Okay, so you could debate all day if it is the "religion" that is bad, or if it is just "bad people who happen to be religious." I sometimes mention the fact that there are practically no atheists in prison, but people often do not accept that as an indication that atheists are generally more law-abiding. That's fine...it's interesting to note anecdotally but it's far from definitive. Certainly, anybody can be anything, good or bad.

However, it can be argued that, generally speaking, the morality of non-theists is "sturdier" than that of theists. This is because the morality of non-theists is not arbitrarily derived by another, handed to them from the outside, and judged from "above." It is derived from a personal examination, created from within, and judged therein. As such, instead of a "list of rules" which must be followed, and which can in fact be followed without understanding, non-theistic morality is more of a decision-making algorithm, where understanding is the crucial factor. It is this ability to make decisions with understanding that makes non-theistic morality more practical and flexible, and less likely to be confounded or abandoned in circumstance.

Here is a perfect example from another discussion. Krystal had speculated that everyone might be given one more chance after death to get right with God. Another poster then supposed:

If your theory happens to be right.... why don't we let everyone live all "willy nilly" and do away with prisons and laws and all other social structure.....Lets party like its 1999 and live it up. Tap the keg and strip. Screw anything with legs....

I wanted to be sure this is what she meant, so I then questioned:

Do you personally feel that, if Krystal is correct and everyone gets one last shot to choose to believe in God after death, then that would mean that we could do away with all laws and social structure and party like it's 1999?

The poster responded:

Through her opinion sure, Why not live it up and do what you want?? Instead of "wishing" the teller at the bank would make a mistake and give you all the money in the safe.... why not hold a gun to her head and tell her you want it? There is no consequence....right? I'll just clear it with the Big Guy at my judgement.....

I was compelled to ask at that point, "Can't you think of any other reason not to do that besides what The Big Guy thinks?" She could not.

This, it would appear, is an example of a "list-oriented" morality, with partying and sex on the bad list, along with armed robbery. In this system, "what The Big Guy thinks" is the only arbiter of what is moral. This kind of thinking completely fails to acknowledge, or even notice, that there are other reasons not to do ill, like because it is unfair and because it harms people and because society cannot function without agreed-upon standards of behavior.

I am not saying that all religious people use list-based rather than decision-based morality. However I would say that Christianity in particular presents a list-based morality and it would certainly be easy to get stuck there. Non-theists, however, bereft of faith in the list, are basically forced into the kind of personal examination from which decision-based morality is derived. By this set of factors, I think it could be successfully argued that decision-based non-theistic morality would be superior to list-based religious morality.

I have seen this often, that you can't blame Christianity for the actions of Christians. Of course you can't, but that doesn't mean they aren't related. Christians and Christianity are not separate. Christianity does not exist apart from Christians. And there are some elements of Christianity which I think must be considered, if not the fault, then at least contributing factors in some cases.

For one thing, Christianity is heavy on list-based morality which can often leave one high and dry if the situation fails to conform to the parameters of the list.

For another, when Christians do ill at the same or higher rates as people in other faith categories, ya gotta wonder why Christianity does not steer them measurably righter, when this is exactly what it is supposed to do, and so many claim that it can be counted upon to do this.

Most significantly, Christianity places an extreme emphasis on in-group acceptance and out-group rejection. Throughout life, Christians often define themselves by the particular sect they are in, considering those who share exactly the same beliefs as fellows and those whose beliefs differ in ways as heretics. The entire point of death, in fact, is defined as a sieving process by which some are channelled into Heaven while others are shuffled off to Hell, forever separated into "us" and "them."

I would hazard to suggest that in-group vs. out-group mentality is one of the gravest problems facing the human race, and a significant factor in almost every human conflict. From the Hatfields and McCoys, to the Protestant vs. Catholics, to the North vs. South, to the Allies vs. the Axis...from the Democrat vs. Republican, to the Enlightened Democracies vs. the Islamofascist terrorists, to the hard-working upstanders vs. the lazy welfare slobs, there is practically no division which cannot be defined by who we consider to be "the good ones, like us" and who we consider "the other guys."

