones own vain imaginings than the truth.) Claiming this kind of faith must be true because it cannot be verified.

 

You asked me a couple of direct questions (#80), which I answered (#84), you misrepresented my answers (#86), adding some absurd statements of my limiting God along with some nonsensical Eastern religious quote. You claimed I answered 'No' to a question I clearly answered 'YES' to. I suggest this more closely defines belligerence.

Then you completely ignore my questions to you.

However, in that same post, a light must have turned on for you, because you alluded to Jesus and God being the same person with the Abraham story.

 

-------------

 

God doesn't want you to be afraid of His certainty. We need to know God in a rational, explainable way with clarity and certainty. I tried to demonstrate a most elemental process to follow in order for one to explain how to support their philosophic viewpoints.

My belief is in a God that can be understood and communicated about, with certainty; and it is only the Judeo-Christian God that can be.

 

I hope I never said anyone here did not believe in God. My only hope was that when asked 'WHY' one believes the way they do, someone would have answered. What truths can one affirm of Christianity without the Bible factually being true? Where do you find these truths if the Bible is an incomplete source? How were they communicated? Who spoke them? Are they infinitly dependable sources?

[McKenna]

On the Creation issue: I understood what you meant, I only asked you repeat it to be certain I not misunderstand. It is germaine because you brought it up, in your position on 'facts'. Genesis was wrong, in its telling of Creation, concludes that when science and the Bible conflict, one should side with "science". Therefore, because one cannot assert the Biblical account with any veracity, it's myth. Usually this position is taken with no full examination of Genesis.

 

I assert, by all facts (scientific, philosophic, and religious), God did create the heavens and the earth and in the way the Bible proposes.

 

Believe that if it makes you happy.

[soma]

The simple question is to explain why one believes in God the way one does do.

 

How reasonable is it to conclude that man's nuclear reactors need intelligent design, but the cosmic solar reactors don't? Did they just come into existence by mere chance? When we contemplate the human body and the mind, we are amazed by their brilliant designs. An instrument cannot create another instrument greater than itself, thus we will have to admit that there is a greater intelligence or consciousness than ourselves. Can we expect to see the one who created all the spectacular things in the universe with human eyes, when we cannot even look directly at the sun? We surely would burn if the larger stars were closer to the earth, then how is it possible for mortals to see pure consciousness with human eyes? What other proof do we need of pure consciousness than the fantastic natural phenomena of life? DavidK, Do we need to light a candle to see the sun?

 

Why one believes in God? another way to say it is, Where is God?

Why do you bring that up on a discussion of Ecumenical?

 

The Bible view of rationality:

1 Corinthians 3:18-21 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men..."

"Blessed are the pure in heart,

for they shall see God."

(Matthew 5:8).

 

The pure of heart have a devoted and singularity of heart which enables them to love God without any distractions.

 

Jesus said we should take up our crosses daily. I would say this means to seek God with all our heart, a coming to God like David's prayer "create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me"

(Psalm 51:10).

 

DavidK find peace of mind and you will find purity of heart and only then will you know why one believes in God the way one does.

[davidk]

How reasonable is it to conclude that man's nuclear reactors need intelligent design, but the cosmic solar reactors don't? Did they just come into existence by mere chance? When we contemplate the human body and the mind, we are amazed by their brilliant designs. An instrument cannot create another instrument greater than itself, thus we will have to admit that there is a greater intelligence ... than our(own). Can we expect to see the one who created all the spectacular things in the universe with human eyes, ...? We surely would burn if the larger stars were closer to the earth, What other proof do we need ... than the fantastic ... phenomena of life? DavidK, Do we need to light a candle to see the sun?

Your questions and their underlying message are on the mark. How could one reasonably answer them without God? So, God's existence is undoubtedly certain. They are the right questions. Is McKenna reading this?

 

I was going to address "seeing God", but you answered that question thoroughly.

..., then how is it possible for mortals to see (God) with human eyes?

"Blessed are the pure in heart,

for they shall see God."

(Matthew 5:8).

...find peace of mind and you will find purity of heart?

