you follow basically the ideas of Feuerbach then maybe? — Beebert

I think it's inadvisable to fall into the 'theist vs atheist' dichotomy. Žižek and Feuerbach are both atheists. But the problem with atheism is that it is generally materialist; it leads to the view that you're simply a physical organism and that the Universe is governed by chance. It tends to suck the meaning out of everything.

I think the better approach is to suppose that 'religions', broadly speaking, represent archetypal realities. Such terms as Nirvāṇa or 'the Kingdom of Heaven' represent states of being which the Buddha and Jesus, respectively, wished to communicate to their audiences. One can accept that in quite a naturalistic way, as being a human potential (indeed, it is one of the convictions behind the 'human potential movement') without thereby 'signing the dotted line' to give away all powers of autonomous thought and freedom of will, that is customarily understood as one of the consequences of 'being religious'.

One of the seminal books I read in my study was 'The Heretical Imperative' by sociologist Peter Berger:

The main thrust of that argument is that “modernity has plunged religion into a very specific crisis” characterized above all by pluralism. It has done so primarily by forcing men to choose beliefs to which they had previously been consigned by fate. Less and less is dictated by necessity; more and more becomes a matter for questioning. In terms of belief, this means that the faith of one’s fathers must yield to one’s “religious preference.” At the same time, the traditional reasons for choosing one religion over another—or any religion at all—are gravely undermined. By “the heretical imperative” Berger means this radical necessity to choose. “A hareisis originally meant, quite simply, the taking of a choice.” He tries to transfigure the necessity of choice into the virtue of choice as well as to articulate the various possible ways of choosing. 1.

Another more recent meditation on a similar theme, which I would strongly recommend to someone like yourself, is A Religion of One's Own: A Guide to Creating a Personal Spirituality in a Secular World, Thomas Moore.

The questions you're asking, the very title of the thread, shows that this is indeed the kind question you're wrestling with. Keep wrestling, by all means, but I personally hope that the atheist 'solution' is not the one that wins out.

So, an unreasoned reason? — Heister Eggcart

No, an undisclosed reason and one that is undisclosable in the sense of not being easily communicable to other people, I would say.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found a shot in the dark to be unreasonable. — Heister Eggcart

I don't see this as a response what I said.

This life after which also is unreasonable and cannot be reasoned to be true or even potentially more true than any other future after death. — Heister Eggcart

This isn't true. In the history of philosophy, there have been many arguments given in favor of an afterlife, or put differently, the existence and immortality of the soul. You can disagree with them, but only after you've acknowledged and made a charitable attempt to understand them.

If God has the power to remedy, he must also have the power to prohibit, yes? — Heister Eggcart

No, I don't see that that follows. You'd have to be more specific. God cannot violate a being's will, for example.

Thank you wayfarer. Metaphysically, I am not an atheist. I find it impossible to believe that everything is just chemical processes. But I am angry at whatever is out there. I am angry at christianity, I right now don't like God as I understand him, and so on. Would I be an atheist, it would only be as an angry reaction towards evil things such as superstition, oppression, hellfire-preaching etc.
May I ask, if I haven't already, are you a believer in a certain kind of religion or so? Are you a christian for example? Or a buddhist? And what is your view on the atheism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche? I believe Nietzsche was profoundly religious behind all his attacks against christianity. I am not saying he believed in the christian God, but he certainly was no materialist or "new atheist".

But if I can not violate my own will, and God can not violate it either, then how am I saved according to christians? Because surely, the will can not just turn to God by itself.

Because surely, the will can not just turn to God by itself. — Beebert

Not by itself, no, for that would be Pelagianism. God wills that all men are saved, which initiates our salvation. But we are then free to accept or reject this grace. God cannot force us to do one or the other. Moreover, such "acceptance" is not solely intellectual assent to a series of propositions (dogmas) but also a mode of living grounded in the sacraments.

Okay, so let us assume that this grace is once offered. Man realizes it, but for some reason rejects it. What happens to him? Say that he is young, 20 years old. And a decade later at 30 he realizes his mistake, and wants salvation and God. He begs for mercy. Will God grant it to him or ignore him? Is he damned or not?