By specifically being divisive, particularly in terms of "us, the saved" and "everyone else, the hellbound," Christianity is a strong contributing factor to in-group/out-group thinking. Since "us vs. themism" is so very problematic in an interconnected world, any factor that feeds into this thinking is partially to blame, and Christianity is definitely one of these factors.

Does the religion of Christianity say that some people will go to Heaven and others will not?

Well, there you go. That is promoting in-group/out-group divisiveness. That is contributing to serious problems for our world. That is not "abusing Christianity." That IS Christianity.

Undoubtedly. Christ, as portrayed, was a heck of a guy.

However, if Christ was saying that some people would get the "good" afterlife and others would not, then He too was promoting in-group/out-group divisiveness and He was wrong to do so.

If "Christ's teachings" were the sum total of Christianity it would be a very different religion. However I never said Christ was the problem. I said Christianity is the problem. I never said Christ promoted in-group/out-group divisiveness. I said Christianity does.

Fine. The people who did the constructs are more responsible for Christianity than Christ was. But the fact that Christ was inclusive and Christianity is not does not redeem Christianity from being divisive.

I am not the only person in the world. I am concerned with more people than myself.

It is wrong to promote divisiveness.

That's nice. However you are not Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who think that all the people who are not saved are in the out-group. This is not them "abusing Christianity," this is them following Christianity.

I have, cover-to-cover. If you think I just missed the page where it says everyone goes to Heaven, no matter what they think or believe or do, then please point it out.

Sorry, no. The day that Christianity is condensed to just Jesus and his teachings, I will evaluate it on that basis. However as long as Christianity includes things besides just Jesus and his teachings I will evaluate those things as the parts of Christianity they are.

That is just not true. It is a central tenet of Christianity that only some people get to Heaven. That is a failure of the Christian philosophy and of any who choose to embrace it.

Whoa, who ever said it was God's fault?

The fault is the central tenet of Christianity which divides the in-group of the saved from the out-group of the damned.

What about people who tried to believe Jesus was their savior but couldn't manage it? Hell for them too? And what about people who never heard of Jesus? Hell, also?

That's too bad. I know many wonderful, good-hearted people who don't happen to be convinced by the Jesus story, or who happened to have been raised with a different type of religion. Any God who would see such sweet, wonderful people, who make life a joy for others, languish in Hell for eternity just for this, is cruel.

I wouldn't do it to them. Too bad God cannot be as compassionate as I am.

How do you figure? What is just about this?

If people have a right believe the wrong thing, then why does God punish them for doing it?

Yes, but how is believing the wrong thing worthy of punishment? Is being wrong about it evil?

If I did, it would only be so that they could learn from their mistake and do better next time. How could being sent to Hell for eternity teach a lesson for next time? There is no next time. So to what end is the punishment?

How can I confirm that your description of how God works is the truth?

How can you confirm that this description of what He is, is accurate?

I am not questioning the "existence of God." I am not an atheist. I am questioning how you know that your description of God is what He is really like.

This I have done, and continue to do. However what I am discovering for myself is that what you are claiming cannot be substantiated.

My earnest search has revealed that Christains do not know anything more about God than anyone else.

Then back it up. If it's true there should be some way to confirm it.

I have massive amounts of energy which I can dedicate to understanding difficult answers if necessary. I only want answers that can be confirmed to actually be answers and not just speculation.

Why do you think I have not done this? I am reporting to you that "You have to believe in Jesus as your savior or else you will go to hell" is not the conclusion that has been yielded by my years of studying and learning. I cannot confirm this, and my years of studying and learning seem to indicate that this is just something that people say.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss it further if you are able. If you are, I would like to know your thoughts on my questions, like how you figure punishing souls for eternity is similar to parents punishing children for their own good.

It could be that your description of God is just what you want Him to be in your little box. How is anyone supposed to tell who is right and who is just little boxes?

I'm not an atheist but I can't figure out how these statements make sense to you.

Do you think people should be sure of everything they hope for and certain of everything they don't see? Or just some things? Which things? How can we know which ones?

A lot of people feel God in their gut and that seems fine. I am not an atheist, or trying to argue that this doesn't happen. What I want to know is how you have confirmed that "You have to believe in Jesus as your savior or you will get the bad afterlife" is an accurate picture of God? Does your gut have a way to confirm this?

