Okay, here.

DeepSight, I've looked through your post and saw nothing of substance to invite a reply. I've made the salient points needing your attention, but since you provided none I let you be. However, since you're seeking a reply from me (as you said in the other thread), that's why I came here to make a few comments.

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Please give me an identity of your own 'God'.

I've said that this thread cannot be switched on magically to become an platform for discussing Christian issues. From the OP you made clear that you wanted to discuss the merits of Buddhism, and that was why I initially avoided it. besides, I was one of the first to note that Buddhism actually makes reference to 'God' but not in the theistic sense generally. So, it is either you have to sort yourself out on that most crucial point if you want to make any sense, or we just let you enjoy scuttling round your unfounded assertions.

Nonetheless, when you talk about the atheist being a "better worshipper" of 'God', I wondered where you got the idea that any atheist makes any appeal to 'God' in their outlook - and even that one you have never at any time tried to answer. If you keep evading germane issues, how does anyone gain anything from your evasive arguments, DeepSight? Why did you refuse to identify your own 'God' specifically? Why was that a very difficult thing?

When you come here pretending to talk about Buddhism and the atheist being a "worshipper" of 'God', I wanted you to be clear on specifics. As far as we know, atheists do not make any appeal to 'God' let alone be termed 'worshippers'. This has nothing to do with the sleight of hand you introduced about the question of whether people are 'good' or 'bad' - rather, it has everything to do with your identifying that 'God' in Buddhism for the atheist, as well show them how they are 'worshipping' that 'God'. To turn round and dribble in arguments that are not germane to your subject on Buddhism is only showing your tendency to be dubious at every opportunity.

Yes, I am willing to discuss - and I most definitely will reply your post just above. But if you again refuse to oblige, then I might as well conclude that you really wanted to be dubious once again and had nothing to offer in this thread - not even a dot to benefit you, let alone the atheist that you're trying to goon on your fallacy.

So, that is the first question I would ask you to deal with before any other discussion: please identify your own 'God' more specifically and let's see where it stands in all your talk about Buddhism and the atheist worshipping that 'God' which you refused to identify in your deism.

Let's leave it then. It was clear within my post the God i referred to and what I thought may be relevant to please him - whether the subject belives that such a God exists or not.

I said -

I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

And I went to great lengths to show how the Parable of the good Samaritan bears this out.

If this is not good enough, I will have to give up and leave it at that beacuse u keep saying "which God? which God" - whereas i have said a zillion times i refer to the God conceived by a Theist such as a Christian as yourself.

And that's why I used that parable to show that that God needs no formal "acknowldgement" to be pleased, but only love and charity. . . simple.

I cant really say more than this.

Deep Sight:

Let's leave it then. It was clear within my post the God i referred to and what I thought may be relevant to please him - whether the subject belives that such a God exists or not.

That is rather dubious, in so far as you categorically refused to identify your own 'God'. How has this thread with the title 'Buddhism' suddenly become a platform to discuss Christianity?

Excuse me to say this by way of repetition: I saw the pretences from the onset and had the premonition that you really were going to switch midway and jump on to Christianity. Otherwise I don't see how you would have refused identifying the 'God' of your deism as the foundation of your talk about Buddhism so you can dragoon the atheist into all that fluff. As soon as you get down to specifics in the same way as you outlined specifics on Buddhism in the OP, you will then see why all your talk is hanging in the air and not making any sense at all.

This is why this part of your response was well anticipated:

Deep Sight:
I said -

I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity -  certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

That was only today in your recent post of #63, and not as if that was your subject from page 1. And if you insist on that, then again there are a few things I would request of you:

(1)   please read my post in #19 again and oblige those 4 points;

(2)   then let me know if you are now saying that you as a deist identifies your own 'God' as the same which Jesus in the New Testament preached.

(3)   you would then identify the reference in Buddhism and atheism where that same 'God' is the foundation of this thread.

(4)    and so, you next have to reconcile your appeal to this 'God' with your assertion in the OP that - 

           (a)   "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"

           (b)   "Atheists, come on board ... Don't worry, it says nothing about God!"

