Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Fist and Faith]

B)He walked the earth AS A MAN and claimed the ability to forgive sins - against other people - which in itself is awfully damaging to the idea that He was merely a "wise teacher". Such a person is either a fraud or koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs - unless He is who He said He is.

Unless he never said he was who you think he said he was. Perhaps a gloriously wise, loving man said he understood the difficulties that came simply from being alive, and the pressures life puts on people. And that people make mistakes so very often because of these things, mistakes that harm others, and some are even raised by parents who teach that those ways that harm others are acceptable behavior. And maybe he understood that we can either condemn people for those mistakes, and continue the anger, finger-pointing, and cycles of harm; or we can forgive everybody, and try to teach them a better way.

That's not a fraud, a nut case, or a divine being.

And, of course, in the absence of any evidence or personal experience indicating anything else happened, it's what I think happened 2,000 years ago.

[Furls Fire]

B)He walked the earth AS A MAN and claimed the ability to forgive sins - against other people - which in itself is awfully damaging to the idea that He was merely a "wise teacher". Such a person is either a fraud or koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs - unless He is who He said He is.

Unless he never said he was who you think he said he was. Perhaps a gloriously wise, loving man said he understood the difficulties that came simply from being alive, and the pressures life puts on people. And that people make mistakes so very often because of these things, mistakes that harm others, and some are even raised by parents who teach that those ways that harm others are acceptable behavior. And maybe he understood that we can either condemn people for those mistakes, and continue the anger, finger-pointing, and cycles of harm; or we can forgive everybody, and try to teach them a better way.

That's not a fraud, a nut case, or a divine being.

And, of course, in the absence of any evidence or personal experience indicating anything else happened, it's what I think happened 2,000 years ago.

*smiles at Fist*

Gloriously wise, indeed. He was/is.

[rusmeister]

B)He walked the earth AS A MAN and claimed the ability to forgive sins - against other people - which in itself is awfully damaging to the idea that He was merely a "wise teacher". Such a person is either a fraud or koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs - unless He is who He said He is.

Unless he never said he was who you think he said he was. Perhaps a gloriously wise, loving man said he understood the difficulties that came simply from being alive, and the pressures life puts on people. And that people make mistakes so very often because of these things, mistakes that harm others, and some are even raised by parents who teach that those ways that harm others are acceptable behavior. And maybe he understood that we can either condemn people for those mistakes, and continue the anger, finger-pointing, and cycles of harm; or we can forgive everybody, and try to teach them a better way.

That's not a fraud, a nut case, or a divine being.

And, of course, in the absence of any evidence or personal experience indicating anything else happened, it's what I think happened 2,000 years ago.

Fist, if we accept the Gospels AT ALL, which are the only basis for having anything to talk about what Christ said, then there can be no serious opposition to the idea that he said He IS God. If you try to deny that, you'll be fried - the evidence is overwhelming. There is no doubt for anyone who accepts the Gospels that Christ said that He IS the creator. Do I need to quote all or just some of the many references?

Your post sounds like a modernist point of view that is unfamiliar with the actual content of the Gospels (something that I would not even have suggested until that last post). I'm not at all sure on what you base what you think Christ said 2,000 years ago, if not on the Gospels.

Not sure what Furl's is saying - I guess I'd ask you, Furls, if you could clarify your comment. As you see it, was and is Jesus Christ the Son of God, part of the triune Godhead or not? (yes or no being the only understood answers there)

[Fist and Faith]

There are people who accept the Gospels, but, because you and they go by different interpretations and/or translations, they do not believe Jesus said that he IS the creator.

I would, however, appreciate some references, just for my information. I've heard that John 1:1 is the basis for the belief that Jesus is God. I had not heard that Jesus actually said he was in the Bible. I know he says he's the Son of Man. And I've heard him mention "my father" at least a few times. Including saying something along the lines of "Don't worship me. Worship my father." Maybe?

I also always thought it was a bit crazy for Satan to try to tempt Jesus into turning away from God, and worshiping him (Satan). If Jesus is God, it seems extremely unlikely that he would turn away from himself to worship Satan.

But none of this is really important. To me, I mean. Heh. Trying to convince me that Jesus was actually God, as opposed to being "only" God's son, will have to wait until I'm convinced there's any creator at all. I honestly would like at least some of the references, if you could, just so I know what they are.


As for what I base what I think Jesus said on...

1) I do not believe the most influential figure in human history is fictitious. I think there must be somebody responsible for such a huge part of the world's history, society, art/music/literature, etc etc etc.

2) I have no reason to believe in anything supernatural.