I am angry at whatever is out there — Beebert

A tip: you need to get over that.

Are you a christian for example? Or a buddhist? And what is your view on the atheism of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche? — Beebert

Grew up in a very secular environment, Australia in the 60's, non-religious parents, but went to a Church school. I always felt a basic affinity with the Jesus of the Gospels, but was never particularly drawn to church as such. Because of the times - me being a 'boomer', probably a couple of generations older than yourself - I discovered Eastern thought, which was in the air in those times. I bought many popular Eastern books - Krishnamurti, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda - all of whom were Eastern spiritual teachers who lived and taught in America. In the end, I decided the Buddhist attitude was the most useful, because of its pragmatism, and because of it's emphasis on meditation practice. (Here's my brief guide to sitting meditation.) But my attitude is syncretist, it draws on various sources, and I still have a strong affinity with Christian Platonism.

Nietszche I think is a vastly over-rated sacred cow. Schopenhauer - I greatly admire his idealism but not his misanthropy. I think he had a kind of partial realisation - in Buddhist terms, he understood the 'first truth', that life is dukkha, but didn't have a real grasp of the 'cessation of suffering and the way to the cessation of suffering'. But you can't blame him considering the times he lived in, and I do regard him as a great philosopher. I frequently cite some of his central arguments.

In terms of the cultural mainstream, I don't think much of modern academic philosophy, or mainstream religion for that matter. My attitude remains counter-cultural i.e. mainstream culture doesn't get it. You have to get off the beaten track to find what I'm interested in.

Interesting, thanks. If you want to tell me more, I am open ears! Interesting that you find Nietzsche overrated. I agree that many of his conclusions and ideas were wrong, but I think even there that one must consider the context in which he was writing. And I also believe that he might be the most misunderstood philosopher in history. I like him because his prose was superior to all other philosophers except perhaps Plato. And also because he was funny.

What do you think of christian dogmas such as original sin, salvation by grace through faith, Christ dying for the sins of the world and the last judgement etc?

No, an undisclosed reason and one that is undisclosable in the sense of not being easily communicable to other people, I would say. — Thorongil

Not easily communicable? Who here is failing to make this communication of the truth, God? If communicating the truth is merely hard and not impossible, then that's some piss poor justification for saying nothing.

This isn't true. In the history of philosophy, there have been many arguments given in favor of an afterlife, or put differently, the existence and immortality of the soul. You can disagree with them, but only after you've acknowledged and made a charitable attempt to understand them. — Thorongil

Aye, arguments that are put forward in words that are in favor of something which words can't make intelligible. And whether or not one seeks to acknowledge and understand these arguments does not, therefore, ensure the truth of their claims. The best one will get is a faith in a hopefully well reasoned argument that supposes the validity of itself with conviction.

No, I don't see that that follows. You'd have to be more specific. God cannot violate a being's will, for example. — Thorongil

If I understand how you're using "violate", then I'd say that God does indeed violate a being's will, in that he denies one's will to ever be and never to not be. In a way if God is Being then he cannot fully remove the essence of that which he has willed to be, which really is a violation as I understand the word, as the created is thereby shackled to a will and a being that he, obviously, was not privy to when "he" didn't exist.

~

I might add that it's rather funny how a notion of existence before life is categorically rejected as being logically incoherent by you, but it would seem that a system that suggests the truth about some sort of existence/life/presence/soulparty after life is somehow different. If I'm wrong in this characterization, I'm wrong, but I do think that if you rule out talking about unborn children, you ought to rule out the strangeness of talking about "yourself" after you'd already be dead. But perhaps you actually will after acknowledging and understanding those positions that posit such things..? :P

Interesting, thanks. If you want to tell me more, I am open ears! Interesting that you find Nietzsche overrated. I agree that many of his conclusions and ideas were wrong, but I think even there that one must consider the context in which he was writing. And I also believe that he might be the most misunderstood philosopher in history. I like him because his prose was superior to all other philosophers except perhaps Plato. And also because he was funny. — Beebert

I think Nietzsche is overrated as a philosopher, but not as a social critic. His immense impact on the thinking man and woman in recent history should never be diminished as being unimportant merely because he wasn't much of a philosopher.

