Oh, absolutey they can, methinks... and your mention of children is topical.  I'm thinking that the well known Jesuit maxim "Give me the child 'til seven and I'll give you the man" (or similar) speaks directly to your point.  INDOCTRINATION WORKS!  Always has.

And of course that still is acknowledged, as per, say, Pastor Becky Fischer in "Jesus Camp"...  "Anyone who does any work with kids knows, it’s because - The reason you go for kids is because whatever they learn by the time they’re 7, 8, or 9 years old is pretty well there for the rest of there lives – these are statistics that you can research for yourself" and "I don’t think any child gets anything by choice… Is it right for the fundamentalists to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs – I guess fundamentally yes, I do, because every other religion is indoctrinating their kids – Hellooooooo – I would like to see more churches indoctrinating."

Your question actually surprises me given that I thought this was widely known... what's your basis for "Personally, I don't think so" please?  Kids often believe fervently in God (and Santa!), but only (usually?) the ones exposed via adults.

Hi rishi,

Yes it is really possible to believe/trust in anything that we haven't actually experienced.  If I am not mistaken that is the point of faith/hope.  That there is a reality different than the one we currently experience or have ever experienced.

One can talk about grace and have an intellectual understanding of grace.  One can even read of historical instances of grace.  Experiencing grace can be separate from all of that and it can also be quite a bit more profound.

Yes, it can.  We can always believe that there must be or ought to be more to "justice" than what we have experienced.  Whether we will or not is another matter.

I don't know that it needs to automatically be obsessive.  I'm thinking if it was truly obsessive they would likely never experience satsifaction.  With regard to justice, an obsession with the same would mean that justice would never be just enough.  That is a problem but not likely one that springs from never having experienced true justice.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So Bretta, is it indoctrination if you consciously rear your children to include ones preference of disbelief in the possibility of a God?

Rishi,"Is it really possible for us to believe (trust in the reality & goodness of) anything that we haven't actually experienced?"

Wouldn't you have to be born into a vacuum for that to happen? I think it's been proven that children who don't have touch or love in their lives will not flourish or survive.

I'm thinking that belief has nothing to do with the reality of what is essential to survive. Love, trust and goodness are (I believe), built into the human makeup/DNA and necessary for us to socially evolve in order to survive as a species.

Well, sure...  Why d'ya ask?  And for that matter, why isn't it so obvious that there wouldn't be a need to ask?   (Of course, by definition, children are already atheists and would likely remain so until or unless some other indoctrination... or 'actual experience').

“All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God.” -- Baron d'Holbach

Bretta, I just get tired of the indoctrination argument that is constantly used to justify an atheists superiority related to scientific thinking because they claim to have "cleaned their slate" against believing in God. As if believiers haven't progressed with their faith and questioned what has been taught them.

As for why did I ask, I wanted to clarify that if was obvious to you also---and you have.

“All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God.” -- Baron d'Holbach

Is that provable or just a statement that fits what you believe?

Woah!!!!  What 'superiority', please?  And with me as an example, there was no 'slate to clean' - I was born atheist and as per the Jesuits and Pastor Beck Fischer for just two examples (there are more), was never indoctrinated.  So this is a centuries old and still current theological acknowledgment / philosophy / idea / whatever.

'Provable'?  In what way (i.e. by what criteria, in your view)?  I ask because it seems an odd question since absolutely nothing stated in the affirmative about any of the 'Gods' are 'provable'.  And it is my experience - as opposed to 'just a statement'.

Bretta,"Woah!!!!  What 'superiority', please?  And with me as an example, there was no 'slate to clean' - I was born atheist and as per the Jesuits and Pastor Beck Fischer for just two examples (there are more), was never indoctrinated.  So this is a centuries old and still current theological acknowledgment / philosophy / idea / whatever"

Perhaps "superiority" is a little strong wording, but it comes down to an atheists claim that if it is not provable scientifically it is false when it comes to God and therefore believers are deluded and atheists are not. Would you say that is accurate?

Bretta, "'Provable'?  In what way (i.e. by what criteria, in your view)?  I ask because it seems an odd question since absolutely nothing stated in the affirmative about any of the 'Gods' are 'provable'.  And it is my experience - as opposed to 'just a statement'"

So you're saying because you have never experienced God working in your life that it cannot exist? If I made a statement that I believe we are all from/born into the kingdom of God and atheism is learned and disconnects some from their divine nature, you would ask for proof wouldn't you?  So I merely ask how do you know you were born athiest?

No 'perhaps' is needed, methinks.

