You Might Be a Humanist If…(1)

[PaulS]

From Phil:

Good morning, friends. It is good to be back after yearly meeting and Fifth Sunday. After speculating three Sundays ago that if Jesus were alive today, he’d be a humanist, I am announcing the beginning of a new series entitled, “You Might Be a Humanist If…” In the Sundays ahead, I will be sharing with you the priorities and values of humanism, which I believe to be consistent with the moral precepts and historical priorities of Quakerism. You’ll remember we defined humanism as having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.

Though the word humanist has been used as a pejorative by many evangelical Christians, I want to affirm my appreciation for the aims of humanism, which include the assertions that 1) knowledge and wisdom are best obtained by studying the observable world using the scientific method as opposed to words from a god whose existence we cannot indisputably prove and whose actions we cannot reliably predict, 2) that humans arose through evolution, are self-aware, possessing the ability to discern right from wrong, and 3) that our moral principles are not determined by divine commandments, but by examining the results that our actions yield in the lives of real men and women. Simply put, if our actions result in happiness and well-being for ourselves and others, they are moral. If not, they are immoral.

Today, I want to speak about the first assertion, that knowledge and wisdom are best obtained by studying the observable world using the scientific method as opposed to words from a god whose existence we cannot indisputably prove and whose actions we cannot reliably predict. You’ll remember from high school that the scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. We trace its origins to the early 1600s and attribute its founding to the Italian mathematician and astronomer Galileo and the English philosopher Francis Bacon. For their efforts, Galileo was placed under house arrest by Pope Urban VIII and Francis Bacon died in disgrace, bankrupt and alone, confirming the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.

Where does knowledge come from? I was at yearly meeting last week and heard a man say that God is the giver of all knowledge and that if we wanted to be wise, all we had to do was ask God to show us the truth and God would. I tried that in high school after failing to study for a chemistry test. I sat quietly at my desk, bowed my head, and asked God to fill my mind with the Periodic Table, but apparently God was busy helping another high schooler because I flunked the test.

When I started having gallbladder attacks this summer (Have I mentioned my gallbladder attacks?), if I had gone to a doctor and they had placed their hands on my abdomen and asked God to cast out the demons tormenting my body, I would have found another doctor. Instead, the doctor employed the scientific method, objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation, thereby deducing my gallbladder was, in her words, “underperforming,” which Mike Goss noted was the theme of my life.

Let’s think about this. In nearly every aspect of our lives, we employ the scientific method, whether we’re seeking medical advice or financial guidance or relational insight, we’ll seek out someone who depends upon the scientific method to acquire their expertise. When we do that, we are affirming the value of humanism, whether we realize it or not.

Several years ago, I was at the Dairy Queen and another pastor in town was standing in line behind me. He said, “Did you know I had a heart attack and almost died?”

I said, “Yes, I had heard that. I’m glad you’re alright.”

He said, “My wife drove me to the hospital, and they airlifted me to St. Vincent’s and the doctors operated on me and here I am. God took care of me.”

I couldn’t help myself. I said, “Not to mention the helicopter pilot who took years learning to fly a helicopter and surgeons who spent fifteen years learning to do heart surgery. Plus, the scientists who invented the drugs keeping you alive today. And let’s not forget your wife who drove you to the hospital in a car someone else invented and manufactured. They helped too.”

He said, “No, it was the Lord.”

And there you have it, friends, the utter refusal to admit our indebtedness to our fellow beings for their contributions to our well-being.

Humanism teaches us how to be grateful. Humanism asks us to be honest about the observable, verifiable facts of our lives. Humanism allows us to be appropriately aware of and appreciative of the good things that happen in our lives. To acknowledge that we have been blessed by human knowledge and kindness in no way denigrates God. It’s no secret that I have married one of the finest persons on Earth. If I were to wake up each morning thanking God for Joan but neglected to whisper a word of gratitude to her, I would be thoughtless and inconsiderate. It’s important in this life to know when and to whom to be grateful.

