So, will this 1yr old be a 1yr old for all eternity? Perhaps the parents will live and experience life for decades upon decades while the 1yr old never even got a chance to begin life. Still makes no sense to me.

It could have been an old soul Jill, which might have had plenty of lifetimes already. In which case there would be nothing unfair going on.

Here's some inspiring words from a bloke who is clearly an advanced soul, in my view. He’s a survivor of Auschwitz prison camp in Nazi Germany. His spirit illustrates the points that I was trying to make earlier. (Not that I’m trying to prove anything, as I can’t. I just find this fella very interesting) . . .

“Often it is just such an exceptionally difficult external situation which gives man the opportunity to grow spiritually beyond himself. One of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. To be sure, a human being is a finite thing, and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take stand toward the conditions. . . . Even the helpless victim of a hopeless situation, facing a fate he cannot change, may rise above himself, may grow beyond himself, and by doing so change himself. He may turn a personal tragedy into a triumph.”

Frankl then refutes the materialistic point of view, (and Sigmund Freud's theories, which claim that human beings are 'conditioned' by their external surroundings). He quotes Freud, who had asserted, "Let one attempt to expose a number of the most diverse people uniformly to hunger. With the increase of the imperative urge of hunger, all individual differences will blur, and in their stead will appear the uniform expression of the one unstilled urge."

Frankl replies, "Thank heaven, Sigmund Freud was spared knowing the concentration camps from the inside. His subjects lay on a couch designed in the plush style of Victorian culture, not in the filth of Auschwitz. There, the 'individual differences' did not 'blur' but, on the contrary, people became more different: people unmasked themselves, both the swine and saints. ... We may predict the movements of a machine, of an automation; more than this, we may even try to predict the mechanisms of the human psyche as well. But man is more than psyche."

Frankl's following statement is somewhat profound, and we can make up our own mind what he’s referring to : "The self transcendence of human existence denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to Something – or Someone - other than oneself."

We, as a species, have been asking the questions, ‘Is there a God?’, and, ‘Is there a purpose to life’, for as long as we have been able to think or speak. We’re now reaching a stage in which our consciousness - which is "self transcendent" - can expand into a frame of reference that allows these questions to be answered. Due to the natural laws of growth - evolution - these answers will soon pore into the popular mind, and will even begin to be grasped and understood by the intellect alone.

“Spiritual growth results in an expansion of consciousness and opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.” - Joseph Benner

(My God, I've just re-read that last post and I sound far too arrogant. Especially compared to HC. I'm not sure if I ought to be ranting around like this, but I really can't help it. I apologise)

I was just expressing my hope that it doesn't take a tragedy for God to reveal anything to me.

I hope so too. Thanks for understanding.


Baker... I didn't read that as arrogant or ranting. Am I missing something?

AndyB, I didn't see it as arrogant either. I can totally connect with what you said. I can get behind the idea of old souls but I don't see how that translates to christianity in any way. I find Frankl's take on things very interesting also. Is he a christian?

I just thought I rant too much. I don’t know. I know that humility, like HC, is a lot more attractive than me.

I can get behind the idea of old souls but I don't see how that translates to christianity in any way

It transcends Christian teaching, but doesn’t necessarily refute it, in my opinion. I don’t believe that any one religion holds a monopoly on the Truth. When the underlying revelations of our organised religions are merged, we can get a better picture of ultimate reality. The model of the world that I described earlier is not only a view that our sixth-sensed friends can see, but it’s also a merge of all our world’s religious revelations. (Even the Tao Te Ching, written abouty 500 BC, taught that the divinity within us, or the soul, already sees and plans the first 13 years of its upcoming earth life.)

We are taught that Adam and Eve, who were created at the outset in Paradise, chose to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After doing so, they were booted out of Paradise to do exactly that. The Qur’an states that Adam and Eve were actually created in Paradise – the Heavenly dimension. I find these ‘overlaying’ revelations interesting. They help each other out, rather than undermine each other.

