God Focused Christians Always Agree on the Will of God

Image result for image of christians arguing in church

Gary:

Hypothetical:  A church needs a new pastor. One group of elders in the church is certain that God has moved them to call Pastor X. However, another group of elders believes that God has told them to call Pastor Y. The number of elders on each side is equal. Both pastors are equally qualified and come highly recommended from other pastors within your denomination. Who is right and how would you know? How would anyone know which group is hearing God’s voice and which group is listening to their own internal dialogue?

Conservative Christian:

Your choice of pastor story is complex only because it is concocted and artificial. My experience is that where such division is real, it means someone is not listening to God and may be pushing personal ambition, an ungodly state of mind. Such groups often fall apart.  When they do not fall apart, I have seen apparently unrelated circumstances nullify the work of a partisan group, to the benefit of all who remained. In short, it can be taken out of our hands.  Where people are united in their desire to follow Jesus, I have seen a whole group change mind to adopt the view of one person. That was because everyone genuinely desired the Godly response.  In a God-focused context, your scenario will not arise.

Gary:  You were obviously never a Baptist!

 

 

 

End of post.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “God Focused Christians Always Agree on the Will of God

  1. I wrote a post, very recently, about assessing the will of God, referencing a study done on same sex marriage. You can read about the study at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_pray.htm

    Now, while it’s not a great study, because the participants were self selected, it does undermine the idea that we can pray for God to reveal his will. The end result of this study was that God inevitably agreed with the person who prayed.The results can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_pra6.htm

    If God exists then either God doesn’t care about SSM, or God does care but cannot send a clear message to those who ask.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Good points.

      Another study that I find interesting is the comparison of divorce rates among different groups. Evangelicals, who pray about everything, including who to marry and which brand of toothpaste to purchase, have a high divorce rate. Why would such “God focused” believers be so wrong about God’s choice of life partner???

      Liked by 4 people

  2. Gary, your post reminded me of true ‘hiring’ story.

    In the nineties, I was on the Pastoral Relations Committee at our local church. It was our job to procure a new minister for the Charge (at that time there were three individual churches in the Charge, in three small communities). We advertised the position and, in time, began interviews. One fellow we were keen to get was young, had a family, wanted the manse (allocated housing provided by the Charge as opposed to having to pay a housing allowance) and was very interested in getting to Nova Scotia (he was in another province at the time). I remember very clearly his phone interview. I don’t know how many times he said to us, “I feel very strongly that God is calling me to your Pastoral Charge”. We had to pay his moving costs (they were substantial) but he had all the requirements we were looking for, so he was hired (the obvious ‘godly’ response). He signed a contract for three years. Within eight months, he was wanting out. There is a large military base in the vicinity and it seems (his) god must have been telling him to move closer to that establishment because he was recruited, broke the contract with our Pastoral Charge, and was in basic training within a year.

    Apparently (his) god was very good at reading the minister’s mind. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, it is amazing how each individual Christian believes that his or her communication with God is true and correct and everyone else is listening to his or her own voice…or that of Satan.

      It is truly delusional thinking.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m sure you have seen your fair share of Baptist church fights, Bruce! It is amazing how the good Lord frequently leads two different “God focused” Baptists to two diametrically opposed positions…and another Baptist church splits in two.

      (FYI readers: I grew up the son of a Baptist preacher.)

      Like

  3. It seems to me that God’s ultimate will is for us to be made more like Christ.

    So, if through conflict, people are learning something of humility, listening, openness to others… etc. God is accomplishing His will. There is definitely this tendency there for us all to want our way, and then to label this as “the will of God.” But, I think even the ability to perceive that opens us up to moving toward openness and looking to the interests of others.

    Maybe both pastors would be equally fine. The central issue is in how Christian people are treating and responding to each other through difference and conflict. Are they reflecting the love of Christ or not? This is far more important, IMO, than whether they choose Pastor A or Pastor B. 🙂

    It can be easier for people to simply walk away from each other than it is to hang in there and work to resolve the difference, or agree to disagree.