Particularly on (4) above, it seems that you're trying to gull the reader by asserting something and then arguing the direct opposite. It is that kind of legerdemain that cannot just pass in the way you discuss any subject. One does not have to resort to these underhanded means to argue obvious fallacies as in your case, so why bother? It is just obvious that when your arguments are closely examined, you never stand up to keep on a sturdy leg.

^^^ I think I have said all that i have to say. I am sure the objective reader can get my drift.

I have nothing to add.

Thanks.

^^ You said nothing but dribbled here and there. That was why I initially let you on your drama in this thread. Now when it comes to actually saying something, you decline and say nothing. No surprises there.

^^^ I said it all already -

What else is there to add?

I was very specific in everything -

Deep Sight:

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

Can't add anymore to it. Its a simple enough statement to make that whereas the Theist may disdain the atheist, the lifestyle of the Atheist may actually be more fulfulling of the will of God - whom the Theist describes and subcribes to.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I said it all already -

What else is there to add?

I was very specific in everything -


Can't add anymore to it. Its a simple enough statement to make that whereas the Theist may disdain the atheist, the lifestyle of the Atheist may actually be more fulfulling of the will of God - whom the Theist describes and subcribes to.

And why are you evading this reply that spells out my simple request? ----

viaro:

Okay, here.

DeepSight, I've looked through your post and saw nothing of substance to invite a reply. I've made the salient points needing your attention, but since you provided none I let you be. However, since you're seeking a reply from me (as you said in the other thread), that's why I came here to make a few comments.

Please give me an identity of your own 'God'.

I've said that this thread cannot be switched on magically to become an platform for discussing Christian issues. From the OP you made clear that you wanted to discuss the merits of Buddhism, and that was why I initially avoided it. besides, I was one of the first to note that Buddhism actually makes reference to 'God' but not in the theistic sense generally. So, it is either you have to sort yourself out on that most crucial point if you want to make any sense, or we just let you enjoy scuttling round your unfounded assertions.

Nonetheless, when you talk about the atheist being a "better worshipper" of 'God', I wondered where you got the idea that any atheist makes any appeal to 'God' in their outlook - and even that one you have never at any time tried to answer. If you keep evading germane issues, how does anyone gain anything from your evasive arguments, DeepSight? Why did you refuse to identify your own 'God' specifically? Why was that a very difficult thing?

When you come here pretending to talk about Buddhism and the atheist being a "worshipper" of 'God', I wanted you to be clear on specifics. As far as we know, atheists do not make any appeal to 'God' let alone be termed 'worshippers'. This has nothing to do with the sleight of hand you introduced about the question of whether people are 'good' or 'bad' - rather, it has everything to do with your identifying that 'God' in Buddhism for the atheist, as well show them how they are 'worshipping' that 'God'. To turn round and dribble in arguments that are not germane to your subject on Buddhism is only showing your tendency to be dubious at every opportunity.

Yes, I am willing to discuss - and I most definitely will reply your post just above. But if you again refuse to oblige, then I might as well conclude that you really wanted to be dubious once again and had nothing to offer in this thread - not even a dot to benefit you, let alone the atheist that you're trying to goon on your fallacy.

So, that is the first question I would ask you to deal with before any other discussion: please identify your own 'God' more specifically and let's see where it stands in all your talk about Buddhism and the atheist worshipping that 'God' which you refused to identify in your deism.

. . . as well this one ----

viaro:

That is rather dubious, in so far as you categorically refused to identify your own 'God'. How has this thread with the title 'Buddhism' suddenly become a platform to discuss Christianity?

Excuse me to say this by way of repetition: I saw the pretences from the onset and had the premonition that you really were going to switch midway and jump on to Christianity. Otherwise I don't see how you would have refused identifying the 'God' of your deism as the foundation of your talk about Buddhism so you can dragoon the atheist into all that fluff. As soon as you get down to specifics in the same way as you outlined specifics on Buddhism in the OP, you will then see why all your talk is hanging in the air and not making any sense at all.