Principles of “spiritual wealth”, such as compassion, humility, forgiveness, reverence, inner-strength etc., are universal to all our world religions. Their comparison to the world’s attributes of ‘strength’, ‘power’ and ‘success’ indicate that the world has it the wrong way round. Deep down, I'm sure our heart knows which attributes really matter. (That tale of the African person, who retained his integrity and inner peace, whilst compared to the worldly person, who strived to succeed by deceit, greed and selfishness, illustrates this principle, I think. That principle is contained in most of our children's classic stories, for good reason.)

I find Frankl's take on things very interesting also. Is he a christian?

No, he was a Jew. He wasn’t a Christian in the strictest sense. But I believe that all our religions have their ladder against the right wall. As a Christian (at heart), I believe that all our religions are in touch with the Light of Christ, whether they recognise Him as Jesus or not, only from a different perspective and cultural context. I know that most Christians wouldn't agree with that, but that’s the way I see it.

I think it would serve us to take a leaf from Zen Buddhist Master, Thich Nhat Hanh’s book. He's a wise man indeed.

Hahn writes, “Real dialogue makes us more open minded, tolerant and understanding. In a true dialogue, we allow the good, the beautiful and the meaningful in the other's tradition to transform us. ... When we have peace within, real dialogue with others is possible ... The career of the practitioner is the career of enlightenment. Enlightenment here means ‘Touching the ultimate’.”

Hahn continues, “When we touch the ultimate dimension of reality, we get the deepest kind of relief. Each of us has the capacity to touch Nirvana. ... Christian contemplation includes the practise of resting in God which I believe is the equivalent of touching Nirvana. ... The Kingdom of God is available here and now. The energy of the Holy Spirit is the energy that helps us touch the Kingdom of God. ... I do not think there is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. ... A truly happy Christian is really a Buddhist. And vice-versa"

I do not think there is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. ... A truly happy Christian is really a Buddhist. And vice-versa"

I can't say I agree with that part. Christianity requires much more specific faith than Buddhism. I believe a Christian can be a Buddhist but a Buddhist is not neccessarily a Christian. Nirvana is not equivalent to any christian belief because Nirvana is all about what you experience in this life. There are no presumptions about what happens after death in Buddhism.

Hahn writes, “Real dialogue makes us more open minded, tolerant and understanding. In a true dialogue, we allow the good, the beautiful and the meaningful in the other's tradition to transform us

I whole heartedly agree with this. In fact, that is why I blog about religion.

Thanks AndyB!

I do not think there is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. ... A truly happy Christian is really a Buddhist. And vice-versa"

I can't say I agree with that part. Christianity requires much more specific faith than Buddhism. I believe a Christian can be a Buddhist but a Buddhist is not neccessarily a Christian

Yes, I don’t think many people would agree with that one. Hahn was implying that Christians and Buddhists are really in touch with exactly the same Spirit, only from a different perspective. But we’d need a very broad religious point of view to accept that.

Nirvana is not equivalent to any christian belief because Nirvana is all about what you experience in this life

You're right. But I think that we can cherish and appreciate the here and now as well as believing in an after life. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Even Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is within us, and that we should strive to focus on today, (Luke 17.21, Matthew 6.31-34; Mark 1:15; Isaiah 41.10, for example). Buddhism is primarily a practice which aims toward inner peace and spiritual security. It centres around humility, reverence, and mindfulness, and teaches that the ultimate dimension of reality, “the Ground of Being”, is Spirit. Buddhism is on the increase in the West, because it offers a simple and pragmatic path to wisdom and personal development. But I don’t believe that any one traditional religious point of view describes the ‘whole picture’. Rather, we can bring them all together – from East to West – in order to get a better glimpse of the bigger picture.

"I can't say I agree with that part. Christianity requires much more specific faith than Buddhism."

Depends on what kind of Buddhist you are. If you look into it you'll find some flavors have a very complex belief system.

Depends on what kind of Buddhist you are. If you look into it you'll find some flavors have a very complex belief system.

I refer to the original teachings of the Buddha. Besides Baker, are you aware of some form of Buddhism that requires you to accept Jesus Christ as your savior? I sure haven't. That would be the 'specific faith' I was referring to.

I have no interest in the 'different flavors' of Buudhism just like the different flavors of christianity are maddening. Why should it be so darned complex that people who share the same philosophy or religion can't even agree?

Why should it be so darned complex that people who share the same philosophy or religion can't even agree?