    Like

      1. No Carmen, I don’t think that the ideal will of God is ever war. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers..”

        But, can God ever work even in the middle of war? Yes, I think so. It was through armed conflict that the Nazis were defeated, and many Jewish people were saved. Perhaps the whole western world was saved from tyranny. It was through the war between the States that slavery came to an end.

        Absolute pacifism vs. a just war concept is complicated to me. Many Christians come down on either side of the issue.

        I think we should go the absolute extra mile to pursue peace. But, I acknowledge in a fallen, broken world peace is not always possible.

        In my post, though, I was thinking more of a disagreement between two opposing parties as “conflict” rather than war. But, I can see your application.

        What do you think? Are you a pacifist? Or, do you think that sometimes armed conflict can result in the lesser of the evils? What if war is needed to protect the lives of the innocent? Difficult questions…

        Like

        1. My basic philosophy is that (a) god has nothing to do with it. .

          Many Jewish people were saved?? Ten million ( or more ) weren’t It seems as if you are giving credit to your god for saving them — if that’s so, then it must have had a hand in destroying the first ten million (or more).

          Like

          1. Rats, my post didn’t go through. I just shared that I wouldn’t think that. Perhaps our minds are just reasoning differently in this. Either that or I’m being a terrible communicator.

            Pax.

            Like

            1. You seem to be a very kind, compassionate person, Becky. Join my efforts and those of other non-supernaturalists to spread the truly good news that capricious, invisible, imaginary, gods and devils do not control your life. Your fate is determined by your choices and random chance.

              Like

    1. @ Becky
      Based on the huge diversity of Christian sects/denominations it is clear that most sects consider only they are the True Christians and every other sect is very likely going to Hell for heretical beliefs.

      Also, as modern biblical scholars now know it is impossible to establish the veracity of the supposed sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus how can you possibly know if anything in the bible is truly reflective of the ”love of Christ”?

      Ark

      Like

  4. Gary, I think the same way about you.

    Probably our experiences of Christian faith have been very different. For me, this is not an either-or kind of thing. I haven’t experienced God as capricious, or have ever felt that my choices are not important.

    One thing that I think is very different about us is our view and experience of human nature.

    I’ve known many, many secular people, even in my own family, and also professionally. Some of them have indeed embraced humanism, but others not. It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me to think that because someone rejects the supernatural, they will necessarily become a more open, kind, and compassionate person, ready to focus on reason and science. I know even from my own life experience that this is simply not true.

    On the other hand, there are people of faith out here, that through their commitment to Christ are doing all kinds of good in the world, and may also love reason and science as well.

    For me, there is just not this sharp, black/white kind of dichotomy. My mind doesn’t work like this.

    Leave things at that, Gary. Blessings.

    Like

    1. I’ve never heard of anyone flying a plane full of people into a skyscraper in the name of humanism.

      Give up your superstitions, Becky. Do it for the good of humankind!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. But, Gary and Carmen, there are people who are Christian humanists. As a Jesus follower, I could easily sign on to this.

    For me, the challenge involves as much in getting secular people who may be hedonists, materialists, nihilists, just any number of things to move in the direction of humanism. From where I sit, this would definitely be a move in a good and better direction for many people. I would go so far as to say that at least in some measure God is working in and through this movement.

    I may have shared this before but when I was at the university, I studied with a secular anthro. professor who managed to persuade almost the entire class that infanticide was perfectly acceptable if this served a useful function in a particular culture and that it was ethnocentric to stand in judgment or to attempt to prevent this practice.

    So how just through the use of reason and logic alone can we persuade, say, a scientific atheist, that the end doesn’t necessarily justify the means.

    I think it is much easier for a Jesus follower to cross a bridge over to humanism than for many purely secular people that I’ve known.