What do you think of christian dogmas such as original sin, salvation by grace through faith, Christ dying for the sins of the world and the last judgement etc? — Beebert

Dude, read this again and please tell me you're not asking a little bit too much from those questions, >:O

Nietzsche was undoubtedly brilliant and prodigiously talented, but I wouldn't call him wise. Also I really don't think he had any grasp of the spiritual.

The problem with a lot of modern American religiosity is that it is overly literalistic - as I said before, it has no sense of what is metaphorical and what is literal. There is this deep sense of clinging to biblical truth, as if to doubt it is to fall into the clutches of Satan. So I think for that kind of mentality, you have to be able to let it all go, to even become totally agnostic or atheistic about it. Because it's based on a kind of fear and a kind of clinging, the intense desire for certainty, not to be wrong, to be Saved.

A lot of that does come out of Calvinism, in my view. I am deeply distrustful of Calvinism, generally. (Calvin has been called 'The Ayatollah of Geneva'.) It gives rise to this profound anxiety as to whether I'm one of the chosen or the damned. I can perfectly understand, if you grew up surrounded by that kind of attitude, why you're angry with it.

Alan Watts, one of the counter-cultural sources I mentioned, would say that clinging is the opposite of faith; faith is learning to let go, learning to be OK with not knowing. 'If you try and cling to the water', he would say, 'you drown. You have to learn to float'. That is something you find a lot of in Taoist texts, but you also find it in some ancient Christian sources - well before Calvin, mind you.

I think for you to be liberated from that Calvinist mentality, you have to first of all forgive it. If you want to fight it, or prove that those who hold it are wrong, then it still has a hold. My sense is, that is the kind of catharsis you need - to be able to walk away from it. It's not necessarily an easy road to take, but I think by coming here and asking these questions, that's what you're doing.

In some ways yes, but I haven't read any of Feuerbach. "Maybe" the devil on his left shoulder said, "you should." I have read some of Marx ("Not nearly enough" the devil said.) and liked what I read.

I came across, stole, or developed some of the ideas I have about religion back in the late 1970s, early 1980s. I can't recover sources, specific influences, yada yada yada at this point. Too late.

You seem very well read, a deep thinker. What's your intellectual background?

Fascinating Factoid: Job is commemorated by the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod in their Calendar of Saints on May 9, by the Roman Catholic Church on May 10 (pre-1969 calendar), and by the Eastern Orthodox Church on May 6.

[
Nietzsche was indeed gifted. No perhaps he didn't understand the spiritual, since he didn't believe in it. He did however understood the psychology behind human actions etc. quite well. He had deep psychological insights. Only Dostoevsky and perhaps Kierkegaard has impressed me as much on that area as Nietzsche.

Anyway, you are ABOSLUTELY correct about Calvinism. It is calvinism that has completely destroyed my faith in the goodness of the God of christianity. It is almost, it seems, impossible to not think that IF christianity is true, then the God of christianity is a calvinist. Though I have no respect for any calvinist preacher I have read or heard in terms of spiritual insight. They just repeat the letters of a text. So that should give me a clue. And they all say "Truth is external to you. Not internal. It is in a book, not in your heart", basically. Calvinism is a poison. One of the worst ideas ever invented. Yet, It is hard to not believe it if you take christian doctrines such as election and predestination in combination with the idea that God is all-powerful and all-knowing seriously. And many passages in the bible seem to be in favour for calvinism. But yes. I know that in relation to calvinism AND fundamentalism, I must be an agnostic/atheist. Actually, if calvinism is true, then I would prefer to go to hell than heaven. Calvinism is for heavenly utilitarians. Thank you for your tips on how I should move on. I hope I will get there eventually, to the place where I can forgive and forget.