3) Those two combined mean that anything supernatural about the most influential figure in human history is false. Stories grow with each telling. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. This is easily demonstrated. We've all likely seen it happen, and we can surely see it in the news. It would not be remotely difficult for the stories about the Jesus I described in my previous post to become what they are now.

[rusmeister]

There are people who accept the Gospels, but, because you and they go by different interpretations and/or translations, they do not believe Jesus said that he IS the creator.

I would, however, appreciate some references, just for my information. I've heard that John 1:1 is the basis for the belief that Jesus is God. I had not heard that Jesus actually said he was in the Bible. I know he says he's the Son of Man. And I've heard him mention "my father" at least a few times. Including saying something along the lines of "Don't worship me. Worship my father." Maybe?

I also always thought it was a bit crazy for Satan to try to tempt Jesus into turning away from God, and worshiping him (Satan). If Jesus is God, it seems extremely unlikely that he would turn away from himself to worship Satan.

But none of this is really important. To me, I mean. Heh. Trying to convince me that Jesus was actually God, as opposed to being "only" God's son, will have to wait until I'm convinced there's any creator at all. I honestly would like at least some of the references, if you could, just so I know what they are.


As for what I base what I think Jesus said on...

1) I do not believe the most influential figure in human history is fictitious. I think there must be somebody responsible for such a huge part of the world's history, society, art/music/literature, etc etc etc.

2) I have no reason to believe in anything supernatural.

3) Those two combined mean that anything supernatural about the most influential figure in human history is false. Stories grow with each telling. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. This is easily demonstrated. We've all likely seen it happen, and we can surely see it in the news. It would not be remotely difficult for the stories about the Jesus I described in my previous post to become what they are now.

I'm a little confused. I'm not even trying to convince you that Jesus is God - only that He said He is.
"Before Abraham was, I AM" - the sacred name of God. (John 8:51-59) "Are you, then, the Son of God? So he said to them, "You rightly say that I am."(Luke 22:67-71) Also Mark 154:61-64, Matthew 26:63-65

That ought to be enough, leaving out the many other references to being both the Son of God and the Son of man - iow, that's just off the top of my head.

As to the thing about Satan tempting Jesus, it helps to understand what it would mean for a being to have both a human and a divine nature. To be not "simply God" or "simply man". That makes the human side of Jesus comprehensible - and is the essence of the Incarnation - that God really did become Man - not just 'a God in man's clothing'.

Your third point has a hole in it (as expressed) - rather the logical leap from "I have no reason to believe in anything supernatural" to the conclusion that anything supernatural about Christ is false. The most that you can say is "could be false", but unless you start from a premise that there is no (can be no) such thing as "supernatural - a statement that itself I find to be unsupportable, you cannot conclude that supernatural is false. Is it not curious that regarding the most influential figure in human history, you are ready to accept that He said the things attributed to Him, but not the deeds attributed to Him - a rather selective choice of what you will accept? For He was so influential for a reason, and it seems improbable that a mere collection of wise sayings - of which I can point to a number of such wise men and their sayings - really explains the extent of Christ's influence.

For me, it seems obvious that the universe is finite, and therefore limited, and that anything beyond those limits (outside of the closed system) would be literally super (or extra- if you like) natural. The existence of the supernatural is entirely reasonable - granted that it is not subject to empirical testing and you could argue that we do not or cannot know anything about it. But if you accept that you cannot exclude the possibility (I say probability) of the supernatural, I'll be happy enough.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm a little confused. I'm not even trying to convince you that Jesus is God - only that He said He is.

Yes. I just wanted try to keep the conversation along those lines. Other readers might have tried to jump in, and jump ahead.

"Before Abraham was, I AM" - the sacred name of God. (John 8:51-59)

OK, that's pretty good. That's quite a claim. Heh.

"Are you, then, the Son of God? So he said to them, "You rightly say that I am."(Luke 22:67-71) Also Mark 154:61-64, Matthew 26:63-65

Well, who isn't the son (or daughter) or God? And even if Jesus was saying something more - that he's literally God's son, the way Danny is my son - that's not saying he is God. Still, the first quote is good.

As to the thing about Satan tempting Jesus, it helps to understand what it would mean for a being to have both a human and a divine nature. To be not "simply God" or "simply man". That makes the human side of Jesus comprehensible - and is the essence of the Incarnation - that God really did become Man - not just 'a God in man's clothing'.

That's certainly a good distinction. (Still, how successful could Satan have expected to be? Is he an idiot?)

Your third point has a hole in it (as expressed) - rather the logical leap from "I have no reason to believe in anything supernatural" to the conclusion that anything supernatural about Christ is false. The most that you can say is "could be false", but unless you start from a premise that there is no (can be no) such thing as "supernatural - a statement that itself I find to be unsupportable, you cannot conclude that supernatural is false. Is it not curious that regarding the most influential figure in human history, you are ready to accept that He said the things attributed to Him, but not the deeds attributed to Him - a rather selective choice of what you will accept? For He was so influential for a reason, and it seems improbable that a mere collection of wise sayings - of which I can point to a number of such wise men and their sayings - really explains the extent of Christ's influence.