This is why this part of your response was well anticipated:


That was only today in your recent post of #63, and not as if that was your subject from page 1. And if you insist on that, then again there are a few things I would request of you:

(1) please read my post in #19 again and oblige those 4 points;

(2) then let me know if you are now saying that you as a deist identifies your own 'God' as the same which Jesus in the New Testament preached.

(3) you would then identify the reference in Buddhism and atheism where that same 'God' is the foundation of this thread.

(4) and so, you next have to reconcile your appeal to this 'God' with your assertion in the OP that -

(a) "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"

(b) "Atheists, come on board ... Don't worry, it says nothing about God!"

Particularly on (4) above, it seems that you're trying to gull the reader by asserting something and then arguing the direct opposite. It is that kind of legerdemain that cannot just pass in the way you discuss any subject. One does not have to resort to these underhanded means to argue obvious fallacies as in your case, so why bother? It is just obvious that when your arguments are closely examined, you never stand up to keep on a sturdy leg.

You like to dribble here and there and end up saying absolutely nothing. Go ahead and spin round all you want, your assertions about the atheist being a "better worships" still hangs in the air - please show the 'God' in atheism and let's get talking [size=14pt]if[/size] you dare!

Sir: I have not said that there is a God in Atheism.

I urged you to consider that the lifestyle of the Atheist may be more in consonance with the will of the God that you and other Theists profess.

I believe the parable of the Good Samaritan bears this out.

The back-and-forth on the very same things which I have said already is frankly irritating.

I can't say anything more.

Deep Sight:

Sir: I have not said that there is a God in Atheism.

But you did say, dear sir, that the atheist is a "better worshipper" of a 'God' you have refused to identify only to return today and try to turn this thread into your platform to argue Christianity. That is something I would expect you to consider - a dubious exercise like that makes a sorry case for your style of discussing.

I urged you to consider that the lifestyle of the Atheist may be more in consonance with the will of the God that you and other Theists profess.

The atheist "worships" nothing - no God, no deity, no devas, no deistic OOI. This thread was not about lifestyle comparing between worldviews, but you have left off your OP and tried to gull the reader to make it into something else. Thus, if you are asserting the atheist to be a "worshipper" (whether "better worshipper" or any other type at any rate), then I reckon the first thing that atheist would ask is this: 'DeepSight, show me that 'God' that you think is worshipped by the atheist'. Why is that a most difficult thing for you to show in ATHEISM? Oh, we know why already: because your assertions are unfounded and dubious.

I believe the parable of the Good Samaritan bears this out.

The parable of the Good Samaritan has nothing to do with the atheist "worshipping" any 'God'.

The back-and-forth on the very same things which I have said already is frankly irritating.

You can take the blame all by yourself. Your pathetic duplicity in dragooning the atheist into a "worship" was quite out of this world, not to mention irritating.

I can't say anything more.

Just zip it - you had absolutely nothing to say that made any sense and have never stood to reason intelligently in the first place.

Just zip it

Zipped!

Buddhism offers a concept-less and image-less EXPERIENCE of God. . . not dogmas . . .not arguments.

I would recommend it for anybody.

When we worship, we sometimes create IMAGES OF GOD in our minds, and expect God to conform to those images. . .but most of the time He does not conform. . . and we run into a crisis of faith

^^^ Excellently put. Which is why a maze of definitions of "which God" is not very helpful.

Beyond acceding that God is the creator, can we really box him with further definitions?

Thoughts!

Haha, I laugh in tangerine! Don't kid yourselves, pals. The OP already outlined FOUR of its dogmas in Buddhism, so we really can't say that Buddhism has no dogma, could we?

And as to the farce of 'concept-less' and 'image-less' experience of God, that is a huge Monday-laugh! Please go and read up on Buddhism proper before making vacant assertions.

viaro:

Haha, I laugh in tangerine! Don't kid yourselves, pals. The OP already outlined FOUR of its dogmas in Buddhism, so we really can't say that Buddhism has no dogma, could we?

And as to the farce of 'concept-less' and 'image-less' experience of God, that is a huge Monday-laugh! Please go and read up on Buddhism proper before making vacant assertions.