    Hey, I want you both to know that this isn’t some kind of trick or rhetorical question, I really want to hear your ideas, and I will be using and benefiting from those insights. You can be certain. I don’t know how to do it, Gary, from a purely secular perspective.

    For many post moderns, truth is relative, so even sharing what I think are positive ideas relating to human dignity, worth, and freedom, secular people can always respond, “Well, that doesn’t work for me. That’s just your truth.”

    So, I need to know what has helped you to move people toward humanism. From where I sit, all religion is not at the top of my concern, here, in rating the evils of the world.

    I”m total ears, right now. Please share away.

    Becky.

    Like

    1. @ Becky
      Several points are worth raising here.
      If there was at least a commonality of Christian belief then this would be a good basis to explore the Either Or scenario.
      But there isn’t, and the huge amount of diversity renders your own ”Faith” meaningless even in its Christian context as there are other Christians who may well consider you to be a heretic.

      You claim you are a Jesus follower, suggesting you eschew religion, yet you would not even be aware of Jesus were it not for religion and those who compiled the bible.

      The most important point; the Christian worldview is based solely on the premise of reward or punishment – accept that you are a sinner and that Jesus is the only way to salvation or reject Jesus and be damned for eternity to Hell ( in what ever format you understand the term Hell).

      Any ”god”, who makes such an ultimatum is not worthy of respect let alone worship.
      This fact alone is enough for any reasonable person embrace secular humanism.

      Like

      1. Ark, I’m not entirely certain how I come down on this whole Hell question. As you know there are plenty of Christian believers who are universalists.

        But, it does seem to me that there is this huge difference if we are looking at the reality of Hell as some kind of separation from God as an angry ultimatum or simply as a natural and self-chosen consequence. Why would a loving God who values human freedom force people into His Kingdom? It’s just so much deeper than whether people intellectually believe a certain way or recite a formula. It has to do with our hearts, and out of that the direction our minds and lives are moving. If you ever should have the chance or the interest, read “The Great Divorce,” and the “Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis. Recently, Lewis has really been impacting my thinking.

        I would further say that Christians agree together in affirming the Nicene Creed of the church. Really the differences in the mainline denominations seem to me insignificant in the larger scheme of things.

        Also, perhaps you will share how you’ve come to your views concerning the veracity of the teachings of Jesus. Have you studied the findings of the well known Jesus Seminar? Do you agree with their criteria? I personally can see bias in it. But, what do you think? I would not want to get into the battle of the scholars here but would like to hear your opinion. I see no real reason to suppose that we don’t know the general essence and gist of what Jesus taught. Do I think there were things like possible embellishments added, or insertions into the text by later day scribes, textual variants, etc. Well, yes.

        But, this doesn’t really impact my faith in a negative way because it was never centered in something like the inerrancy of the Bible in the first place. Really we could do away with huge portions of the New Testament, and still, have a clear witness to the Lordship of Christ and to the resurrection. Of course, we are not even getting into the writings of the earliest church fathers which in the confessional churches are also huge.

        Anyway, that’s a window into my thinking. Will hear you out as well. I’m attempting to be a better listener. 🙂 More grandkids coming tomorrow, so don’t be surprised if I don’t respond back right away.

        Becky.

        Like

        1. As you know there are plenty of Christian believers who are universalists.

          Indeed I am aware, and even these lot can’t agree!

          The fact you lot can’t decide what happens after death is one reason you are forced to make up all these cockamamie ideas in order to shoe horn all the other ridiculous ideas concerning your loving (sic) god.

          I would further say that Christians agree together in affirming the Nicene Creed of the church.

          Except the problems surrounding the filioque clause, of course, which is rejected by the eastern churches.
          Again, another man-made piece of doctrine, and yet another example of disagreement.

          I consider Lewis a disingenuous, self-deluded fool. That he is cited by so many Christians is enough for me to reject him out of hand. You might as well cite Strobel or Wallace.