Friends, there are many bright and helpful people making real differences in our world. To discount their contributions is to deny the value, worth, and dignity of humankind. Goodness is goodness, wisdom is wisdom, to be appreciated no matter their author. For God to be good, humankind need not be evil. For God to be wise, humankind need not be foolish.

Today, I am grateful for Galileo and Francis Bacon, who with so many others, have taught us not only the value of observation, but the importance of knowing whom to thank and when and why.

[romansh]

Phil Gulley I presume?

He seems to be writing to a certain religious demographic. 

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

He said, “My wife drove me to the hospital, and they airlifted me to St. Vincent’s and the doctors operated on me and here I am. God took care of me.”

I couldn’t help myself. I said, “Not to mention the helicopter pilot who took years learning to fly a helicopter and surgeons who spent fifteen years learning to do heart surgery. Plus, the scientists who invented the drugs keeping you alive today. And let’s not forget your wife who drove you to the hospital in a car someone else invented and manufactured. They helped too.”

He said, “No, it was the Lord.”

This is the basis for an old joke: Parable of the drowning man.

A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.

"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."

"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."

Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.

"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."

Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."

After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.

"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."

Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.

And, predictably, he drowns.

A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"

God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

Edited August 18, 2022 by romansh

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, romansh said:

Phil Gulley I presume?

Yes.  Thanks - I added that to clarify.

7 hours ago, romansh said:

He seems to be writing to a certain religious demographic. 

Yes, it's from his newsletter which is subscriber based (free) so presumably it attracts those that are partial to his messages.

[romansh]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:10 PM, PaulS said:

1) knowledge and wisdom are best obtained by studying the observable world using the scientific method as opposed to words from a god whose existence we cannot indisputably prove

Well ..  have sort of being saying this for awhile ... have I not?

On 8/17/2022 at 9:10 PM, PaulS said:

we cannot indisputably prove and whose [God's] actions we cannot reliably predict

There is no inductive "proof". All we can do is postulate and find corroborating or conflicting evidence. So without giving us any of the "Properties of God®" then this line of thought are empty calories. Sounds good, but a waste of time.

On 8/17/2022 at 9:10 PM, PaulS said:

2) that humans arose through evolution, are self-aware, possessing the ability to discern right from wrong,

I think Gulley is accurate on the evolution/awareness bit, but Gulley here begs the question. He is assuming right and wrong exist in the their own right. But this alleged God in Genesis 3 counsels us not to think in terms of right and wrong.

On 8/17/2022 at 9:10 PM, PaulS said:

3) that our moral principles are not determined by divine commandments, but by examining the results that our actions yield in the lives of real men and women. Simply put, if our actions result in happiness and well-being for ourselves and others, they are moral

Well here at least Gulley defines by what means by moral, and it is similar to the way many secularists might define morality. Philosophically it might be labelled Consequentialism. I think Consequentialism might be a good rule of thumb, but then there is the Buddhist line of thought, life is suffering. And the Campbellian observation, You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. And here Gulley seems to beg the question that we want to live a life where there is no evil or suffering?

Just as a style suggestion I would provide a link to Gulley's piece and highlight a few bits and comment on them.

 

 

[romansh]

A bit like Humanist/2

Quote

 Our evolution as humans required unfathomable, innumerable steps from the earliest microbes to our present-day form. Indeed, we are still evolving, to better survive our ever-changing universe.

Unfathomable, and yet in the rest of the essay Gulley begins to fathom it? Obviously this fathoming requires a lot of education, experimentation and verification never mind hard work.

Generally I agree with Gulley's sense of awe (I am presuming here). I have that sense of awe too. For me awe, is what passes as spirituality.  The question I would like to ask Gulley, Why do we have to filter this through the lens of Christianity? OK, I suspect Gulley being a Quaker might quietly answer, We don't. Having said that, that to reach his "audience" (wrong word) he has to use this particular lever.