I believe that Imhotep was referring to the Zen schools and the Chan schools of Buddhism. These schools of buddhism seek to confound any conceptual way of thinking about God or Reality.

imhotep:

Buddhism offers a concept-less and image-less EXPERIENCE of God. . . not dogmas . . .not arguments.

IMO there is no Buddhism, but Buddhisms. There are several expressions of Buddhism some with more dogma (IMO, ridiculous stuff) than others. Your statement is quite inaccurate, and IMHO, superficial. Arguments full ground. . . mainly because some expressions came about in response to others.

I lost my aunt to breast cancer and just found out this mornin so I have to rush over there now so I can't elaborate but i'll try to later.

^^^ Krayola, my sincere sympathies.

Stay blessed.

all dis strange religion is just 2 distract people from knowing God.budhism centres on humans n self.nofin more.d bible has said it dat cursed is anyone dat forsakes God,for it will have been better if he wasn't born

@Krayola:  Please accept my sympathy on behalf of your aunt.  I am certain she lived well, and we should be grateful for that. Best Regards.

@Topic:
Saying that there are atheists who are better worshippers of God is like saying that there are vegetarians who have a stronger preference for eating red meat.

^^^ Define for me the worship of God.

What does it mean to you?

Did you read the post on the Parable of the good Samaritan above?

Maybe for you the Priest and the Levite were better worshippers of God than the good samaritan?

Let's look to the spirit please.

@Deep Sight:

The verb "worship" means "to shape worth." The meanings of "worth" suggest the purpose of worshipping: to come to be equal to, or to turn toward, the highest or best values. To worship is to give useful, instructive shape to those often abstract values, to symbolize or articulate them in memorable and helpful ways. We create, and we cut back, the words and symbols we use in worship according to their usefulness. They are never fixed, but do endure as long as they serve the purpose of showing us the good we strive toward (or of binding a worshipping community together).

WORSHIP (n) O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) "condition of being worthy, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see WORTH) + -scipe (see -SHIP). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200.

Click here for more on the etymology of worship

Can you please tell us how it is possible to mistakenly, and yet accurately shape the worth of an entity or substance? How can one give useful, instructive shape to an abstract value if it is not understood or acknowledged?

Can you please tell me the designer and color of my tie, or if I am wearing one right now?

The story of the Samaritan is not about worship of God per se. In fact, the Priest and the Levite could not touch the dying man because he would make them impure at that instance, thus corrupting their own acts of worship.

So, from the worship perspective, the Priest and the Levite were better worshippers though the Samaritan was a better lover. For us in the new Testament, there are no such rigid rules that have to adhered to above LOVE, and that is what Jesus was teaching in that story.

Heaven help me. Astonishing contradictions all over the place -

This character assasinates Jesus by saying -

InesQor:

@Deep Sight:

So, from the worship perspective, [size=16pt]the Priest and the Levite were better worshippers[/size] though the Samaritan was a better lover.

And then instantly contradicts that by admitting that LOVE is the key -

For us in the new Testament, [size=16pt]there are no such rigid rules that have to adhered to above LOVE, [/size] and that is what Jesus was teaching in that story.

So if they adhered to their rigid rules above Love, how then are they the "better worshippers" of God - since you have admitted -

  1. Love is the Key and

  2. The samaritan was the better lover.

Jesus Christ! Are you for real at all? ? ? ? ?[img][/img]

Deep Sight, you missed my point. The story was told in a transition period from the old to the new. In the story, and according to The Law, the Priest and the Levite did exactly what they were meant to do in the name of worship. By the Law, they were better worshippers. In Christ, they were not, but the samaritan was.

But that was Jesus' point: Love is more important than ritual worship without an understanding of the rudiments of worship (the God they were trying to worship is the totality of the Love they denied).

Doesnt this same thing apply here to your gist that atheists can worship God better? How can they go through a ritual 'worship' of one whom they deny? In the parable, the do-good atheists may as well be the holy priest and levite then, because they go through the motions without acknowledging the substance.

@Krayola, I am deeply sorry to learn about your aunt. Please receive my heartfelt condolences.