          Also, perhaps you will share how you’ve come to your views concerning the veracity of the teachings of Jesus.

          Yes, I have read some of the work of the Jesus seminar.

          But my views on the veracity the biblical text was formed long before I came across others who thought similarly to me.
          As the texts are anonymous and written decades after the supposed events and we have no originals either the likelihood that these are accurately recorded sayings is well nigh impossible.
          As for the deeds: Nothing he did is part of the historical record and there is not a scrap of evidence to support any of it.

          Really we could do away with huge portions of the New Testament, and still, have a clear witness to the Lordship of Christ and to the resurrection.

          Really? What exactly is there to unequivocally demonstrate ”the Lordship of Christ and to the resurrection.”
          Please be give specific details.

          Ark.

          Like

          1. I don’t know why this comment was stuck in moderation (I’ve been on a mini-vacation for the last few days). No naughty words that I see. 🙂

            Like

          2. Well, do you think it at all possible that the gospel writers could have had access to essentially reliable oral tradition, some of which was rooted in eyewitness testimony? If not, you have to admit that for a bunch of Jewish guys to create an image of a Messiah who got Himself killed while praying for forgiveness for his Roman killers wasn’t exactly what the culture was hoping for or expecting. But. Ark I’m certain that you feel strongly and have considered this at great length. I will not be the one to convince you otherwise, I’m sure.😊

            Like

            1. Superstitious people can convince themselves of practically anything. Just ask the followers of Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate.

              We have no solid evidence that Jesus prayed for his Roman killers. All we have are four books, written decades later, by anonymous authors, all of whom most NT scholars do not believe were eyewitnesses, who could very well have been non-Jews.

              Give up your comforting superstitions, Becky. You will be doing your fellow human beings a huge favor!

              Like

              1. Gary, believe that you mean the best, but to my mind what it would mean to “give up comforting superstitions” since I am truly persuaded of the truth of the gospel would mean a deliberate rejection of Jesus Christ, and to intentionally walk away from the love and grace of God.

                Why would I ever do such a thing, somehow thinking this would be doing anyone a favor?

                Now, I think there are people who were involved in the church simply as a result of religious/cultural indoctrination and may have fallen into legalism or other kinds of spiritual abuse and bondage. Or, they may have been involved in authoritarian kinds of churches that required them to check their mind at the door. These folks are understandingly feeling more personal and intellectual freedom as non-theists. I get that.

                But, I don’t know anyone personally who truly knew and was following Jesus and the freedom and life that He offers who I think would be better off to just walk away.

                We see this all very differently and have chosen different paths.

                Sincerely..

                Like

                1. “. . . The love and grace of God” – means exactly what, Becky?
                  To me, it’s an indication of your overactive imagination. You’ve created a loving, patriarchal ‘relationship’ and you insist on clinging to your delusions. Problem is, there are logical, sensible people who recognize nonsense when they read it. 🙂

                  Like

                  1. I think I’ve got to put away my computer or I’m not getting anything else done. LOL. Carmen, I don’t really image God as male. This is complicated. Scripture uses anthropomorphic language and human words to connect our minds with a reality that we can’t fully understand. Scripture also uses feminine imagery to describe our relationship with God. It’s deep and rich.

                    But, guess I can’t convince you that I’m perfectly sane and balanced. 🙂 No way to do this across a computer screen.

                    Now I’m really going to study Spanish and weed my overgrown garden. Still, wish you every good thing and total blessing.

                    Pax.

                    Like

                    1. You’ve got great avoidance tactics, I’ll give you that! But then, if I was in your position – having to defend the imaginary – I’d do it too. (That’s the problem with believing in the unbelievable — one has to be on the defensive constantly. It’s very uncomplicated to deal with the natural as opposed to the supernatural)

                      Like

                    2. She clings very tightly to her imaginary friend.

                      Psychologists encourage children with an imaginary friend to test the reality of their “friend”. They ask the child to ask the imaginary friend to talk to or perform a supernatural feat in front of the therapist. Of course the child will immediately respond, “My friend doesn’t want to talk to you or perform tricks for you.” But then the therapist points out to the child that if “Bob” was real he would want to prove that he is real. The fact that he doesn’t want to do this is proof that he doesn’t exist; that he only exists in the child’s imagination.