Paul ... have you sent Phil Gulley a link to these discussions? 

[PaulS]

On 8/21/2022 at 12:39 AM, romansh said:

Just as a style suggestion I would provide a link to Gulley's piece and highlight a few bits and comment on them.

Good suggestion.

[PaulS]

On 8/21/2022 at 12:59 AM, romansh said:

Paul ... have you sent Phil Gulley a link to these discussions? 

Yes, when I first requested permission to post them, and invited him to participate if he so wanted to.

[PaulS]

On 8/21/2022 at 12:59 AM, romansh said:

Generally I agree with Gulley's sense of awe (I am presuming here). I have that sense of awe too. For me awe, is what passes as spirituality.  The question I would like to ask Gulley, Why do we have to filter this through the lens of Christianity? OK, I suspect Gulley being a Quaker might quietly answer, We don't. Having said that, that to reach his "audience" (wrong word) he has to use this particular lever.

I can only imagine that it is the familiarity with a life-long journey within Christianity that keeps him tethered to this lens.  Perhaps its the hope of life after death in some form or another that keeps him (and others) tethered?  That 'hope' you know.  Maybe it's just a bit too much to acknowledge that whilst it's all wonderfully awesome and all, this does all end one day, not that we'll know that when we pass.

[romansh]

Humanist 3

Here Gulley ponders what the most dangerous day in history was.
An interestingly line of thinking:

Quote

... if the most perilous day in human history was when it first occurred to someone that if they convinced others that God spoke to them, and them alone, imparting rules to live by, that they could acquire the greatest power of all–the authority to tell their fellow beings what they could and could not do.

Now of course if we take a look at this question through my world view ... any particular day is simply the sum of all the antecedent days. And here we just draw an arbitrary line in the sand and give it special significance. But in this particular example Gulley almost takes an atheistic point of view to the question. Interesting.

Quote

1) knowledge and wisdom are best obtained by studying the observable world using the scientific method as opposed to an appeal to divine revelation,

2) that humans arose through evolution, are self-aware, possessing the ability to discern right from wrong, and

3) that our moral principles are not determined by divine commandments, but by examining the results that our actions yield in the lives of real men and women

Don't particularly agree with 2) but we certainly have developed the concept of right and wrong.  Also while we are self aware, I would argue this self awareness is incredibly limited and it is this limited self awareness is from where our feeling of free will stems.

Quote

Simply put, if our actions result in happiness and well-being for ourselves and others, they are moral. If not, they are immoral.

Hmmn ... when my football team loses I am unhappy ... the opposing team is being immoral? But to be fair to Gulley, this is a consequentialist argument that many non believers will go for. So where would we but Ukraine fighting back? Is this moral and should we worry about it being moral?

Quote

There is nothing so dangerous as one who claims to speak for God

In Rex Weyler's book The Jesus Sayings, Weyler suggests that one of the few lines we can can reliably ascribe to Jesus is to not trust those that speak for God. Here I tend to agree with Gulley, though the actual thing that is dangerous is believing someone is actually speaking for God. Also, I would argue that we not trust anyone who does not take a slightly agnostic stance on life, universe and everything. By all means we can argue passionately for a particular point of view.

Edited September 3, 2022 by romansh

[PaulS]

On 9/4/2022 at 6:01 AM, romansh said:

Don't particularly agree with 2) but we certainly have developed the concept of right and wrong.  Also while we are self aware, I would argue this self awareness is incredibly limited and it is this limited self awareness is from where our feeling of free will stems.

I would tweak Phil's right and wrong and suggest we have the ability to discern when we are causing harm to another or not (generally speaking anyway).  We also have the ability to take action and choose not to harm that other if we so choose.

On 9/4/2022 at 6:01 AM, romansh said:

Hmmn ... when my football team loses I am unhappy ... the opposing team is being immoral? But to be fair to Gulley, this is a consequentialist argument that many non believers will go for. So where would we but Ukraine fighting back? Is this moral and should we worry about it being moral?