--------------------

 

Why one believes in God? another way to say it is, Where is God?

I can see your reasoning.

Here's mine. The usual questions for a thesis need to be answered. They are to provide evidence from all angles, so they become interdependant, but they are not the same things; Who, what, when, where, why, and how. I had precisely decided to only ask the 'why". Some 'where's' could have inadvertently slipped in.

 

It is revealing when answers are best reasoned through Scripture.

Now if you had used the term 'Rationalism', I would whole heartedly agree. Because, 'Rationality'( the quality or state of being rational. SYN: reasonableness) and 'Rational' ( of, relating to, or based upon reason; agreeable to reason: intelligent,sensible. SYN. reasonable) being reasonable, are by direct reference acceptable to God. (Is 1:18; "Come now let us reason together," says the Lord, "though your sins are as scarllet, they will be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.") While "Rationalism ( n : man's reason in itself is the source of superior knowledge; arrived at from a priori concepts.) certainly deserves the Biblical criticism you referenced in 1 Cor 3:18-21.

 

The 1 Corinthians 3:18-21 is reasonable, and it warns against 'Rationalism'!

The Bibllical view of Rationalism: 1 Corinthians 3:18-21: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, 'He is the One who catches the wise in their own craftiness.' and again, 'The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.' So then, let no one boast in men. ..."

 

(Psalm 51) One of the greates passages concerning a man with a personal relationship with God concerning confession, forgiveness, and repentance; "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me". Psalm 51:10

[McKenna]

Your questions and their underlying message are on the mark. How could one reasonably answer them without God? So, God's existence is undoubtedly certain. They are the right questions. Is McKenna reading this?

 

Haha of course I am! But I think you're simplifying the matter too much when you conclude that God's existence is undoubtedly certain based on the fact that in your judgment (as a theist) soma is asking the right questions. Now, I liked soma's questions too, so I don't want to argue about that, and I also don't want to argue about God's existence since we both believe in God anyway so...what's the point. I just am not comfortable saying things like "God's existence is undoubtedly certain" even if in my heart I believe that God does indeed exist, because that is my personal experience and isn't really relevant to anyone else.

 

Just try going on an atheist forum and saying "God's existence is undoubtedly certain." Or a multireligion forum like ReligiousForums.com. See what kind of responses you'll get. And if I'd said that in my philosophy class...I think I would have had the vast majority of the class on me in two seconds, asking for proof I couldn't possibly offer. But oh well. I don't really want to argue about this. Like I said above, believe it if it makes you happy. *shrug*

[davidk]

You have been more than forthcoming. Just be encouraged in the confidence God provides and know more than being certain of, uncertainty. It is what I personally found, and God had it waiting for me all along.

Once that happened the truth began spilling out all over the place. The obvious was not only obvious, but could all be explained.

 

We know others will be critical, because they're just as afraid as we were. They'll launch a barrage of questions, criticisms and denials. Because they are the questions they can't answer themselves, they don't believe we could possibly have any source for answers! They can be vicious if we say the word "God"; even more so if you say 'Jesus'. That name is especially hated. Despite the stubborness of aetheists and classes of budding philosphers, ask them questions.

Demand answers that don't require a "leap of faith" and then, ..."Feel the power of the Dark Side."-Darth Vader

 

Confidence is that you know you aren't in this alone. Who can stand against the infinite-personal God's 'Holy fire'?

[David]

From a very practical point of view the ecumenical movement should be based not upon a vision of unity but should be based upon a vision of plurality. There is a huge difference. Plurality assumes that some people will assume that “the mere reading of the Bible will make them a Christian” and those people will somehow have to be included in the ecumenical movement. However, as I have said before we are not going to go to the same Sunday school class. DavidK and I can share not only the same name but we can share quite a bit in the name of Christianity as long as we accept plurality as a goal and not unity. The world of duality may not be “real” in the ultimate sense but it is sure effective in the ecumenical movement. Those that can only speak in terms of ultimate unity will not be able to actually, effectively bring people together. I am grateful the TCPC is talking in terms of plurality and not unity.