To what end?

That is a pretty big claim. What evidence is there that Christians "see more like God" than other people?

If your reasoning is sound other people should have no trouble understanding it.

We are both human beings.

Well, that's too bad, but not unexpected.


Man, I would LOVE it if people asked me about my understanding, and gave me a platform to explain it! I could answer questions about it all night. I'd be thrilled to. I don't understand when other people have this opportunity and don't take it.

But, if you don't care to, thanks for the time you have been willing to share. I appreciate it.

I am not trying to do either of those. I am trying to find a way to communicate with you.

There is no reason to think the people who wrote the Bible know more about God than what I am able to discern myself.

Unfortunately, that would work for everything. How do I know what to believe is the truth first and what not to?

Generally speaking, I have found much of what I am looking for. In this conversation, I am mainly looking for a way to engage you. I'm sorry it hasn't worked, maybe another time.

There is nothing un-earnest about the way I have been looking. I have looked in earnest, and I have found plenty. However what I have found makes the Christian stuff look puny, cruel and unfounded. Particularly the doctrine of Hell, which is why I attempted to engage you on the topic when you brought it up.

This does me great honor, thank you so much for asking.

On the subject of souls, I would say that we know nothing of them. We have only speculation.

Speaking more generally, I would agree with the Buddha that existential questions about "gods" and "souls" are unanswerable, and a distraction from enlightenment.

I would say, if you want a soul, be one now.

Buddhism is the practice of enlightenment my husband was using when we met. It is certainly working for him, so I began the practice also. It seems to be working for me.

Buddhism happens to be a well-known path to enlightenment, but it is not the only one. There are many, and not all are "spiritual." The life philosophy and ethics of Epicurus, for example, are an excellent framework for enlightenment, and they are non-religious.

The authors of the New Testement certainly intended to portray Jesus as an enlightened man, so the archetype is available in Christian tradition as well. It has forms in some other religions also.

But I would say I'm not particularly "religious." My enlightenment consists of a practice, not a worship or a set of faith beliefs. The main advantage of Buddhism is that it says what it is and does what it says it does.

This is a great question, thanks for asking.

The one thing that I would not use to make a determination about the unknown is what "feels more right." I have all kinds of feelings about the unknown and so does everyone, but nothing we decide "feels right" about the unknown can be confirmed to actually be right.

We could speculate all night about when souls start, where they go, and whether souls are green, or blue, or purple. But there is nothing that can be known to pick any one speculation over any other. It's just a big question mark, like so many other unanswerable questions. Taking up various positions about it just creates unresolvable conflicts, because no one really knows.

Luckily, you don't have to know any of that to become enlightened. This may be why the Buddha said the questions of "gods" and "souls" are a distraction. Attainment is about getting it going on here, now, with what we do know.

As for Christianity, it does have an enlightened man at its center. But for some reason, the goal of the adherents is not to become enlightened themselves. Instead, the goal is to be saved from "damnation" in the "afterlife."

This seems lame for two reasons.

For one thing, it seems a little too convenient, doesn't it? All the good stuff which Christinaity promises is placed inside the big unknown question mark area where it cannot be checked or confirmed by anyone living. Hmm.

And for another, this gives people an easy out - "just believe this!" - instead of having to do the work of becoming enlightened themselves. People expect to simply ride on Jesus's coattails into Heaven after they die instead of becoming enlightened now.

I think that's a shame. It totally misses the point of there being an enlightened man one's religion is named after. If Christianity was about how to become a Jesus Christ, it could be a path to enlightenment. But it doesn't seem to be about that.


I thank you again for asking, please let me know if you have any questions at all about this. I enjoy discussing it. :-)

Of course. I am honored that you would discuss it with me.

I want you to know that I have considered your words very carefully. This kind of dialog is very important to me, and I thank you.

Yes, I am fully aware of that. But a system that doesn't stand up to head knowledge, common sense or intellect is a system that is lacking an important touch on reality. When Christianity is in conflict with knowledge, common sense and intellect, we have to ask why.