Okay, so let us assume that this grace is once offered. Man realizes it, but for some reason rejects it. What happens to him? Say that he is young, 20 years old. And a decade later at 30 he realizes his mistake, and wants salvation and God. He begs for mercy. Will God grant it to him or ignore him? Is he damned or not? — Beebert

Grace and mercy are not offered once. They are continually offered, since God's nature doesn't change. God's nature is goodness itself, so God can only will the good, which is to say, he can only love. Salvation then consists of accepting his love. All of this is to say that, no, the person in your example is not damned. But there are two points I think need making in relation to this answer. First, we don't ultimately know who or whether anyone will be damned. That's up to God. Second, one isn't damned by rejecting God's grace after realizing it. Indeed, that is self-contradictory, for if you've realized God's grace, then you haven't rejected it. Rather, the only way to reject God is to commit mortal sin. The three criteria for what constitute a mortal sin are that the act is intrinsically evil, that it was done with full knowledge, and that it was done with deliberate consent. So it's actually rather difficult to be damned.

Interesting. I haven't read any Karl Marx yet, though I know about his basic ideas of course. Regarding my intellectual background: I don't know what to answer there really. I have a father who is very interested in all things cultural; music, literature, art etc. So at home, we always had all these great works of great philosophers and writers. So I have just read some of them. But honestly, most of my "knowledge" has just come from me thinking a lot. I believe I have a tendency to understand the inner meaning of some of the philosophers I mention and I have a tendency to be very easily affected by the ideas and the things I read... So, my brain starts to burn sort of.

I might also mention that I'm not a Christian. I'm just taking such a position for the sake of argument.

Yes, but once you have committed a mortal sin then? Say that this 20-year old came to knowledge about the truth of the gospel, feels God's grace being offered for the forgiveness of sins but sort of went astray instead willingly and said to himself "Nah, it is probably all untrue. And if not I can be forgiven later if I want" and then goes away and commits a lot of sins like before; drinking, gambling, having sex outside of marriage, etc. And then, he lives like this for ten years, and one day at the age of 30 remembers that moment 10 years ago when he rejected the offer of forgiveness. Now he despairs, because he believes he has done something that he can never be forgiven for. He has "trampled on the cross of Christ" and "crucified Christ a second time" he thinks, now he wants forgiveness. He begs to God for mercy, but nothing gives him any relief. The wind is quiet. The clouds are quiet. God doesn't answer, it seems. Nothing gives him relief. He wants forgiveness, but his past mistakes makes him believe that it is not granted to him anymore. Now; is he damned? He has surely committed many mortal sins during a period of 10 years after he first realized the gospel was true. Is he damned?

Not easily communicable? — Heister Eggcart

And perhaps not at all.

Who here is failing to make this communication of the truth, God? — Heister Eggcart

Let me ask you a question: do you think the truth is capable of being exhaustively expressed in language? If you answer in the affirmative, then, if I asked you to express it and you declined, you would either know the truth and are merely withholding it from us for some reason or you would be obliged to say that we haven't yet discovered it all. But then notice in the case of the latter that it takes a leap of faith to believe that the truth can be exhaustively communicated through language in the future, since it hasn't happened yet. If you answer in the negative, then you already admit the existence of mystery and of the possibility of God, if he exists, to disclose certain truths, such as those about suffering, by means that are not easily or not at all capable of being communicated.

Aye, arguments that are put forward in words that are in favor of something which words can't make intelligible. — Heister Eggcart

An odd complaint. Can words ever make anything fully intelligible? All words are generalized, mediated abstractions from perception, not to mention wherever else they may derive.

God does indeed violate a being's will, in that he denies one's will to ever be and never to not be — Heister Eggcart

But this is incoherent. There couldn't be a will to be or not to be, for that entails that an agent exist before he can decide to exist, which is impossible.

I do think that if you rule out talking about unborn children, you ought to rule out the strangeness of talking about "yourself" after you'd already be dead. — Heister Eggcart

"Unborn child" is a category that exists, provided we're talking about fetuses and embryos. But yes, I do deny that there exists anyone to consent or not consent to being born, for the same reason given above. That being said, I don't why you think this then entails my ruling out one's existence after death, unless you assume that death results in non-existence. In other words, if death results in non-existence, then positing an afterlife would amount to saying that it is possible to exist after you exist, which is just as impossible as existing before you exist. But I don't say that death necessarily results in non-existence. I haven't made up my mind, and whatever conclusion I reach, I couldn't ever know for sure until I died.