 

One of the best discussions I have seen on topic is Diana Eck’s book “Encountering God, A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras”. She states “One can argue that the greatest religious tensions in the world in the late twentieth century are not found between the Western and Eastern traditions….they are the tensions that stretch between those at the opposite ends of the spectrum in each and every religious tradition….very often the religious conflicts that flare up have less to do with what one believes than with how one believes what one believes”. Progressives in every religious tradition have a different approach to “how one believes what one believes” than those that look to their scriptures for ultimate authority and end up making an idol of those scriptures. Although we may all at times feel that sense of unity that Soma talks about the real world of ecumenism will continue to be seen with this “dualism” and require pluralism as a response.

 

I said this earlier. I would like to change my opinion. I do not think that the ecumenical movement has to include DavidK and we need to exclude those that exclude. However, more problematic is what do we do with the “inclusivists”, those liberals/progressives that have the tendency that I had in wanting to include DavidK. I am thinking that ecumenism demands that we embrace pluralism and that may mean some challenges dealing with “inclusivists” (again the difference is that the "inclusivist" does not demand much from the "exclusivist" other than perhaps "good process" whereas pluralism demands commitment to pluralistic thinking from all those that theologically disagree). I do think that "pluralists" and "inclusivists" can communicate well with each other and have worthy discussions on the importance of inclusiveness. However, in the world of ecumenism (and in other "worlds" also), I think pluralism works best.

[soma]

God speaks to everyone equally, but I feel the problem is that we hear the message at different levels or frequency. I think we can have a real community with different groups of people and laity or stations in life. Yes, there are those who only speak to God and know sure as hell what the truth is even though they don't listen to Him. We know this because their experiences do not include love, Truth or joy. These individuals are a part of the people of God too. They should be a part of a Christian community with different groups, different ministries, degrees of laity, and different stations in life. Ecumenism in Christianity is a process of enabling all God's children to learn and participate effectively within a Christian all inclusive system.

 

The process of inclusion contributes to the spiritual development, the social and economic welfare of a balanced church. In our Christian family including the unity of everyone, we can enable all to reach their potential and to flourish using a system of plurality to climb the steps to a spiritual unity. This does not imply that God's child has to change to be able to participate in a Christian Church. One is accepted as one is, but education is provided to all God's children to address unity, accessibility and to challenge attitudes of ministers, priest, staff, spiritual seekers, and the local community that is not associated with the church. All people have dreams, interests and needs so we all need to explore the world and learn. We also need to socialize with our peers to develop our identity. Realizing that people learn at different rates and have different learning styles will ensure that teaching methods are flexible. We don't need to exclude anyone, but should be aware that the need for all God's children to be able to ‘see, hear and understand’ is essential to participate in a church that provides spiritual growth.

 

David great focus to bring us back to topic.

Edited March 2, 2008 by soma

[David]

Soma,

 

We may disagree in emphasis but not in essentials.

I agree with your sense of unity and God's acceptance of all.

I like: "God speaks to us all equally".

My emphasis may be more on how the hearing makes a difference.

I hope I am hearing you correctly.

Good post.

 

David

Edited March 2, 2008 by David

[soma]

God gives us a message of love here in this world, written especially for us individually and if we listen to the message it leads to spiritual understanding. This message as I hear it gives a new concept of life that helps form a new humanity, both on the individual and community level. It offers a faith that is both spiritually and socially concerned with the material well being of all of humanity. Listening to God is not a new field, but it is where people can realize new possibilities. I feel we can't listen for someone else, they have to listen to their personal message, but we can try to teach a process of listening so gradually people may learn of their true identity, duty and destiny. David this is where plurality can be of service, recognizing different layers and levels of understanding. Sometimes I don't hear well and need to be brought back into focus.

 

The mind understands and grows from experience through listening, modeling and instruction. May we listen to God speaking to us everywhere from every angle, person and experience. His voice is very clear inside. The mere reading of the Bible does not make us a Christian and I understand it can't be realized by the mere hearing of words or by reasoning alone. The Bible has to be read with an open mind, an inner hearing, a pure heart to gain the inner knowledge.