Kindly show me any atheist that says: "if it is not provable scientifically it is false" (when it comes to God or anything else)?  So, NO, I would say even based on your first part... not even remotely accurate.  I do recognize that some atheists say theists are delusional, but that portion doesn't make your entire statement true.  Plus, please don't generalize with 'artheists' (implying all).

Neither I nor any atheist I've ever talked to, and there've been many, say 'God (or Gods) cannot exist'!  Where are you getting this from?  Cite, please?  (I'm thinking you're missing some sort of context or whatever, but your statements about what I and other atheists say are just way, way out there.)

Assumming we agree that that theism is the belief in a God or Gods and atheism (a = without) is the absence of belief in a god or Gods, it's self-evident - your mind isn't developed to the point to have any beliefs at all (assuming we can agree that 'belief' is "any cognitive content held as true" / "That state of the mind by which it assents to propositions, not by reason of their intrinsic evidence, but because of authority" (or similar) - OneLook for belief for 37 dictionaries.

Edit:  And no, I most certainly would not ask for (lol) 'proof'.

Bretta," atheism (a = without) is the absence of belief in a god or Gods"

Rather a theist would say God exists whether we believe or not. Believing does not bring God into existence, it IS whether we believe or not.

Bretta,"Neither I nor any atheist I've ever talked to, and there've been many, say 'God (or Gods) cannot exist'!  Where are you getting this from?  Cite, please?  (I'm thinking you're missing some sort of context or whatever, but your statements about what I and other atheists say are just way, way out there.)"

I suppose I've been freguenting Richard Dawkins official website often enough to have reached this "sweeping" conclusion. Almost makes me as guilty as the broad statements that athiests often attribute to theists. Good to know that you are open to the possibility of God. What would make God believable for you?

Hi Rishi:

If we don't have the experience, what do we have to trust in if not the idea?

What is the difference between the experience itself and our thoughts about the experience? Does the experience give rise to the idea, or does the idea give rise to the experience? Or perhaps both?

John touched on God's Grace. Some people experienced Grace before they conceptualized it, other conceptualized it before they experienced it, and yet others never had the experience but have the concept to believe in as a shining beacon of hope.

Believing in the traditional Christian concept of Grace, however, may hinder the experience of Grace. If, as I think, Grace is the innate state of being, from which we have alienated ourselves with our arbitrarily created world of concepts, then refraining from conceptualization, as in meditation, would let us experience the innate state of Grace.

The Truth which is God is veiled. Reason cannot remove the veil because reason is the veil.

The trouble with the above statement is, of course, that it is a statement of reason. 

Between the idea

And the reality

Between the motion

And the act

Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

-T.S. Eliot 

Uhhh... what I said, huh?   I said theism is the belief in a God or Gods, not theism is the belief that said belief brings God into existence.

Then kindly point be to one or three assertions that "God cannot exist" (certainly Dawk himself doesn't say this and he very specifically addresses the possibility).

Broad statements such as (for context, please)?  I hope you're not asking "What would make God believable for you?" in the context of my point that we do not claim that "God(s) cannot exist"... are you?  That Gods can exist and my belief are two entirely separate issues. 

But to respond directly is difficult for me because the notion has never, ever been present in any way for me.  Perhaps if you tell me what would make the Flying Spaghetti Monster believable to you, I can grasp at least a possibilty of a valid response (TIA).

Bretta,"

Then kindly point be to one or three assertions that "God cannot exist" (certainly Dawk himself doesn't say this and he very specifically addresses the possibility)."

Quote Dawkins please. I've heard it before but I can stand to hear it again.

Bretta,"But to respond directly is difficult for me because the notion has never, ever been present in any way for me.  Perhaps if you tell me what would make the Flying Spaghetti Monster believable to you, I can grasp at least a possibilty of a valid response "

Because God addresses my spiritual nature and affirms that I am more than what the world may attempt to conform me into. If I denied the existence of a spirtual realm I would be denying a very important and integral part of what my existence is about. I would only  have the experience of others and denied a divine knowledge that exists from another level that this world cannot provide. Opening and exploring my spiritual nature allows a conduit  to connect me to God's presence that brings a peace and reverance for all creation that the material world cannot provide. A divine connection that transcends ordinary peace and reverance.

Your turn.

I'm short on time, so a Wikipedia reference will have to do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

I'm betting on a remarkably different sounding answer.