As far as anyone is able to demonstrate, believing in things that cannot be proven is not important.

Particularly when it comes to the unknown, a simple "I don't know" usually suffices, especially since that is the truth.

I think you are over-generalizing here. I know some knowledgeable, common sense intellectual people who are Christian.

We certainly have a right to our own beliefs, but having the right to have them doesn't mean they can't be wrong. You have every right to believe "the earth is at the center of the planetary system," but that wouldn't make the phrase an accurate description of what is actually the case.

People are people. They can freely convert from theist to non-theist, Christian to Buddhist, Wiccan to pantheist to deist to atheist and back again. It is not a matter of the "material" you are "cut from." It is a matter of what you are currently choosing to think.

I did not say that Christians "don't have enlightenment."

I said, the goal of adherents is not to become enlightened. I think most would agree that the main purpose of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was to provide salvation, a route to heaven and redemption for the debt of original sin. They might also list blessings of the Lord, the answering of prayers and the bestowing of grace as other benefits.

But certainly, you almost never hear Christians specifically mentioning "enlightenment" as part of the discussion.

In fact, I think if you asked most hell-believing Christians whether they would prefer enlightenment now or to be spared from hell later, they would pick the latter. For example, hell believers frequently float Pascal's wager as their reasoning, saying they would much prefer to take the chance of being wrong now by believing in Christ if he isn't real, than take the chance of being wrong later by not believing in him, and ending up in hell.

When the question is framed as a choice between accurate understanding and salvation, the fear-based choice wins. Salvation is clearly taking firm precedence over all other concerns.

No. One, you have no idea what I can see from my end or what my head knowledge is telling me. Two, I didn't say it can't be so. Read what I wrote. I specifically said, it could be so, if it was being pursued in that manner.

Three, I am perfectly capable of seeing it when it occurs. I personally know people who are pursuing Christianity as a path to enlightenment in the Buddhist sense. However that practice is extremely different from the typical Christian. The list of beliefs that they do not share in common with you would probably make you decide they were from that "other cloth." They don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, or that he was born of a virgin, or that believing in him is how you get the good afterlife. They don't believe that he magically raised the dead or multiplied the servings at the fish-n-loaves dinner.

The people who are pursuing Jesus as a path to enlightenment are taking the words of Jesus and using them as lessons to create enlightenment in their lives in just the same manner that Buddhists utilize the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. They do not worship Jesus as a supernatural being. They consider him a teacher.

I think I see where the disconnect is. You seem to be using the term "enlightenment" as "growing in understanding," and I would not disagree with that usage. In fact I have often seen Christians discuss this aspect of the faith, using other terms. This is certainly part of Christianity and I am perfectly aware of that.

I would agree that Christians do claim that they are trying to be more like Christ.

Unfortunately, they also claim that it is impossible.

I don't doubt that you are growing in your knowledge and awareness of the things you describe, and that is a wonderful and admirable thing. I agree this is "enlghtening" in the general sense of the term.

However, this is not enlightenment in the very specific Buddhist usage of the term. My usage of enlightenment refers specifically to the action of transcending suffering through focused attention and the practice of non-attachment.

Non-attachment is a measure of enlightenment, as used in this way.

I would say that for a Christian as you describe, non-attachment is hardly a consideration. People are extremely attached to Jesus, to his offer of salvation, and to getting to heaven. Also to there being a God, to Him being the jealous God or loving God or wrathful God of the ancient texts, to the presence of God's blessing and intervention in their affairs, to being in line with Biblical prophecy, to being a sinner by nature, etc. The more Christian dogma one believes, the more the attachments there are - to Christ being born of a virgin, to him rising from the grave, to God thinking homosexual acts are abomination, to Israel being the holy land, to the immenent coming of the Rapture and the End Times, etc.

Beliefs are attachments. They are attachments to specific speculations of the unknown.


Just for contrast, I would mention, as an example, that the Buddha is supposed to have been a prince, the son of a powerful king. However Buddhists are not attached to this as a faith belief. If some ancient scroll was unearthed which showed that the buddha was actually the son of a merchant, it would change nothing about Buddhism. There is no attachment to the story.