                      I suggest that Becky try this technique on her imaginary friend.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. Here’s a question for you, Becky –

                      How many gods do you think there are? Easy question which requires a numerical answer. Shouldn’t be hard.

                      Like

            2. No, I do not give any credence to reliable eyewitness testimony. And especially after several decades … not a chance in Hades.
              Furthermore, as the writers of Matthew and Luke – whoever they were – ostensibly copied from gMark and then edited (corrected, added and/or embellished the text – Matthew 80% Luke around 65% ) this tells us that even if oral tradition was at the root it, is obvious Matt and Luke did not avail themselves of it, and simply used Mark as a template and basically made up the rest.
              And there is no evidence for the mysterious Q text either.
              For example.
              The long ending of Mark, for which there are three versions ( I stand under correction on this point) was not part of the original gospel, but added later.
              The Virgin Birth is another motif that is a later addition as is the empty tomb tale.

              If these were reliable oral tradition why does Paul make no mention of such tradition and he mentions nothing ( that I am aware of) contained in the gospel material?

              The gospels were stories of accretion, written for different audiences and by the looks of it, were never intended to form part of a collection.
              They were written by fairly well educated, Greek speaking individuals living outside Palestine, and not some Aramaic hicks living in some Galilean backwater.

              If you are able just – for a few moments – to step outside the Christian bubble you have been raised to believe, it is not difficult to see the tales are so fraught with problems as to be so implausible that any truly honest appraisal renders them as nothing but historical fiction.

              Like

              1. Ark, here’s an interesting short article relating to some concerns that you’ve raised. I think it is drawn from this gentleman’s recent book, “Jesus, Lord or Legend.”

                https://reknew.org/2015/03/are-the-gospels-historical-fiction/

                You know, the scholars really don’t agree. But, you need to know, Ark, that I really have tried to consider other information, and step “outside the Christian bubble.” My convictions don’t come from ignorance or a lack of information. Although, as a disclaimer, I’m certainly not a scholar or think I have all the truth, either.

                I would not say that Paul mentions nothing contained in the gospel material, but his primary purpose in writing the epistles was really to address individual problems that arose in the various early churches, not so much to recite earlier oral tradition.

                Think that we will not be able to agree, Ark. Leave it at that. Otherwise, our conversation could go on a loooong..time. 🙂 Thank you for sharing.

                Respectfully,
                Becky.

                Like

                1. Thanks for the link,Becky.
                  However, Lloyd is a Christian pastor so his bias hangs out there for all to see and this perspective has been refuted by secular scholars, not least Ehrman.

                  By the time that these authors were writing the Gospels, Christians were being tortured and put to death for their faith

                  This is simply apologetic drivel and there is no evidence to support it.

                  not so much to recite earlier oral tradition.

                  There is no evidence of any earlier oral tradition. merely speculation.

                  Your conviction is largely because of indoctrination, cultural or otherwise.
                  Faith, not fact and certainly not evidence.

                  Your view of Paul is one that seems to be shared by other apologists I have read.
                  Yet on the face of it it seems highly suspect that two of the crucial aspects of your faith, Virgin Birth and the Empty Tomb he makes no mention of, or even any allusion to.

                  Like

                  1. Christians such as Becky are unable to provide even ONE undisputed eyewitness testimony of anyone claiming to have seen Jesus’ walking, talking, resurrected physical body. Yet we have thousands of accounts of other people claiming to have seen their dead loved one or friend. Christians don’t believe these eyewitness accounts yet they desperately cling to a few non-eyewitness tales of first century peasants allegedly claiming to have seen their dead friend eat a broiled fish sandwich.