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with defining happiness as a product morality either.

On 9/4/2022 at 6:01 AM, romansh said:

In Rex Weyler's book The Jesus Sayings, Weyler suggests that one of the few lines we can can reliably ascribe to Jesus is to not trust those that speak for God. Here I tend to agree with Gulley, though the actual thing that is dangerous is believing someone is actually speaking for God. Also, I would argue that we not trust anyone who does not take a slightly agnostic stance on life, universe and everything. By all means we can argue passionately for a particular point of view.

100%.  The ultimate arrogance concerning belief in God is not accepting that at least a little part of your beliefs (if not all of them wholesale) could be wrong.

[romansh]

Humanist 4

I am beginning to find him a little repetitive.

Though this bit was interesting ... a glimpse under the Vatical veil

Quote

I visited this week with someone who has a family member at the Vatican, a man in a position of great power who enjoys a close friendship with the Pope. This man and the Pope have privately discussed their desire to bring women into leadership, but are unable to do so, knowing too many cardinals, bishops, and priests would not stand for it

It would seem that all the colonels etc. seem to have some suasion. 

[PaulS]

For me, the paragraph that saddens me most is this truth:

...Despite that, most of Christianity embraced a theology of gloomy despair, telling us over and over that we were fallen, full of sin, deserving of and destined for everlasting punishment. The great philosopher George Carlin described this religion to a T when he said, “Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you.”

It is incredibly amazing to me to try and fathom that so many well-meaning Christians in the world, who in so many ways demonstrate compassion and caring, somehow think it is fair and reasonable for 'God the Father' to send their friends and loved ones to an eternity of hell and suffering, because they didn't get their theology right during their short life span on this blue orb.  70 or so years vs billions and billions of years (eternity) of pain and suffering equals justice and goodness?  Yet so many Christians adhere to this belief.  Why?

[romansh]

Here are Gulley's Humanist 5 and 6

Agree with the gist, but I am having a hard time getting excited by all this.

[PaulS]

On 10/12/2022 at 6:07 AM, romansh said:

Here are Gulley's Humanist 5 and 6

Agree with the gist, but I am having a hard time getting excited by all this.

Same, Rom.  Nothing objectionable, but nothing to get particularly excited about either for me.

[David Sundaram]

On 9/19/2022 at 7:41 PM, PaulS said:

It is incredibly amazing to me to try and fathom that so many well-meaning Christians in the world, who in so many ways demonstrate compassion and caring, somehow think it is fair and reasonable for 'God the Father' to send their friends and loved ones to an eternity of hell and suffering, because they didn't get their theology right during their short life span on this blue orb.  70 or so years vs billions and billions of years (eternity) of pain and suffering equals justice and goodness?  Yet so many Christians adhere to this belief.  Why?

It is because the Jesus's message has been 'hijacked' by hateful and fearful people, in ways not much different that the way ISIS afficionados have 'hijacked' Muhammad's transmissions. The 'solution' is not 'Humanism', IMO. A la "We are (immortal) 'spiritual' beings' having a (mortal) 'physical' experience," I think that what 'Humanism' does is quite unChristian in that it "Throws out the eternal-life Christ-Spirit baby with the (dirty-misunderstandings) bathwater." I am trying to 'correct' misunderstandings of Jesus's message. As I said in a previous post, the title of my treatise is "What Did Jesus REALLY Mean?" And its subtitle is "A Refreshing Rearticulation of Honest to God Truth."

As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard.

In my view, you are also one a 'well-meaning' Christian who, in this case, has 'simplistically' relegated the ideas of 'God' and 'immortality' (i.e. 'eternal life') to irrelevance and thereby in your own (admittedly non-terrorizing, and that's 'good') way do great injustice to Jesus's teachings, much to his/their detriment, again IMO.

