From: "Mark Tindall" <>

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Things of Ultimate Importance





> Barry OGrady wrote:



(The questions. Mark's responses are preceded by ==)

>

Our will is not truly free. It would have been better for everyone if our

> >nature was biased towards good always.

>

>

== I acknowledge there are constraints on will.   Maybe a 'degree of

freedom'

> in our choices?

>

==How would you know good if you didn't also know evil?  Example: I f every

> street in heaven (if it exists in this manner) were paved in gold then

gold

> would become boring and commonplace after a while.  One would treat gold

> like a Macca's burger.

>

>

> >>>So you believe that Jesus/God do a good cop/bad cop act, with a

>careing

> >>Jesus shielding us from an evil God?

> >>

==That theory has been put forward by William Blake ... amongst many others.

> >

> >What do you think?

>

==We know only a little about God as God is infinite.  Like Newton and

science

> Christians have only played around the edges.  The problem of evil / pain

> /sin / whatever you want to call it ... is real and won't go away in a

> hurry.  Objective reason may not solve all the problems in the universe...

> there is also room for subjective experience.

>

==Is God wholly good?  My subjective experience is yes desite all the

> suffering I have endured over a lifetime.  My objective reason tells me I

> don't know.

>

==I see Jesus as the God-bearer rather than as God himself.  He was one who

> showed us what it was like to be in relationship with God.  As such I do

not

> see Jesus as being at odds in nature to God.

>

>

> >On what do you base your ideas about God?

>

==Reason and experience.  I am coming to the conclusion that both must

operate

> to understand the spiritual world.  This includes an understanding and

> experience of one's own psyche as Jesus said the realm of God is within

you.

>

>

> >Wishful thinking?

>

==If it were wishful thinking my imaginary god would be much different.

> Speaking at my bottom-most greedy lustfilled level I would wish for a god

> who made me rich, handsome, popular with the girls, without my

experiencing

> any pain or death and who lets me do anything I want without restraint.

> Sort of like Bill Gates in Tom Cruise's body on the ganja weed living on a

> remote island populated only with young sex crazed females.   So far my

> experience of God has been much different :-) ..... and yet rewarding.  It

> is an unknown path on which I find new things everyday - some of which I

> like, some of which I don't like, some of which I constantly struggle with

> and some of which cause an awe in God's presence that is difficult to put

> into words.  This awe is a transcendence that is found in many religions.

>

>

> >Why don't we get the benefit of this love?

>

==A benefit is something that is good for us and helps us  ...and it is not

a

> feature ... which is a characteristic of God.  The benefit is primarily

the

> relationship for one in the relationship however all people benefit from

> both being and life from the God who I see as Being itself.  Everyone of

> your best and most enjoyable experiences and thoughts is a taste of God

> whether you believe in God or not.

>

==Of course, you may then say "What about everyone of my worst and most

> horrifying experiences and thoughts?  Do these come from God?"  I don't

> believe so ... but I don't know.   The problem of evil again.



> >Does God lack the intellect to  express his love?

>

==Is the Pope Catholic?  As Being I believe God has all knowledge and

> intellect.

>

=='Forever' and 'eternal' are time phrases which are probably not >>useful

> to use when dealing with God who is both within and without >>time.

> >

> >What makes you think that?

> >

==Time is a factor of matter.  Without matter there is no time.

>

> That statement.

>

> >Where did you get that idea from? Time cannot be stopped or altered.

> >Time would continue at the same rate even if there was no matter.

>

==I don't think so.  I think Einstein was correct.  Time had a beginning and

> will have an end.

>

==I think that life after death is timeless.



> >What makes you think that?

>

==I think we exist in spirit after death and that spirit is not associated

> with matter.  If there is no matter there is no time (in my

understanding).

>

> >There is no life after death. It's a con.

>

==Like Plato I believe that life after death is not a reward but a condition

> of all people regardless of belief.  I believe like Jung that the thinking

> and learning processes continue after death.  I also believe like the

> Buddhists that one is absorbed into God who is Being.  What this all means

> is also difficult to explain except to say that we exist after death.

What

> exact form that existence takes is unknown to me.

>

> >Everything that makes you is contained in your brain. Once your brain

> >stops working you cease to exist.

>

==That is a common materialist point of view.  It may be true.  We will all

> find out one day when we die.  My belief is that the brain is only part of

> the psyche which also includes the soul / spirit.  I think that the

physical

> does not account for all that is within a person.  The work of Joseph

> Campbell in mythology shows that myth can express a lot more than can be

> grasped by reason alone.  Moslems read the Koran aloud  as the words

> themselves are beautiful and impart a presence not readily known in an

> English translation.  The function of spirit is linked with myth and art.

> We appreciate these things apart from reason.

>

==That assumes that God didn't make us as we should be.  How do >>we know?

> >

> >Do you think there is any way that humans could be improved?

>

== I'd get rid of anyone I didn't like .... but then if others could do the

> same I wouldn't be around either.  Every action has a consequence.  Can a

> finite human mind understand the full reasons of an infinite divine mind?



> >Christians often claim that God is working on them.



== It is a subjective claim.  Although I lean towards rationalism, without

the

> experiential it is void of energising life.

>

> >We are often told that we shouldn't give in to our nature.

>

==That is perhaps a control mechanism used by preachers.  Our nature is to

be

> human.  I believe God wants us to be fully human and not ascetic robots

> obeying God's every whim as interpreted by the institutional church.  This

> control tactic is based opn the false assumption that we are all born

evil.

> I don't believe in original sin.  A baby is not evil from the beginning of

> its life.  It is human nature to be fallible and to learn and grow.  That

is

> not evil but good.

>

> >Many Christians believe that God uses threats to try to get people to

>love

> him. Talk about a desperate character!

>

==If God is a bully then God should not be followed but should be killed

> instead.  Any God that can be killed should be killed.  If God cannot be

> killed then he / she / it is God.

>

> >Someone should tell God that the only valid way to get love is to be

> >lovable.

>

==Yep.  Is life lovable?  Is love lovable?  I think all these are a taste of

> God available to all..



==Maybe God's view is not

> >>the same as the bible records.

> >

> >Perhaps, but since God seems reluctant to clarify his wants we have >no

way

> of knowing.

>

==Maybe God's wants are simple.  Maybe God wants us to fully BE.  Perhaps

the

> choice is like that of Sartre ... between being and nothingness.  A

> contemplative nun once used the verb 'to Easter' - to bring us as humans

> fully into life.  The experience of God is not a religious experience

> separated from the real world.  It is rooted in being itself.

>

> Mark