I've been noting that this has been getting to be a rather one-sided 'discussion', WaterFall... I think I keep answering your continuous stream of questions but I seem to get somewhat less back (your last post being a superb example).  So before I give you a Dawkins cite (one you might have seen already at that... as you likely know, a 'quote' per se might not be the best form, but I will provide a cite), please respond to my outstanding questions (especially the top one, asked in various forms I think 3 times before and viewed as important to me):

Kindly point be to one or three assertions that "God cannot exist" on RD's site?  (That is, a cite;  not a mere assertion that it's there).

Kindly show me any atheist that says: "if it is not provable scientifically it is false" (when it comes to God or anything else)?

Do you agree with what I said - I said theism is the belief in a God or Gods, not theism is the belief that said belief brings God into existence - as opposed to what you implied I said with your 'rather'?

Were you asking "What would make God believable for you?" in the context of my point that we do not claim that "God(s) cannot exist"?

How can the d'Holbach quote be 'provable' (by what criteria)?

ROTFL...  I ask for "what would make the Flying Spaghetti Monster believable to you" - clearly equivalent to your: "What would make God believable for you?"... and you respond with your belief in your 'God'.  Kindly answer the question, Waterfall, and once I understand what might be valid as a response to you, I will try my best to reciprocate:

What would make the Flying Spaghetti Monster believable for you?

I'm now thinking that you find it as difficult to answer as I initially thought because we're in the same boat - I don't believe in 'God' and you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...  both questions of 'what would make these silly concept believeable' are somewhat inane to non-believers. Still, you raised this type of question so I'm assuming you have at least some idea of what would be a reasonable response - one that would satisfy you as the asker.   Your turn. 

I see religious belief (religious faith, trust) as something other than the kind of 'believing' that one can have/do in the absence of any experience. I would call that kind of 'believing' something other than belief in the religious sense (maybe 'indoctrination' or 'fantasy' or 'opinion' or 'ideology' or...you name it)  because they are too different to share the same name. 

A claim about the true nature of a religious reality that is made prior to actual experience of/with that reality might very well be a useful thing to have. I just don't see claims of that sort as "religious belief." I think they are different in kind from the knowledge involved in religious faith. I understand the knowledge involved in religious belief to be something that follows actual religious experience, and seeks to rationally understand its meaning. It's predicated on a religious experience.

For example, take the claim "God loves all persons with a love that is unconditioned and just."  God's church, then, if it is "God's" church, must love all persons with a love that is unconditioned and just. To the extent that this actually happens in lived experience, the church is a place where religious belief can be formed.  But, to the extent that the church fails to be an agent of that divine love, no words can make up for that failure. Without that embodiment, the words become only propositions that lack any foundation in lived experience.  Such words might lead to something, but I don't think they lead to this thing called "religious belief." In the same way, a child who grows up without actual experiences of a love that is just, will have only fantasies and ideas about what love and justice are or should be.

Ahhh...  That would explain much, then.  I merely use dictionaries, including ones I find under the heading of 'Religious' dictionaries.  Your use would likely narrow the number of people who have 'religious beliefs', no?  I'd guess very significantly by the number of people I've spoken to, even within the church.  Any idea on just what the impact might be?  A reduction of 50%?  75%?  95%?  (I'd guess it's way up there, beyond any of these.)

Besides, you did use the (bolded) word "anything" in you question...  the responses you get might not be relevant to 'religious beliefs', not to mention this meaning you're presenting here.  Just a thought.

Yes, it would suggest that not everything that gets lumped into the category of "religious belief" is actually that. It might be fantasy, ideology, something not predicated on transcendental knowledge.  But in the modern way of thinking, where there is no such thing as transcendental knowledge, such differentiation would be meaningless. 

As far as percentages... hard to say. Just like percentages of children who grow up without actually experiencing a love that is just, there are no dictionaries for that. It's too subtle a  domain.

Good point.  Funny how things can seem perfectly clear until you bring them into dialogue with another mind or two.  In part it's your answers that are helping me identify the unstated nuances in the question.

Hmmm...  Wouldn't all this have made the last OP line:  "Personally, I think so, at least in the case of religion."?  I find it a tad obfuscated with the number of negations ('other than', 'absence of', 'haven't actually experienced', 'don't think so').  Don't you?  Or not?  ;-)

But would you call that type of belief/faith/hope (which is rooted in only intellectual understanding or knowledge of historical instances) the same as the type of belief/faith/hope which is rooted in "the love of God being poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5)?  The latter sounds pretty experiential to me. And does that former type of belief make us whole (i.e., is it 'saving faith'?)   For me, religious belief and trust signify a deeper kind of knowledge.