 

Mechanical prayers and blind faith can't satisfy everyone, there must be some realization. This can be seen in the stillness of a realized person at work in the stillness of a mind anchored in God. As Christ resonates in us, the mystery of God unfolds and increases. May we form a chain lifting up and being lifted at the same time.

 

Jen you might be able to give better insight into listening. I think everyone here listens with their heart. Jen you are good at putting it in words.

[davidk]

There is an inherent difficulty with Ecumenalism, when it is so inclusive that it was defined as "...the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide."

This site demonstrates loudly that such a movement is virtualy impossible, despite all the best of intentions.

The Ecumenical movement sought to promote through a functional Christian cooperation on the common tasks of missions, a mutual understanding on fundamental issues in belief, and a united witness to the world and its problems.

There are undoubtedy massive needs the world over and we really want to help relieve people in distress. In this, we can agree and we can cooperate to a certain point. If this is plurality, OK, but understanding it has only a limited and faint glimmer of hope because politics often corrupt such philanthropic efforts on large scales.

It cannot be called an Ecumenical movement because there is no common thread of religious belief or unity. Even this website can't find a unifying basis for belief in the single faith of Christianity. Some believe Jesus is the risen incarnate Christ, others do not. The incusivists begin excluding and become the very thing they railed against, being exclusive. Giving evidence that an 'all inclusiveness' cannot be maintained by even the most ardent of supporters.

Try as they might the U.N., and countless other nations, have worked to bring Jew and Muslim together in the spirit of inclusiveness, but to no avail. After time spent in the middle east, I can attest to the vitriol the Muslims have toward the Jews.

Ecumenalism is a lofty and seemingly noble goal, but religions would cease to be religions and politics would battle for the spoils.

 

God has offered His solution, but the majority of the world won't accept it. It is a lost and dying world, and the only thing that will save it is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[October's Autumn]

God has offered His solution, but the majority of the world won't accept it. It is a lost and dying world, and the only thing that will save it is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Interesting god you believe in... One who sends most of his creation to suffer for eternity... I don't like your god nor do I believe in your god... he reminds me of Zeus.

[soma]

Reading, talking and preaching about God alone is not going to get us communion with God, they are only steps on the way. Each one of us must express, establish and bring forth God and God's unity to the here and now. This can be accomplished by recognizing everywhere the omnipresence of God in our soul and in the consciousness of our being. If we rely and admit that God is omnipresent, our daily interactions will be full of harmony, depth, unity, intensity, peace and joy. God is in our consciousness instead of something out there separate from us sitting away from us up in heaven. Unity is a journey.

 

The mountains depart and the grounds are moved, but God’s love is steadfast, everlasting and has enormous consequences on our lives. With love, peace and happiness the soul gradually reveals God by providing the answers to the questions about the meaning and purpose of life through deeds, ideas and words. This invisible God is felt moving among us by the fullness of His love as He invites us to receive and give love in his company and unity; therefore, to know God is a personal experience that involves an assent of the mind to the self-revelation of God's pure consciousness in the soul. It means coming to know God’s unity, greatness and majesty in thanksgiving because we realize the dignity of all men and make good use of created things. Even in adversity God reveals himself, but still remains a mystery beyond words because if we understood Him, it would not be God because He is beyond the mind. If God were not supreme, beyond the mind and one, He would not be God.

 

On my journey to unity I see the North Star shinning and guiding even though I can't touch it. This desire for perfection is written in the soul because God who is perfect created man with perfection and love. It is through this perfection and love that God continues to hold man in existence because He never ceases to attract man to him because perfection and unity are only in God where we find love, truth and happiness.

 

We argue, debate and stray, I love the discussion, but may we choose unity and joy over fear and distrust. Every moment we have that choice.

[Wayseer]

Every moment we have that choice.

 

Every choice involves an event. Every event involves a process. Every process involves an act of creation. Every act of creation involves GOD.

[davidk]

Autumn-

Hear this, oh foolish and sensless people,

You have eyes, but do not see.