I think the reason why there are so many ‘versions’ of God is because we’re all interpreting reality - and 'viewing God' - from different stages of the path. Each view caters for different tastes and preferences, some of which won’t be to the taste of others. It doesn’t have to be maddening. We can find peace with our own path, and keep an open heart and mind.

are you aware of some form of Buddhism that requires you to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?

No, but I believe that people can reach God via many different ways. By definition, God is so ‘big’ and deep, it makes little sense to claim that there’s only one way to God. I personally interpret the “straight and narrow path” principle from the Bible differently to most Christians. I believe that the path is straight and narrow in comparison with all the winding paths the world has to offer. The numerous paths of the world, (for example, plastic surgery, a new romantic relationship, greater material wealth, fame and fortune, a house with a white picket fence etc. etc.) promise us success and increased self-esteem, but ultimately they leave us disappointed and disillusioned, because they fail to focus upon our deeper spiritual issues and weaknesses. In comparison with the world’s numerous and winding paths, the path of the heart - toward God - is indeed “straight and narrow”.

I believe that all religions, including Buddhism, are in touch with the Eternal Word - “Logos” - Christ - whether they recognise Him as Jesus or not. It could be said that Christ is the “Godhead”, the all-knowing and all-seeing aspect of God. Even though the Buddhist perspective doesn’t include the notion of an all-knowing, all-seeing God, like the classic monotheistic God, our other religions can provide different points of view, which together reveal larger glimpses of the bigger picture.

Buddhism often describes God exclusively as the “Ground of Being”, or “the Transcendent”, and also focuses upon the divinity within us. Yet this doesn't contradict Christian faith. Christianity not only describes God as existing ‘up there and out there’, but also describes God as the Ground of Being, which underlies the whole universe and transcends Creation. The divine spark within us can also be understood as made “in the image and likeness of God”.

There’s only One God, at the end of the day, and all religions are in touch with exactly the same God, in my view.

But whether we're religiously inclined or not, I think the following words from Victor Frankl, the survivor of Auschwitz prison camp, are apt for anyone who is at least aware that we are spiritual beings on some kind of journey: "We need to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life - daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual. . . . The meaning of our existence is not invented by ourselves, but rather detected."

It doesn’t have to be maddening. We can find peace with our own path, and keep an open heart and mind.

It only gets maddening when groups preach to you how their way is the only one true way.

are you aware of some form of Buddhism that requires you to accept Jesus Christ as your savior? No, but I believe that people can reach God via many different ways.

Obviously I agree. My point was that the statement a happy christian is a buddhist can be true but the statement that a happy Buddhist is a christian is not neccessarily true. Christianity after all is centered on Jesus Christ being the son of God. That is pretty darned specific. If you believe you can only get to God through accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, you aren't saying you can reach God via many different ways.

My point was that the statement a happy christian is a buddhist can be true but the statement that a happy Buddhist is a christian is not neccessarily true. Christianity after all is centered on Jesus Christ being the son of God. That is pretty darned specific. If you believe you can only get to God through accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, you aren't saying you can reach God via many different ways.

I agree with you Jill. We only get that narrow view if we identifiy Christianity with extreme fundamentalism. I think that broader and deeper interpretations can make better sense of Biblical revelations, and can enrich and illuminate Christian faith. I've learned that Christianity can be interpretated through a more 'epic' scope, rather than a tiny scope which turns a blind eye to much of reality.

Thanks for your feedback Jill,

Thanks for your feedback Jill,

No, thank you Andy for all of your inspiring comments. I only hope that I did a good job of supporting my point that just because a person is not christian it doesn't mean they are antichristian. Matter of fact, many of nonchristians have more respect for christians than some christians have for other forms of christianity.

I often liken it to a single person and their friend who is in love. The single person doesn't hate the friend who is in love or think that person is stupid for being in love. That love is just something that the single person doesn't share and love can't be fabricated or forced. It either happens or it doesn't.

I don't think christians are liars or fools. I am very open to the thought that perhaps they have simply experienced something I haven't. But I am happy with the path I am on and am open to new experiences. I just don't want to be bombarded with preaching and testifying in much the same way a single person wouldn't want their friend to be going on and on about how great being in love is. It isn't helpful.