Your ideas of 'justice', for example, are 'human' ones which are quite different from the 'godly', transhuman one that Jesus shared. Read Matthew 25:14-30 closely (and open mindedly) if you wish to 'get' what he meant about 'The Kingdom of Heaven'. This is a far cry from the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" human-compassion generated 'ideal'.

I hope to will receive this as an honest and honorable attempt to engage your and others here in genuine discussion of the subject of 'humanism versus transhuman spirituality' and not simply reject or, worse, think that is just an 'assault' on what you thinks of as 'sacred' and so ban me from posting here. I genuine wish to serve to help "Progressive Christianity' live up to its 'flag-waiving' title.

[romansh]

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard.

I notice you have done this sort of thing on several different websites ... and indeed you seem familiar.  Have you had any success anywhere?

[David Sundaram]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I notice you have done this sort of thing on several different websites ... and indeed you seem familiar.  Have you had any success anywhere?

Not YET.

P.S. I noticed I had already been on this forum way back around 2018 - had totally forgotten about that. Relevant quote: "No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man!" (Heraclitis)

Another one: "Behold, a sower went forth to sow;  4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:  5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:  6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched;  and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns;  and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:  8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.  9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

I (my book and treatise) have been well received by Pastor and hid congregation in Kenya of all places! They are much more grassroots attuned to and grounded in the wisdom contained in Biblical scriptures, I think

Edited December 14, 2022 by David Sundaram

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard.

David, this comment might epitomise why you have difficulty - I am yet to respond to a single post of yours (this is my first response ) yet you claim that my reactivity to idiocy and delusions regarding God, have prevented you from having a fair hearing.  This is nonsense, and one doesn't have to be Einstein to recognise that you might be getting in your own way here.

In any event, please don't be rude to other members here or your stay here will be short-lived.  Take a chill pill, expect that others might disagree with you and debate the points in question or remain quiet.

Thanks

Paul (As Admin and Site Owner)

[David Sundaram]

38 minutes ago, PaulS said:

yet you claim that my reactivity to idiocy and delusions regarding God, have prevented you from having a fair hearing.

That is just my supposition (hypothetical explanation), which you 'simply' dismiss as being untrue, as is your right to do.

Please accept and allow for the fact that, in my view, you haven't deigned to engage with any of the ideas I have shared and related questions I have raised about 'god', 'possible immortality', 'soulful after-life', etc. that I have repeatedly raised and argued as being central to Jesus's world-view and philosophy. Also, again in my view, you have ignored (excused?) quite disrespectful/pejorative characterizations and comments of others (tariki and romansh, to be specific) towards things I have quite reasonably/logically (IMO) presented as well as my chosen style of articulation. Thus, your 'judgment' in regards the issue of 'fairness' that I have raised strikes me as being 'unfairly' biased.

I accept the fact that this is not the case in your view.

I hope and trust there is 'room' here (in this forum) for this disagreement between our respective 'views' to remain as stated.

[PaulS]

1 minute ago, David Sundaram said:

That is just my supposition (hypothetical explanation), which you 'simply' dismiss as being untrue, as is your right to do.

Please accept and allow for the fact that, in my view, you haven't deigned to engage with any of the ideas I have shared and related questions I have raised about 'god', 'possible immortality', 'soulful after-life', etc. that I have repeatedly raised and argued as being central to Jesus's world-view and philosophy. Also, again in my view, you have ignored (excused?) quite disrespectful/pejorative characterizations and comments of others (tariki and romansh, to be specific) towards things I have quite reasonably/logically (IMO) presented as well as my chosen style of articulation. Thus, your 'judgment' in regards the issue of 'fairness' that I have raised strikes me as being 'unfairly' biased.

I accept the fact that this is not the case in your view.

I hope and trust there is 'room' here (in this forum) for this disagreement between our respective 'views' to remain as stated.