Yes, but once you have committed a mortal sin then? — Beebert

Then you should repent, otherwise you're damned. Or at least, for all we know you will be. It's still ultimately up to God.

He has surely committed many mortal sins during a period of 10 years after he first realized the gospel was true. Is he damned? — Beebert

Dubitable. He would have to meet all three criteria, remember, which is rather difficult to do. You mentioned things like fornication and gambling. These types of sins are nigh impossible to commit with deliberate consent, given the reasons and circumstances usually involved in committing them.

Is he damned? — Beebert

If he repents, no. But he may need to spend a long time in purgatory to amend his life of debauchery. Thus, he can't escape being judged for his actions.

So it's actually rather difficult to be damned. — Thorongil

What Beebert is referring to is the Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination: that, aside from the Elect, the vast majority of mankind is destined for hell. Wikipedia article here.

The point Thorongil was making, and I'll make the same point is that God's mercy is great. Look, in the system of belief we are talking about, God knows us. He, after all, made us. He knows we are certain to fail at perfection, and are likely to fail even when the bar is set so low that we trip on it. God loves us, maybe even LIKES us. If he didn't, he would not put up with us. Not only does he love us, he loves us so much he was willing to humble himself to the extent of becoming one of those smart apes.

You can not tempt God into punishing you. You (we) are way too little, God is way too much.

I see. Well, Calvinism is a rather nasty form of Christianity, in my estimation, and certainly not normative.

it's pretty normative where Beebert comes from, which is the problem that he's wrestling with. And it's had an enormous impact on conservative Christianity, particularly in America.

....

There's a deep historical back-story to how it got this way. That is explained in Michael Allen Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity:

Brief summary: Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment (as reason overcoming religion) on its head by explaining how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the epistemological debate between Descartes and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions posed by nominalism, which dismantled the rational God ~ Universe of medieval (and Platonist) scholasticism and introduced (by way of the Franciscans) a fideistic God-of-pure-will, born of a concern that anything less than such would jeopardize the divine omnipotence.

Another important text in this story is Max Weber's The Protestant Work Ethic, to which Calvinism is central. That too is writ large in conservative American politics and religion.

Tiptoe Through the acronym TULIP...

This is what Calvinism stands for in 5 nutshells

Total depravity: We cannot respond to God's offer of salvation, since our will—indeed, our whole being—has been rendered incapable by sin. This contrasts with Christian traditions that say we have sufficient free will to respond to God's offer of salvation or that we can "cooperate" with grace.

Unconditional election: God chooses to save some people, not because of anything they have done, but according to his sovereign will. This contrasts with other Christian traditions that teach that God desires to save everyone, but only elects those whom he foreknows will respond to his grace.

Limited atonement: Christ died for the sins of the church, not for the whole world. This contrasts with traditions that teach that Christ died for all, even though all may not appropriate the benefits of his sacrifice.

Irresistible grace: Those God elects cannot resist the Holy Spirit's draw to salvation. This contrasts with Christian traditions that teach that we are able to reject God's forgiveness—thus, while God may choose to save everyone, not everyone chooses to believe.

Perseverance of the saints: By God's power, believers will endure in faith to the end. Other Christian traditions teach that people can forsake faith and lose salvation.

Choice!?

Christianity: Believe in the God of Christianity and that Jesus is the savior OR be damned for eternity

Buddhism: The four noble truths OR suffer endlessly in Samsara

Notice the commonality, which can be loosely translated as eternal suffering if you fail to believe in either of them.

So, if you believe in Jesus, you go to Buddhist hell and if you believe in Buddha you go to Christian hell.

On the other hand, if you believe in Jesus, you go to Christian heaven and if you believe in Buddha, you gain enlightenment.

Hebrews 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. — Beebert

Sure, I perfectly agree with this. This is referencing people who are fully aware of God's Love, but who nevertheless reject it and turn away from it. How would it be possible for them to turn back (repent) when their own wills refuse to do it?