However if ancient scrolls arose which showed that Christ was not the son of God, it would upset everything in Christianity because the attachment to the belief is endemic to the fabric of the faith.


I would add, however, that one place where Christain enlightenment and Buddhist enlightenment can overlap is in the development of compassion.

Yes, my life is about me, as far as anyone is able to tell.

I would say that having some other being play the starring role in your life does not represent anything like the Buddhist understanding of Enlightenment. As far as anyone can tell, Jesus is not here. We are.

Your personal growth in spiritual understanding is a wonderful thing and I laud you for it, but as long as you concerned with getting to heaven, being forgiven of your sins, having Jesus be in your life right now, etc., you are not pursuing the non-attachment that leads to transcendence of suffering which would constitute the Buddhist usage of the term.

Certainly, thanks. I hope you understand now why I say that Christianity is not concerned with enlightenment. I mean, it is not concerned on the transcendence of personal suffering through focused attention and the practice of non-attachment.

I thank you again for speaking of this with me and I hope you will feel able to continue.

As I mentioned, you should seriously not attempt to tell me what I believe. I have never said that I believe in reincarnation.

That has nothing to do with reincarnation.

None that I know of. I am not concerned at all with reincarnation. For one thing, reincarnation is a Hindu concept, not Buddhist. The Buddhist interpretation is called rebirth, and it is a somewhat different concept. Second of all, Buddhism arose amid Hinduism and rebirth appears to be a Hindu graft onto the Buddha's teachings to make it more acceptable to the zeitgeist of the time.

The Buddha himself taught "anatman," or "no soul."

That is not what I say. I have never claimed that reincarnation is real or taken a stand on non-proven avenues of belief. I think you may have me confused with someone else.

There isn't any. Perhaps he didn't. However it doesn't change the fact that Buddhist teachings work for reducing suffering. For example, scientific studies have shown that Buddhists are actually measurably happier than people in other faith categories.

Since it's supposed to be a system for creating happiness and that is what it is doing, that seems good enough for the moment. What the Buddha really did or didn't do is not important.

That's fine, it's hearsay to me too. I am not concerned with whether the story of the Buddha is completely accurate.

There are compelling arguments to show that neither Buddha or Jesus existed as actual people. However in Buddhism that doesn't make a shred of difference. The wisdom of the words stands separately from the individual. "Buddha" could actually be a committee, but what does it matter?

However if Jesus was not an actual person that changes everything for most Christians.

Not necessarily, and you should stop trying to tell me what I must believe.

This I do when I follow any recipe or system. Why not?

The difference with Christianity is that there is no tenet in Buddhism which says you must accept all of it, or most of it, or any particular part. The Buddha himself instructed people to reject any teaching that they could not personally verify, even his.

Buddhism is a body of ideas, from which anyone can draw lessons, try them on for size, and then continue to utilize or not as indicated. Faith is not required or expected.

Please, take this up with someone who has unsubstantiated Buddhist beliefs. My argument to them would be the same as to Christian faith beliefs - demonstrate that this is true, or don't claim that it certainly is.

Now this is just ridiculous. We can check. It can be definitively demonstrated that the earth revolves around the sun, by directly observing this happening. There are mountains of evidence and observations of this going back centuries to support this conclusion.

There is exactly zero evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. They are not equivalent viewpoints.

Only if you chose to abandon reason and facts and disregard everything that can be shown to be true about the solar system.

There are people in this very discussion who have moved from sincere solid faith to questioning to changing their beliefs. At the Crossroads, I have encountered many former Christians and even seen the transformation occurring over the course of some months. It happens.

And I think most Christians would happily acknowledge that people can change to Christianity from other systems. So obviously it is not about what "cloth" you are made of but what you choose to think.

I would describe it as a practice of compassion.

I have no doubt that you feel things in your heart that guide you each day. However this is not unique to Christians and there is no evidence that this is actually "Jesus."

Everybody feels things in their heart. But when a Shinto feels something in his heart he believes it is the guidance of his ancestors. When an Apache feels that, she believes it is the intervention of the Life Giver. When an atheist feels it, he may think it is his intuition.