In other words, I can be happy with someone having found fulfillment with their faith without sharing their faith. I feel very happy and fulfilled with the life I'm leading.

Matter of fact, many of nonchristians have more respect for christians than some christians have for other forms of christianity.

Yes. I've never really understood those in-house squabbles that a lot of Christians have,

I just don't want to be bombarded with preaching and testifying in much the same way a single person wouldn't want their friend to be going on and on about how great being in love is. It isn't helpful.

Great analogy. I couldn't agree more Jill. To be content and fulfilled on our own path, like you are, is all we can ask for at the end of the day,

"The Bible doesn't bother me. I actually read it from time to time because some passages are very beautiful, and I think it provides some useful instruction. What I lack is faith, and that can't be forced or faked."

I believe that we all have a bit of christianity in us, based on the theory, love thy neighbour. Faith is the one thing that most people lack. I think it is because we feel the need to see and understand what is not visible to us.

I don't know how many times my friend has told me time after time about having faith in the darkest hour. Every time I was having a crisis, she would tell me, " take it to God","Have some faith, he will see you through"! I would listen to her, and don't you know it, it really works, but you have to believe.

She always says: " He's an on time God", and that he is. Now when I have a sistuation that I need clarified, or need help with, I take to God. He hasn't failed me yet.
We tend to think that things will be answered in the order that we want, but it is funny how prayers get answered, but not in the manner we expect them.

I think it is because we feel the need to see and understand what is not visible to us.

I don't need to see or understand anything. Just having a feeling would suffice. I don't. I have not yet been inspired in any way toward having faith in Christ. I have a 'feeling' there is a God though.

I'm glad your faith works for you cmorton.

Well, after reading all this and relating it to what i know, i still find religion sux and still gives the wrong message. God is in all things and all things are in him. There is no heaven but his presence and no hell but his absence...thats how its written and thats how it should be understood! So...how would you tackle the reincarnation versus resurrection on the last day hmmmm?

So...how would you tackle the reincarnation versus resurrection on the last day hmmmm?

I'm not clear on what this question means. I do think the presence or absence of God is a good definition of Heaven and Hell. I believe in neither reincarnation nor the resurrection.

You may have MEANT evidence but this is what was written: There is no more proof that the resurrection happened then that Santa exists. Actually there is. But I would still argue that you have no more 'evidence' of the resurrection than others have of Santa.

You are right, I mispoke.  However, I maintain my premise.  There is more proof.  But that is me.

Guy.. There's actually no proof or evidence saying it's a *virgin* birth. Yes, there were three guys who wittnessed the birth, but no one can provide proof or even evidence that it was virgin. It's something that has to be taken 100% on faith.

Alll of it can be.  As there are actually no reliable witnesses.    It was not a *virgin* birth.  That was the              conception.

So...how would you tackle the reincarnation versus resurrection on the last day hmmmm?

Battycoda, do you believe that our resurrection in the last days will be a physical resurrection, or a spiritual one? Regarding the consonance between reincarnation and eschatology, I believe that in “the last days”, reincarnation will come to an end. It will have served its purpose, and we will have learned all we can from it. I believe that Biblical references to the “new Heaven and new earth” refer to a different dimension. (After all, the Bible itself tells us that this present cosmic realm will come to an end - Isaiah 34.4.) Incidentally, St. Paul talks about the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, and refers to it as a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15.44)

Reincarnation and eschatological Christianity are not incompatible, in my view.

God is in all things and all things are in him

I agree with that. Even though some Christians might say it’s somewhat New Age, it's still Biblical - Acts 17.28; Romans 11.36; Ephesians 4.6, for example

(Apologies for all the Bible quotes, for those who don't like Bible quotes)

AntiCristian is the offspring of the Anti-Christ--anything Christ-like is bogus. A NonChristian steers clear of such perception and simply sees CHristianity as not for him. "I love you, my darling, and please forgive me for not liking you."

"I love you, my darling, and please forgive me for not liking you."

Was that a 'hate the sin but love the sinner' statement or was it directed at someone? I was a little confused by the way that was tacked on at the end.

A NonChristian steers clear of such perception and simply sees CHristianity as not for him.

That's me.