Actually, "anything" may not be too broad. 

For example:

When I sit down in a chair, what exactly is it that gives me the confidence that the chair will not break apart beneath me?

I think it's experiential knowledge.

And as the examples become more distinctly human (e.g. the basis of a child's trust in love, justice) the experiential foundations of belief become even more intuitively obvious.

Here's a site for you  re: Dawk and God's possibility, although it does mention it's not a theistic God he referred to:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

Here is Richard debating with John Lennox at Oxford

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Bretta,"Kindly show me any atheist that says: "if it is not provable scientifically it is false" (when it comes to God or anything else)?"

Here is the wiki definition of  "strong atheism": Plus you can include all "logical arguments" that are used to disprove God's existence.

 Strong atheism

Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that no gods exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.^[30] Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible, for example claiming that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (for example: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the non-existence of such a god is a priori true.

Talk about not having anything to offer...

Reading all the posts so far, I find a lot of perplexity...(on my part)

As my life progresed, I have become aware of (a believer in) My Holy Guardian Angel who has provided me with several if not many instances of  ---what?-- Intercession? A fog of inexplicable comfort and  at times a feeling (experience?) of  "I'm saving you from this (danger, action, harm) "-And these experiences provide me with a warm sense of having an entity that is 'on my side'. I can explain it no better...but it's my 'belief' . And as with other beliefs nothing that would convince others. A concept of a divine hierarchy ?  That  leaves God free to do important things... Nice of me, eh?

Why not?

I think that if there is a difference it is probably more a matter of degree than kind.  The Holy Spirit is surely not limited in how it may come to enter the human heart?

The former type is not saving faith.  Neither is the experiential saving faith.  The only faithfulness that saves is God's not ours.  At best, both are a response to God's graciousness and at worst both are something that God's graciousness works around.

Deeper knowledge is wonderful.  It isn't salvific. 

It allows us to respond more fully with what it is that God has given to us via gifts of the Holy Spirit.  It opens us to walk in valleys that formerly frightened us with their shadows and to go where following in Christ's footsteps might take us.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I suspect the first type is more nature than grace, more Other-generated than ego-generated, (although nature is also a gift...)

If both kinds, or degrees, of faith are equally gift.... why wouldn't they both be salvific, perhaps in different ways or degrees?

By "deeper knowledge" I mean that faith is a type of relational knowledge that is born of religious love, unavoidably experiential, and divinely initiated. And I would argue that such knowledge is itself the faith of Christ, and is indeed salvific. 

Hi rishi,

Too true.  It is also thought of as God's third revelatory testament in certain sections.  It is not thought to point specifically to anything salvific, it is thought to suggest that there is something that is salvific that can be found.

Of course the same should be said about the other two revelatory testaments that came to us via the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.  Memorizing the text isn't enough to save.  The texts point to the one with whom one is designed to enter into relationship with and are more explicit than the testament of nature.

That would confuse revelation with salvation.  While I think that there is a connection between the two I do not believe that the connection is cause and effect.

Okay.  That's fair.  Divine initiation and the faith of Christ bring salvation back into the sphere of grace.  I think that religious love and experience are after the fact of God's action and as such indicators that salvation has come to an individual rather than hoops an individual must jump through in order to be saved.

I appreciate the discussion rishi.  Regrettably I will be absent from WonderCafe until the 17th as I leave for a week of vacation and then hop on the plane to share my wisdom with General Council in Kelowna.

Sorry to bail in the middle of a conversation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 Ahhh.... that which I would do, I do not....  What an ego deflator.  We should have more hymns about the joys of hitting bottom.  Maybe in More Voices & Then Some...

I agree about the 'no hoops', but I see the 'religious love and experience' as a cooperative engagement, involving two, not just one. So, while God initiates, God does not then withdraw and wait for a response that I must generate in God's absence. The response is to, and within, God's actual active presence, which responds to my response, and on and on it goes, ad infinitum. So, the knowledge that is born out of this religious love is not just knowledge of 'how much I love God' but actual relational knowledge, which includes knowledge of who God is and how God acts in dynamic relation to me. That 'knowledge that surpasses knowledge' that the writer of Ephesians prays for (3:19). All of this seems to get flattened out of the modern understanding of 'belief'.

Have fun in Kelowna!

Well, I think this is totally unfair of you rev John, I believe you should take all of us with you (at your expense of course) , non the less, have a safe holiday , I know I’ll miss your wisdom.