There is no evidence that this feeling is Jesus, and isn't ancestors, the Life Giver or just intuition. In any case, you don't have to believe anything in particular to get guidance from your heart. It happens to everyone.

I cannot prove that you don't have invisible magical microscopic monkeys that fly out of your nose every time you sneeze, either. Perhaps you do. Should we entertain the notion?

People sense a lot of things. There is no evidence that what you sense is different from what I or any other person senses. It is not known what some of the things we sense are, and there is no reason to think it emanates from Jesus particularly.

My thanks to you for this as well. This discussion has been very clarifying for me and I appreciate it.

The problem is the idea that humans should be deciding good and ill based on "the bible."

The "bible" could say, straight out, unambiguously, that anyone who thinks a homosexual thought should be immediately stoned to death. That doesn't mean we should do it.

It doesn't matter what the bible says. The bible can be wrong. We have to forget the bible and figure out how to handle human behavior based on what humans actually are and what works and what doesn't.

We only have to look at this reality with our own eyes to see that homosexual behavior is naturally occurring and is no more inherently harmful than heterosexual behavior. What difference does it make what the bible says? Can we not see the reality for ourselves?

It could be translated perfectly and still be wrong.

That is why this issue remains a problem. Many people will not consider the idea that the bible could be wrong.


Consider this. The Quran can easily be interpreted as entreating believers to kill infidels. There is a lot of wrangling over the translations and interpretations there, too. But what difference does it make? Even if the Quran said, straight out, that infidels should be killed by believers, that doesn't mean there is any excuse in this world for believers to kill infidels based on what it says. What is says does not matter at all. Killing people is wrong. If the Quran says to kill people, the Quran is wrong. Holy books can be wrong.


If we want to avoid making gay people - and other human beings, like "male and female prostitutes" - into second-class citizens, we have to forget what the bible "says" is bad and just find out for ourselves.

Who cares about him?

The reason the death penalty is wrong is not because of what it does to HIM. Fuck him. It's because of what it does to US. It makes us killers. It's not worth us throwing away our own morality and becoming killers just because of insane wastes of human life like this.

In that case they should just give him a gun. He can take care of it himself.

Your conjectures are not facts about God and not something that everybody can agree with.

No. Have you ever looked at anything which was actually made? There is zero evidence of involvement by any intelligent agent. The elements are fused by heat and pressure in the heart of stars. Complex molecules were formed from elements by the heat and pressure of geothermal activity and cometary impact on the early earth. Living beings are made by their DNA using nothing more than the molecules in their vicinity and a billion years of trial and error to figure out what to do.

Nothing, not one thing in this universe, looks remotely as if it was made by a top-down intelligence. So, wrong.

Every bit of love in the world is being loved by biological brains.

No human has even the tiniest scrap of information about any gods so there is no possible comparison of us to "them."


If you want to say something everyone can agree with, describe something that corresponds accurately with realtiy. People will agree with you if they can verify what you are saying.

I don't make generalized judgements about hypothetical, unspecified "somethings." I weigh the actual harm and suffering of a specific thing against the actual benefits on a case-by-case basis and then decide the best I can.

What alternative method are you proposing for determining morality?

How do you figure? We have laws.

We as a society examine a circumstance or occurrence and make some laws to deal with it. Sometimes the laws are workable and helpful and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes we change them to make them work better.

We do the best we can. That's why we have trials, judges, and juries - to examine the specifics on a case-by-case basis.

That is why sometimes a judge suspends a sentence. Sometimes we use jury nullification. Sometimes we change the law.

These are the principles of our society. How does what I am describing differ from what our society is doing?

If you are suggesting that good and bad actually exist outside of our minds then the burden of proof is on you to show where / how.

We are talking about it. Obviously, good and bad are concepts in our minds.

We do.

At least "the majority" is a real thing that can actually be shown to exist.

And, nobody ever said that the majority always does a good job. As humans our general sense of morality is evolving. A mere few centuries ago the majority considered slavery okay. A mere few decades ago the majority considered segregation okay. A few short years ago a majority in our country considered killing Iraqis okay.

We just have to examine what occurs, as individuals and as a society, and do the best that we can to find ways to make things work. If it doesn't seem to be working we can try to fix it. What other way is there?