                    It is ridiculous.

                    Like

                    1. The major frustration I have is the lack of integrity such people display when asked straightforward questions.
                      Honesty is deemed a high virtue, supposedly even more so if one is religious, yet we are confronted by the same theological two step that at times borders on disengenuity.
                      Questions that come too close to the bone are simply ignored. As is the case with Becky.

                      Like

                    2. Becky is no different than any other theist who’s ever defended their beliefs online. Somehow their god is the right one, the sensible one, the only one. Their beliefs are – of course – based on higher-level reasoning (as opposed to simply being indoctrinated or not have a choice, etc. . ) It’s head-shakingly maddening that they cannot see their own hubris.
                      But then again, delusion is a powerful bubble to burst.

                      Liked by 1 person

                  2. Ark, I think he’s probably referring to the persecution under Nero in AD 64. This was documented by the Roman historian Tacitus. It’s true that Boyd is a Christian theologian, but I don’t think that means we should automatically dismiss his insights out of hand. Heck, even the mythicist Robert Price endorsed his book. Of course, he doesn’t agree with his interpretation of the evidence. BTW it’s not a recent book. I was wrong about that part. Getting to the whole Markan hypothesis. I think it very probable that the writers of Matthew and Luke may have drawn source material from Mark and may have used another written source as well.

                    Like

                    1. The supposed persecution under Nero is not accepted by all scholars.
                      Questions arise not least because there are no original manuscripts.
                      Seutonius does not equate any such persecution with the fire.

                      Sorry, I have no truck with Christian authors. Their primary aim is to promote the supernatural.
                      We might as well read Strobel or Wallace or Craig.

                      I think it very probable that the writers of Matthew and Luke may have drawn source material from Mark

                      They did.
                      So they were not relating independent eyewitness testimony. There merely copied and embellished.
                      There is no evidence of a Q source.

                      Like

                2. I will add: it is frustrating that you make no attempt to address the other issues at stake here. The fact that gMark was a template that the writers of gLuke and gMatthew used and merely embellished.

                  Like

                3. Yet, you keep leaving comments, Becky. Why are your here? Are you trying to convert us to your supernatural belief system, which we see as nothing more than silly superstitions, or are you here because you are questioning those superstitions? You seem to infer by your comments that you are seeking mutual respect for your more progressive version of Christianity and our atheism. Sorry, but in our view all adult superstitions are harmful and unhealthy for society. Just as adults should not believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, adults should not believe in virgin births and dead body resurrections. These beliefs are silly. But even worse, these supernatural beliefs provide a cover of respectability for all supernatural beliefs, including the deadly ones that cause people to discriminate, persecute, and kill their fellow human beings.

                  Like

                  1. Gary, in my experience we are almost always better off to build bridges, toward each other, do our best to find common ground and to avoid dismissive personal attacks. Often this actually all results in the person moving further in the very direction that you hope they won’t go. Know you don’t agree but I’ve shared my opinion. None of us have all the truth. I’ll be the first to admit that. Think humility for all of us theists and non theists is a virtue. My last comment . Gary.

                    Like

                    1. Seriously, Becky, we are discussing the veracity of theological claims, and more specifically Christian claims.
                      What sort of common ground do you expect to find when one is a Christian who believes in sin, the resurrection of a biblical character with no evidence to support such a claim,
                      and moat of the others are non believers, some of which are recognized de-converted Christians who have heard every single argument you put forward and have, through reason, research and evidence dismissed each and every one.
                      When you venture onto a skeptic’s blog, and specifically the blog of a former Christian, and try to present arguments for your beliefs, then all we want you to do is present evidence.
                      Nothing more, nothing less.