God bless you on your trip

An excellent debate between Dr William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler , it’s a bit lengthily , 15 10 mim videos , but worth the watch,,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hOza8GTqk

Results of the poll taken that night

7,778 attended that evening

6,168 filled out ballots/surveys

97% voted that the case presented for Christianity was the most compelling

As a result of the polling

82% of the 632 non-Christian voted that the case for Christianity was stronger

47 people who went to the debate indicated that they had become believers

No Christians became atheists

Hi John:

Brace yourself for heat and smoke. (I don't mean inside the gym of UBC Okanagan, where the General Council is taking place, but outside :-) It has been hot and hazy in the Okanagan for the past two weeks, and there is no letup in sight for the next week or so.

I'll attend the General Council opening worship on Sunday, and will drop in every now and then during the week to observe the proceedings from the bleachers. If you see a wrinkled old farmer there, in overalls, with a dumb grin on his face, that's me.

Huh?  We must be reading different screens.

Hmmm... So you are asserting I was right?  Thanks, but I thought that.

So you can't show me any atheist that says: "if it is not provable scientifically it is false" (when it comes to God or anything else)?"  OK.

Source and point of this, please?  It rather sounds like might'a come from a source with some sort of religious bias, on first reading.  And will you answer the question equivant to the one you asked me?

What would make the Flying Spaghetti Monster believable for you?

"What would make the Flying Spaghetti Monster believable for you?"

That it held the power to change my life in a positive way that complimented my existence for self and others.

Bretta,"So you can't show me any atheist that says: "if it is not provable scientifically it is false" (when it comes to God or anything else)?"  OK."

Just log on to Dawkins official site and read under faith topic. I find it too tedious and depressing to spend too much time with some of the rhetoric that permeates the site. (If i visit the site at all, I prefer to choose the more "sane" posts)

I can only speak from personal experience in relation to this topic.

Put simply, if it were not for a religious/spiritual experience, I would be either an agnostic or an athiest.

Although empowering at the time, it was so unexpected that afterwards I questioned my own grip on reality. Fortunately, I have a friend who is a psychiatrist, so I discussed this with him. He said my grip on reality was just fine - and that's good enough for me!

I've followed the debate between BrettA and Waterfall with interest. I feel I understand both their points of view. Prior to the experience, when I attended church for a funeral the "religious talk" just seemed like indoctrination to me. Since the experience, it has real meaning to me now.

Amazing.  To me this suggests that to be intelligible the religious talk required a broader horizon, and that broadening required a transcendental experience.  To me this also suggests that the church may be mistaken when it only understands the 'disconnect' that a person experiences in relation to religious talk as being the church's problem. Maybe the best response on the part of the church is not just scrambling linguistically to make its religious talk more intelligible (spiritually dumming down the message), but also facilitating religious experiences which broaden our horizons to the point that we can perceive what is present at a more subtle level.

Hi brother Rishi

To me everyone needs to be born again, for scripture to come alive and be alive to God.

John 3:5-7  ⁵Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. ⁶Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[b] gives birth to spirit. ⁷You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You^[c] must be born again.'

Notice Jesus said MUST BE,

As a progressive Christian, I often reflect on the irony of sharing a "born again" experience with literal/orthodox Christians. (Although, being a progressive, I refrain from using the expression, "born again") 

I suspect many of my progressive congregation are more comfortable discussing aid for asylum seekers, than their own spirituality.

God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Hi Blackbelt,

To really get at what Jesus is talking about when he says 'born again', its helpful for me to use other language besides just the words 'born again.' That's what I'm trying to do in the above quote. I think that what I say there and what you are saying point in the same general direction of divine healing experiences that alter our minds/hearts, our life's horizon, our level of consciousness... so that we are capable of perceiving a larger 'chunk' of reality than we were prior to that experience. 

I see healing experiences of this sort as the opposite of traumatic experiences. Traumatic experiences also alter our minds/hearts/horizons, but in a diminishing way that distorts and shrinks what we are able to perceive.

I understand healing experiences of the kind that Jesus is talking about with Nicodemus as happening through direct contact with a pure heart, which I understand as being God's own heart.  Traumatic experiences, on the other hand, I understand as the fallout resulting from direct contact with impure hearts, which relate to what they touch in terms of greed and hatred. 

For me, these kinds of healing experiences are always 'mystical', always rooted in the Divine Mystery we call God, even if there is a human agent involved (such as a mother caring for her infant or a pastor preaching a sermon to her congregation or a taxi driver sincerely listening to a story that her passenger needs to tell).

When Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus about the need to be 'born again' I understand the context of their conversation as being a religious environment that was losing its living mystical connection with God, and therefore losing its capacity to be a healing power in the world.   They still had the right religious language (God talk), about the 'way that leads to life' and the 'way that leads to death'...  but they were missing the experiential reality the words point to (God reality). So while they were still talking about the 'way that leads to life', the actual fruit being produced and experienced was often traumatizing. People's lives were becoming more fragmented as a result of religion rather than more whole.  All the beautiful words and rituals are only valuable when they are effective vehicles of divine grace -- when they actually help people to reach and live their lives out of a higher level of consciousness. I think this is what Jesus is getting at with Nicodemus, and  the same general truth applies to us in our context.

I completely agree that this shift "must" happen. Without it religion lacks that healing which only comes through contact with a pure heart. It becomes not only boring, but toxic.

Where you and I might disagree, though, is that I see divine grace enabling this necessary shift to a higher level of consciousness through a variety of formulas, according to the needs of the persons involved.  And I don't think we have much say in this; It's really up to God's Spirit where and when and how divine grace can be encountered in the world.

By the way, thanks for calling me 'brother.' I very much appreciate the  kindness that you're extending.

Hi Pilgrim,

Literalist and orthodox are two very different cans of worms as I see it. I consider myself orthodox, but I'm quite far removed from a literalist interpretation of scripture, doctrine, or even life in general. I see the Apostle's Creed, for example, as being like a jewel box, containing several very precious symbols, the 'meaning' of which emerges in the actual living of the spiritual life.  How a literalist like Jerry Falwell would interpret those symbols is quite far removed from how I would. In fact, Falwell would consider it heresy to even call them 'symbols'.  Orthodoxy doesn't have to be illiberal or unprogressive; in my view it only has to recognize the extraordinary value of our spiritual ancestors in our lives.

Hi Rishi

Nice post , I believe the formula is one , Gods way to man, not mans way to God, I also don’t think it is a need as much as it is a desire although we do have a need for Him, I do agree that we don’t have much say in this, the Spirit of God wills where He wills , towards whoever he wills, in his church and outside of His church.

For me it was outside of His Church , was a unbeliever , all I had was a desire to know

I believe this too; there are no shortcuts.  I think that the different formulas that God provides only appear to be different from our limited points of view.  For me this is one of those things that my life experience has shown me to be true. I spent many years following the Buddhist path, and I encountered God at work inside of it, the same God that reaches out to us in Jesus. I agree that not every path is a path to God; some paths only lead to misery for ourselves and others. But God is much bigger than we think.  Of course, I may be wrong. And if I am I trust that God will find a way to bring me to a better understanding.

Hi rishi,

Fair enough. I must admit I have difficulty in choosing the right terminology. (I've noticed others use "traditional". Maybe "mainstream"?)

Well that seems as cheap as me saying:  "That it held the power to change my life in a positive way that complimented my existence for self and others."  If that works for you, OK, but I'd say a much more realistic and revealing response would address how you knew it had the power...  wouldn't you?

So, was it from some young earth creationist site?

I've been on the Dawkins forum for two years and haven't seen this.  You really like making statements about those lacking your beliefs and hardly ever (never ever?) substantiating them, don'cha?

Hi BrettA,

I ask this question not as a form of "bait," but out of interest in your point of view.

Do you see it as somehow flawed (irrational, dysfunctional, harmful) when a person has something/someone in her life that she finds life-giving and liberating, something that allows her to lower her defenses and move into a position of deep trust?

Rishi

I'm not sure how to answer in total, Rishi.  'Life-giving' is largely restricted to sex (emergency medicine might apply), 'lowered defences' can absolutely be harmful and depending on where the trust is directed could be a huge issue.  Liberation (within legal bounds and one's comfort zone) rocks as long as it respect others, the environment, etc., though.

I'm fairly sure that I haven't satisfactorily responded, though.  Based on it, can you provide more insight for me to try what might be a 'better' answer for you (ideally including guidance, if applicable)?

Hi Rishi

Well seems to me God has brought you to Christ, I m sure God is working in the Buddhist , or other religions , I ‘m sure there all looking for truth , but what makes Christianity so exclusive is that Jesus went to the other side and back again, no other leaders in history has done that , I also believe other religions are mixed with truth and error.

I also believe the one way God has established is through his Son alone, I trust God that He will call the true sincere heart that wants to Know him whether that heart is in another religion or not

Ps: I would be interested if you care to share your encounter with God when you were a Buddhist