It is not an 'opinion' David - you said I have prevented you from having a fair hearing.  This is simply untrue and you are being disingenuous framing it as a 'point of view'. Not deigning to engage with you for whatever reason I have simply does not prevent you in any way from having a fair hearing on this forum, no matter what you may pretend.

As has been previously noted, I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated.  Please desist.

 

 

[David Sundaram]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

It is not an 'opinion' David - you said I have prevented you from having a fair hearing.  This is simply untrue and you are being disingenuous framing it as a 'point of view'. Not deigning to engage with you for whatever reason I have simply does not prevent you in any way from having a fair hearing on this forum, no matter what you may pretend.

As has been previously noted, I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated.  Please desist.

As far as my review led me, I said "As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard."

If I said (somewhere else) that you 'prevented' me from having a fair hearing, I retract that as a misstatement. Please quote me, so I may be sure that I was 'wrong' and accordingly 'desist'. If I wasn't, then it is up to you to correct your own misperceptions and misattributions.

I acknowledge the truth in your statement "I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated," and appreciate your intentions in said regard.

Edited December 15, 2022 by David Sundaram

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

As far as my review led me, I said "As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard."

If I said (somewhere else) that you 'prevented' me from having a fair hearing, I retract that as a misstatement. Please quote me, so I may be sure that I was 'wrong' and accordingly 'desist'. If I wasn't, then it is up to you to correct your own misperceptions and misattributions.

I acknowledge the truth in your statement "I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated," and appreciate your intentions in said regard.

David,

Please don't be pedantic.  Whether you used the word 'prevented' or not has no impact on what you were claiming.  Whether I "prevent" you getting a fair hearing, or whether you "can't get past my reactivity...to get a fair hearing", all without a single comment from me, is just semantics.  

I don't have time for it. It won't be tolerated for long on this Forum. Don't do it again. Thankyou.

Paul

[tariki]

Hi again David, just to say I am a veteran of over twenty or so Discussion Forums spanning about 25 years. I have morphed from being afraid to say boo to a goose to virtually saying whatever I like. My apologies if it has come across as rude, but I do have a pretty weird sense of humour at times.

Myself, I give you a hearing but simply do not want to engage. That is the end of it.

Getting back to forums, just recently on another I was told that they did not want to hear any "inter-religious ######", and I was basically hounded off the forum (this a Buddhist Forum) Again, I have even been called the "antichrist" on a Christian forum, as well as a hypocrite and a liar on others. That is the way of it and I apologise again if, in becoming hardened to such robust exchanges I have offended you in any way. I try to keep my mind/heart soft and pliable, open to the workings of grace, but sometimes I fail. 

All the best

[David Sundaram]

7 hours ago, tariki said:

Hi again David, just to say I am a veteran of over twenty or so Discussion Forums spanning about 25 years. I have morphed from being afraid to say boo to a goose to virtually saying whatever I like. My apologies if it has come across as rude, but I do have a pretty weird sense of humour at times.

Myself, I give you a hearing but simply do not want to engage. That is the end of it.

Getting back to forums, just recently on another I was told that they did not want to hear any "inter-religious ######", and I was basically hounded off the forum (this a Buddhist Forum) Again, I have even been called the "antichrist" on a Christian forum, as well as a hypocrite and a liar on others. That is the way of it and I apologise again if, in becoming hardened to such robust exchanges I have offended you in any way. I try to keep my mind/heart soft and pliable, open to the workings of grace, but sometimes I fail. 

All the best

I resonate with and very much appreciate all that you relate here, tariki.

High-Five, Soul Brother!

[David Sundaram]

7 hours ago, tariki said:

Myself, I give you a hearing but simply do not want to engage. That is the end of it.

Having registered the stated attitudinality that you do not want to engage with my theses (I think/feel you have heard me), again, although this may now be unnecessary, I renew my request that you do not intrude on my efforts to engage (or 'cleanly' fail to) others here without distracting and usually (in the past, that is) 'impish' 'noise' being thrown the mix for 'fun'.