Shoving the responsibility for human morality off on God doesn't help. What person gets to decide what God's morals are?

This is ridiculous. You can't spend time getting to know your new boyfriend by reading letters someone else wrote on his behalf and talking to him in your head. You can only "get to know" someone who is actually here, interacting with you.

This I have done, on more than one occasion, in absolute sincerity. However nothing happened.

That's nice to believe but since it is undetectable it is meaningless.

Since it's undetectable, what difference does it make?

You hope.

How so?

I didn't know what to expect. Anything at all happening would have been something. However nothing at all happened.

Of course it is. I never expected God to be my cosmic boyfriend. But a relationship takes two, with both parties participating. So far God has never done His side of the relationship.

Yes, the religious always blame me. They claim that I was not doing it right and that is why nothing happened.

However if God has half the power people claim He does you would think that He could find a way to manage despite whatever shortcomings I may possess.

Yes, the religious always blame me. However you would think that God could find a way to manage anyway.

My heart is not one iota less genuine than anyone else's.

That sounds pretty scary alright. My hubby says, "Be a love unto yourself."

I thought so at the time. However, in retrospect the "without a doubt" requirement does not seem very fair. If I am just not able to honestly rid myself of every single possible doubt, I don't see why that should disqualify me. I am what I am. If this is what God gets He should be satisfied with that.

There is nothing wrong with my reasons. They are as good as anyone's.

You said it's not God, it may be me. It certainly sounds like you are saying that my lack of whatever is the reason.

Yes, people always tell me it is because I am doing it wrong.

Yes, I have done exactly this, on more than one occasion. However nothing happened.

If God cares about my heart and spirit I'm sure He would find that I have a perfectly good heart and spirit.

I do not fear being struck dead. However, I am not hurting or angry either.

This I have done. Since I am trained in meditation, I am probably more adept at silencing the mind than most people are. However in silence I find only silence.

There is no need to be. Seeking is its own reward, regardless of the outcome.

I'm not. But, I appreciate your concern.

I have not made any decision one way or the other. I do not believe anything in particular about Jesus, either for or against. I am just telling you what I have experienced.

Wrong. I have not chosen either. I am willing to wait and see.

It is certainly not about what Jesus is or isn't. It is about how we have labeled our experience.

Or, there is some other situation which exists which we are not able to fully comprehend. I certainly don't claim to have the answer. I am more concerned when people claim they do have the answer. If they do, they should be able to share it with me in a manner which I can apprehend. I am not fundamentally different from anyone else.

But, not so far.

Perhaps there isn't ultimate redress.

Perhaps there isn't transcendent meaning. Or perhaps the transcendent meaning has nothing to do with God.

I don't have much trouble sorting good from not good. It's not that hard. But, perhaps there is no "ultimate" good.

I would certainly agree with that.

Perhaps this is how it is. Perhaps not. I can certainly see an unbroken chain of life that continues back into the misty reaches of time, and ahead for as long as we, and our circumstances, allow it. Where there is death, first there is life, and that's cool.

But, just because you do not like the implication of No God, that doesn't automatically mean God. Only actual God means God.

I don't like the idea of completely disappearing either, but there are many facts of life I don't like. My distaste for this idea does not translate into actually having belief that an afterlife actually happens. Beingness seems to arise from physicality. At best, what occurs is a total unknown. My like or dislike of this is not dispositive to it.

Which is not to say that I don't have any ideas about it. So far, the best solution I can come up with is to have my personality recreated as a hologram. I plan to leave enough of my personality behind in my art and writings and scrapbooks so that when technology reaches the level of true artificial intelligence they can make a replica of me. Maybe it wouldn't really be "me," but it would seem like me, and that seems better than nothing. Then, free of the limitations of the human body, "I" would go on to make incredible art throughout the ages.

The only trick would be getting the programmers of the future to pick me to recreate. But I have no doubt that, sooner or later, people will try to use computer intelligence to recreate Mozart, or Einstein. If I want to get on the short list I'd better step it up a bit. :-)

In the meantime, I live for now. As for later, who knows...I may be pleasantly surprised.