You have ears, but do not hear. -Jer 5/21

 

Soma-

You really write exceptionaly well. You speak well of man's personality, needs, and aspirations. You identify man's nobility and the distinction of man's existence, his longing for God.

I firmly believe this is good, but only part of what we need to know. We need to break through the romanticism of man's nobility to recognize there is a contrasting element in man, his cruelty. That is man and his dilemma.

May I explain?

 

Wayseer-

Yes, it is our choice to make, every moment.

[October's Autumn]

Autumn-

Hear this, oh foolish and sensless people,

You have eyes, but do not see.

You have ears, but do not hear. -Jer 5/21

 

I appear to have hit a sore spot. Don't fancy yourself a prophet, don't take biblical passages out of context. It is you who has eyes but does not see and ears but does not hear. Come back when you are willing to risk something outside of your comfortable life.

[davidk]

Dear Autumn,

God does not send people into eternal punishment. Don't be foolish enough to think He does or that I believe He does. It is just as foolish to think I have not been where you and the others have been before I had this 'comfortable' life. To assume answers not given is likewise, just as foolish. Coming into what has proven to be 'hostile territory' when I hoped it would be as claimed, an environment of 'open minds', inclusive, and pluralistic, and only to have found the contrary could also be considered foolish. It is certainly not comfortable, but challenging.

 

I don't like your god nor do I believe in your god

How can you not like a god you don't believe in? He's not there but I don't like him anyway.

[October's Autumn]

God does not send people into eternal punishment. Don't be foolish enough to think He does or that I believe He does.

 

No, you believe people send themselves to hell... nice god you believe in...

 

It is just as foolish to think I have not been where you and the others have been before I had this 'comfortable' life. To assume answers not given is likewise, just as foolish.

The answers are not important. It is your world view that matters. You showed that quite clearly in several of the threads you've posted it. If you had been where I was you would never have been so foolish as to go to where you are now.

 

 

Coming into what has proven to be 'hostile territory' when I hoped it would be as claimed, an environment of 'open minds', inclusive, and pluralistic, and only to have found the contrary could also be considered foolish. It is certainly not comfortable, but challenging.

 

You misunderstand what "open minds, inclusive, & pluralistic" means. I have no desire to go over old territory with someone who does not have an open mind, is not inclusive, and is not pluralistic. When you get to where we are then we may be able to have an intelligent discussion.

 

It takes a great deal of effort to stay where you are because you must compartmentalize and live in constant denial. Challenging, yes, but not in a good way. Comfortable because you don't have to think or work.

Edited March 12, 2008 by October's Autumn

[davidk]

... nice god you believe in...

If you would, please, tell me of the god you believe in. If you have already told me, forgive me for asking you to repeat it. Tell me where I could find it and you won't have to go through this again.

 

 

If you had been where I was...

What has happened so that your journey has brought you here?

 

 

It is your world view that matters.

Of course I agree to, and have said, this. For each of our world views is seeing the world through the answers to our questions about reality. Share some of the questions you have had answered that have shaped your world view.

 

 

It takes a great deal of effort to stay where you are because you must compartmentalize and live in constant denial. Challenging, yes, but not in a good way. Comfortable because you don't have to think or work.

Well, on this I'm not quite certain I understand. If, as you say, I have everything compartmentalized, live in denial (constant denial), and do not have to think or work; doesn't that actually require less effort to maintain?

[October's Autumn]

If you would, please, tell me of the god you believe in. If you have already told me, forgive me for asking you to repeat it. Tell me where I could find it and you won't have to go through this again.

 

Not one where anyone would be punished forever...

 

What has happened so that your journey has brought you here?

Life has happened. Over the course of the last 38 years I have lived life and, to quote Paul, When I was a child I thought like a child but when I became an adult I learned to think like an adult. Sorry for being so ambiguous but it is hard to be any more specific than that.

 

Well, on this I'm not quite certain I understand. If, as you say, I have everything compartmentalized, live in denial (constant denial), and do not have to think or work; doesn't that actually require less effort to maintain?

 

It is a different kind of effort.