Hebrews 10:26-29:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? — Beebert

This means there is no salvation for those who - not only with their minds - but with their hearts deny God - for sin always is a matter of the heart and not of the intellect. All this is saying is that even the death and Resurrection of Jesus cannot help such people, for it is their own will which stops them from accepting the free gift of salvation. They know the truth - so they fully know about the gift of salvation - and yet they refuse it. What can be done? Nothing.

Romans 8

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Whom he did foreknow - God foreknew everyone.

Matthew 13:42

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. — Beebert

This refers metaphorically to the kingdom of heaven. Yes, those who hate God will find God's love as a furnace of fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth - it is a metaphorical description for the afterlife - a parable.

John 6

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

This is true. It means that without God's revelation, one could not come to God. This is absolutely true. However, note that it also says that ALL shall be taught of God - so all are drawn to the Father. God pursues all men.

Romans 9
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

What St. Paul is talking about here is the reason why the Jewish people rejected Christ. He was providing an explanation of it, that despite them being Elect - because Israel are the Chosen People - that doesn't mean they will be saved if they refuse the Messiah. The reason for their refusal is their lack of faith, it's not their lack of knowledge of God's Word, as clarified at the end.

And honestly, I believe the ideas of Calvin are perhaps the worst ideas ever invented by a man. I can barely come up with anything worse than the idea of a cosmic torturer who decides before the foundation of the world to create human beings only to satisfy his own "glory"(vainglory I would rather say) in terms of displaying his different "attributes" like wrath, justice, "love" etc. Love for the "elect", they say, and that is perhaps 5 percent of the population. — Beebert

Calvin was most likely a heretic with a profound misunderstanding of the Bible, who rejected the authority of the Apostolic tradition.

The God of Job has the sort of personality and communication with its creations that isn't comparable to Jobs like you and me. Again, the circular "logic" here is that one must first have faith in God's existence in order then to have faith in God's will, which really makes no sense at all. — Heister Eggcart

:s you asked about the meaning of the story, and I told you the meaning. This isn't a rebuttal of that meaning. How do you know God doesn't have a personal communication to you? Maybe He does.

So, an unreasoned reason? Surely there's something rather wrong with that. — Heister Eggcart

How do you know there isn't a reason? Just because God hasn't told it to you doesn't mean you can just infer its absence :s

If God has the power to remedy, he must also have the power to prohibit, yes? — Heister Eggcart

Theoretically, but practically God will not infringe the free will of His creatures.

Another more recent meditation on a similar theme, which I would strongly recommend to someone like yourself, is A Religion of One's Own: A Guide to Creating a Personal Spirituality in a Secular World, Thomas Moore. — Wayfarer

I think the better approach is to suppose that 'religions', broadly speaking, represent archetypal realities. Such terms as Nirvāṇa or 'the Kingdom of Heaven' represent states of being which the Buddha and Jesus, respectively, wished to communicate to their audiences. One can accept that in quite a naturalistic way, as being a human potential (indeed, it is one of the convictions behind the 'human potential movement') without thereby 'signing the dotted line' to give away all powers of autonomous thought and freedom of will, that is customarily understood as one of the consequences of 'being religious'. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O >:O Do you have your pink flying pony with you Wayfarer? :D A religion of one's own is precisely what a religion is not - a religion involves a community not a random fella who thinks he's spiritual, holds to liberal and progressive politics, reads Eastern books, does drugs, stares at a wall and then goes back to his day to day work :s

Edit: Wow how unexpected, I wrote the above before reading this:

Grew up in a very secular environment, Australia in the 60's, non-religious parents, but went to a Church school. I always felt a basic affinity with the Jesus of the Gospels, but was never particularly drawn to church as such. Because of the times - me being a 'boomer', probably a couple of generations older than yourself - I discovered Eastern thought, which was in the air in those times. I bought many popular Eastern books - Krishnamurti, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda - all of whom were Eastern spiritual teachers who lived and taught in America. In the end, I decided the Buddhist attitude was the most useful, because of its pragmatism, and because of it's emphasis on meditation practice. (Here's my brief guide to sitting meditation.) But my attitude is syncretist, it draws on various sources, and I still have a strong affinity with Christian Platonism. — Wayfarer