Pastor AIO:

I believe that Imhotep was referring to the Zen schools and the Chan schools of Buddhism. These schools of buddhism seek to confound any conceptual way of thinking about God or Reality.

My deepest respects, Pastor AIO - that's correct. In my careless assumption I'd not carefully considered the specifics, which is why I appreciate krayola's point here:

Krayola:

IMO there is no Buddhism, but Buddhisms. There are several expressions of Buddhism some with more dogma (IMO, ridiculous stuff) than others. Your statement is quite inaccurate, and IMHO, superficial.

It is said that Buddha[b] obdurately refused [/b] to be drawn into talking of God.

He was obviously familiar with the dangers of drawing maps for armchair explorers.

Didn't the christian bible also frown upon the conceptualization of God in any way?"Thou shall not make a graven image of God".One cannot have a concept of the creator without first of all creating a graven image, a graven image in the mind, a mental graven image, so to speak.

So one can easily understand the demand for a concept, any concept of the creator from a worshipper of God, because they can't fathom a discussion about God without some sort of a mental image.The mental imagery is crucial for every worshipper.

Buddhism only ranks a bit higher for its better support for mankind. Apart from that, it also has its own controversies. Even the buddha was an excellent escape artist when asked about the existence of a god. He likened it to a man shot with an arrow who looks around to see who shot him. He went on to say the man will die with his injury as he is asking the not-so-important question instead of treating himself.
This is profound but i doubt its sufficiency this day with the presence of brilliant folks worldwide(u nairalanders included).

imhotep:

It is said that Buddha obdurately refused to be drawn into talking of God.

He was obviously familiar with the [b]dangers of drawing maps for armchair explorers[/b].

What is an "armchair explorer".  A non-Buddhist?

We know way less about the Buddha than we do about Jesus . . . It is all a bunch of "tradition has it that", "legend has it that" . .  so I'm not sure what that (highlighted) statement is supposed to mean. In fact there is scholarly consensus that we know little to nothing reliable about the life of the Buddha. All we can say we know is the general outline of his life, and his teachings as handed down by tradition. The details of his words and specifics are mostly legend. Buddhism was relatively obscure till about 2 centuries after his death when some King Asoka dude converted, and then it took off. Kinda like Constantine with Christianity. And by then sef there were already disagreements between the Buddha's followers, with each faction claiming their own ideas were identical to the Buddha's (councils had to be called to straighten things out. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY). There was even a formal division in the sangha. Believe what u believe, but cut this "my faith is superior to yours" crap out. It's fukn pathetic.

ilosiwaju:

Buddhism only ranks a bit higher for its better support for mankind. Apart from that, it also has its own controversies. Even the buddha was an excellent escape artist when asked about the existence of a god. He likened it to a man shot with an arrow who looks around to see who shot him. He went on to say the man will die with his injury as he is asking the not-so-important question instead of treating himself.
This is profound but i doubt its sufficiency this day with the presence of brilliant folks worldwide(u nairalanders included).

It is a profound statement.  It's lack of sufficiency will only surface in those driven by curiosity.

Fact is that the motivations for all our activities, religion included, come from our personal pressing needs and affairs and not from some remote idea that there is or is not a God.
As I go about seeking to satisfy all my urges and appetites I might find a God shaped hole in my soul.  Just like the holes left by hunger, sexual desires, status etc, I will also try to fill this hole as best I can.  
The hunger for God is a more pressing concern than the need for an epistemological certainty of God's existence.

Pastor AIO:


Fact is that the motivations for all our activities, religion included, come from our personal pressing needs and affairs and not from some remote idea that there is or is not a God. 

GBAM!! IMHO, the success of the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed was that they spoke to the immediate needs of the people around them. They spoke to the situation of the day, and offered ideas that helped their followers deal with the difficulties of their time.

Pastor, well said. I agree with you. Curiosity does most of the driving.

Krayola, i briefly saw someone saying sorry to u on a thread, wetin happen?
takia.

ilosiwaju:

Krayola, i briefly saw someone saying sorry to u on a thread, wetin happen?
takia.

I lost my Aunt. thanks. Abeg which thread. . .