For me, it seems obvious that the universe is finite, and therefore limited, and that anything beyond those limits (outside of the closed system) would be literally super (or extra- if you like) natural. The existence of the supernatural is entirely reasonable - granted that it is not subject to empirical testing and you could argue that we do not or cannot know anything about it. But if you accept that you cannot exclude the possibility (I say probability) of the supernatural, I'll be happy enough.

Yes, of course. All you say is true. I do not say "There is no God." I do not say "There is nothing beyond the limits of our finite universe." I do not say "Humans are the highest/most advanced form of live in existence." I do not rule out the possibility of things without reason. But, neither do I believe in them without reason. With no reason to believe the things you believe, I'm hardly likely to base my world-view on them.

...you are ready to accept that He said the things attributed to Him, but not the deeds attributed to Him...

No, I'm not ready to accept that He said the things attributed to Him. I'm just trying to find out what actually is attributed to Him. As opposed to what I sort of think I heard once, but don't know if I'm remembering it correctly.

[Seven Words]

B)He walked the earth AS A MAN and claimed the ability to forgive sins - against other people - which in itself is awfully damaging to the idea that He was merely a "wise teacher". Such a person is either a fraud or koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs - unless He is who He said He is.

Unless he never said he was who you think he said he was. Perhaps a gloriously wise, loving man said he understood the difficulties that came simply from being alive, and the pressures life puts on people. And that people make mistakes so very often because of these things, mistakes that harm others, and some are even raised by parents who teach that those ways that harm others are acceptable behavior. And maybe he understood that we can either condemn people for those mistakes, and continue the anger, finger-pointing, and cycles of harm; or we can forgive everybody, and try to teach them a better way.

That's not a fraud, a nut case, or a divine being.

And, of course, in the absence of any evidence or personal experience indicating anything else happened, it's what I think happened 2,000 years ago.

Fist, if we accept the Gospels AT ALL, which are the only basis for having anything to talk about what Christ said, then there can be no serious opposition to the idea that he said He IS God. If you try to deny that, you'll be fried - the evidence is overwhelming. There is no doubt for anyone who accepts the Gospels that Christ said that He IS the creator. Do I need to quote all or just some of the many references?

Your post sounds like a modernist point of view that is unfamiliar with the actual content of the Gospels (something that I would not even have suggested until that last post). I'm not at all sure on what you base what you think Christ said 2,000 years ago, if not on the Gospels.

Not sure what Furl's is saying - I guess I'd ask you, Furls, if you could clarify your comment. As you see it, was and is Jesus Christ the Son of God, part of the triune Godhead or not? (yes or no being the only understood answers there)

But there's the problem, Rus. "Anyone who accepts the Gospels". Where is there an OBJECTIVE , LOGICAL reason for anyone to do so? There is NO objective, irrefutable evidence validating them as divinely inspired. Doesn't make them wrong.....just unsupported. There is also no such evidence proving them wrong. Given the scope and nature of the claims in the Gospels, it is odd that there is no confirmation to be found in "contemporary" cultures. The list goes on and on. again, NOTHING that refutes Christianity. But a lot of weaknesses.

Personally....I think there was a Jesus. He may or may not have actually been more than just a man, although I doubt it. I believe he said a lot of what is alleged he said in the Gospels. Crucifixion? Quite possibly. Resurrection? I need some proof to believe that....either objective validation, or a direct personal experience.I think of Jesus as actually having been more like Gandhi, or Dr. King...a social "revolutionary".

There's no proof of anything, and therefore I freely admit I could be wrong. Rus, can you be intellectually honest enough to admit that based solely on the OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE evidence (and lack thereof) that you could be wrong also? not ARE, but could be.

[rusmeister]

"Are you, then, the Son of God? So he said to them, "You rightly say that I am."(Luke 22:67-71) Also Mark 154:61-64, Matthew 26:63-65

Well, who isn't the son (or daughter) or God? And even if Jesus was saying something more - that he's literally God's son, the way Danny is my son - that's not saying he is God. Still, the first quote is good.

That one is very easy. Just look at the reaction of the Jewish leaders. THEY had no trouble understanding exactly what He meant. They weren't removed from the comment by 2,000 years and didn't have a bunch of modern scholars with modernist education to throw in all kinds of sophistry to confuse things (I'm not saying you do - only that that is the kind of nonsense you get today from said education) as if they were lawyers trying to find any loophole to "get Him off the hook".