                      Like

  6. Isn’t it just the damndest thing, Becky? Commenting on public blogs, one must encounter comments from the public — comments that one doesn’t like, at times. (And, as an aside, our comment weren’t personal attacks, they were just contrary to your beliefs – there’s a difference)

    Here’s a suggestion for you. It might be that you are uncomfortable with some comments because you recognize the legitimacy of our opinions.
    Put another way, the Emperor really didn’t have any clothes on.

    Like

    1. Carmen, it is not as you might suppose. I can understand why people might become atheists and why sincere and thinking people can disagree. What I have a very, very difficult time wrapping my head around is this deep division that exists between us. Really for some people on either side of the divide, it can border almost on contempt.

      It is difficult for me to see, for instance, how someone could equate an adult’s considered and thoughtful belief that there is indeed a creator with a young child’s belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. There is a reason why people over the age of nine or ten unless they are intellectually disabled have no imaginary friends or convictions relating to Santa. Yet, many, many people have come to faith in God even as adults.

      Indeed most adults in the entire world have some kind of belief in something or someone greater than themselves. Are they all superstitious fools in need of psychiatric intervention?

      Some of the most brilliant minds out there, people highly educated have wrestled with these kinds of philosophical questions for centuries. This includes men and women of science. Are they all really these indoctrinated idiots, with only the non-theists seeing clearly and having the whole truth?

      At this point, I’m genuinely and deeply saddened by this whole thing, and by the tenor of these discussions on the blogs from both sides. I need to really stay away for a while.

      Like

      1. Are they all really these indoctrinated idiots …

        Indoctrinated, yes. Idiots, not likely.
        However, the reason for committing to faith, irrespective of the religion invariably stem from cultural foundations.
        Thus, exposure to Christianity is much more likely in countries where it is the dominant religion will more than likely be the religion a person turns to when they accept faith.
        And, aside from the emotional issues attached to a person’s commitment to faith, this is the overwhelming reason you are Christian.

        Historically, every religions is geographically specific.
        Look where Judaism and Christianity originated, or Islam or Hindu, or Jainism.
        Not one of these religions sprung up in any other location than where they originated.
        Not a single one.
        That in itself should tell you all you need to know.
        It is only through travel – invasion / conquest, trade and lastly missionary work that each of these major world religions spread around the globe.
        Each has its own god/gods, its own prophet/s and each has its own holy book/scripture.

        And each claims it is the only true religion.

        Now, simple common sense tells us that they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
        Enter apologetics.

        So the question is: On what evidential grounds do you claim that your religion and your god is the right one?

        Like

      2. You are genuinely and deeply saddened by the whole thing, eh? I’ll tell you what worries me – that your country has elected a morally deficient spokesman for racists. It doesn’t bode well for world peace, as you would probably agree. And what do stats tell us? That evangelicals (religious people) put him in power (82%?), believing him to be sent by divine providence. If you’d like to direct your dismay in that direction – as a religious person yourself – and use your persuasive tactics to alert a segment of the population to the negative effects of that, your online activity would probably be far more constructive.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Carman, in one sense, I think you’re right. There are many more concerning issues for us to address. I’m very grieved by the whole situation at our southern border right now and want to make a difference. I’m studying Spanish to become more effective, and am hoping to resume teaching ESL with refugees and immigrants this Fall.

    It is very difficult to converse with people across these blogs. I have often said and felt that our conversations might go very differently if we really knew each other and were sitting across the table talking it all out at a pub or coffee shop. Wish that I could know you and everyone here in a different setting. I’m sure we would find many things to have in common.

    As I’ve shared, for now, I’m going to focus on other things rather than blogging.

    Thanks for your input.

    Like

    1. Working with refugees is certainly an admirable endeavour. Our eldest and her husband helped to settle a family from Iran (Christians fleeing persecution in that country) and we had them over at maple syrup-making time. .. I, too, would love to learn Spanish, as it would make trips to Cuba so much more informative! (Other than that, we don’t have much call here to speak Spanish – the second language most people learn is French).
      Have a pleasant summer; it’s finally warm here!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s