As to the thing about Satan tempting Jesus, it helps to understand what it would mean for a being to have both a human and a divine nature. To be not "simply God" or "simply man". That makes the human side of Jesus comprehensible - and is the essence of the Incarnation - that God really did become Man - not just 'a God in man's clothing'.

That's certainly a good distinction. (Still, how successful could Satan have expected to be? Is he an idiot?)

Good question. I suppose in a certain sense he is - but it would be in the same sense that impelled him to place his ego above universal paradise. But the internal logic would have been on the fact that, with a genuinely human as well as divine nature, it was possible for Christ to go off the rails of His mission. If He had been purely divine without that human nature it would not have been possible, there would have been no meaningful temptation or sacrifice, and He would not be able to relate to us (Hebrews 4:15) Thus Satan was obviously betting on that, or at least, taking a shot at it.
One understanding of Christ is as a "second Adam" - who submitted His will to the Father's where the first Adam placed his own will first. But He had to be human to do so and make it meaningful. The early Christological heresies tended to ruin the hypostatic union in one way or another (deny that He was fully Man and fully God - the essence of Orthodoxy.)
Hope that much (as a layman's explanation) is clear.

[Cybrweez]

I was going to add the response of the Jews when Jesus said I AM, they picked up stones to stone Him, b/c He blasphemed. As rus said, they knew what He meant by the statement. Yea, you'd have to change or ignore gospels to claim that Jesus didn't think He was God.

[Furls Fire]

Not sure what Furl's is saying - I guess I'd ask you, Furls, if you could clarify your comment. As you see it, was and is Jesus Christ the Son of God, part of the triune Godhead or not? (yes or no being the only understood answers there)

In a word...Yes.

And as far as my comment to Fist goes...I think he knew what I meant. He has said that same thing to me many times before. And I always agree with him. Jesus was/is gloriously wise, Jesus was/is a great Man, I just believe He was/is more. Jesus Christ is the Lord Saviour, the Blessed Redeemer, and yes, above all else...The Son of God.

Rus, if you are really interested in how I believe and how I live my faith, I invite you to go to these two threads.

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1727

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743

The first one is sort of an introduction of sorts, so read that one first. It's only 3 pages long. The second...well that one is self-explanatory. In them, you will see what my faith truly is and you will see exactly what Jesus Christ means to me.

And Fist, yes Satan is an idiot. His goal is always to destroy God. What better way to do that then to temp His Son while He was a man? And because Jesus is God, the destruction would have been completely devastating. But, that wasn't going to happen, because Satan is also a coward, and he will never conquer that which is stronger than he is, the Divine Grace. That's why when I feel him lurking in the shadows I just utter the phrase..."God bless you." And he goes away. He can't stand it. Heh...

[Fist and Faith]

That one is very easy. Just look at the reaction of the Jewish leaders. THEY had no trouble understanding exactly what He meant. They weren't removed from the comment by 2,000 years and didn't have a bunch of modern scholars with modernist education to throw in all kinds of sophistry to confuse things (I'm not saying you do - only that that is the kind of nonsense you get today from said education) as if they were lawyers trying to find any loophole to "get Him off the hook".

I was going to add the response of the Jews when Jesus said I AM, they picked up stones to stone Him, b/c He blasphemed. As rus said, they knew what He meant by the statement. Yea, you'd have to change or ignore gospels to claim that Jesus didn't think He was God.

OK, I understand. But do we know that they would not have stoned anyone claiming to be the biological son of God? That might be considered a huge blasphemy, too.

One understanding of Christ is as a "second Adam" - who submitted His will to the Father's where the first Adam placed his own will first. But He had to be human to do so and make it meaningful. The early Christological heresies tended to ruin the hypostatic union in one way or another (deny that He was fully Man and fully God - the essence of Orthodoxy.)
Hope that much (as a layman's explanation) is clear.

Yup. Thanks. I understand the concept. And an extraordinary concept it is, too!

Rus, if you are really interested in how I believe and how I live my faith, I invite you to go to these two threads.

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1727

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743

IIRC, rus has already been pointed there.

And Fist, yes Satan is an idiot. His goal is always to destroy God. What better way to do that then to temp His Son while He was a man? And because Jesus is God, the destruction would have been completely devastating. But, that wasn't going to happen, because Satan is also a coward, and he will never conquer that which is stronger than he is, the Divine Grace. That's why when I feel him lurking in the shadows I just utter the phrase..."God bless you." And he goes away. He can't stand it. Heh...

Heh. Sounds like a plan. It makes me think of a couple of my favorite Bible quotes, that show how things should be (imo):

"The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me.

[Furls Fire]

I wasn't sure if I had invited rus over there or not...

Those are a couple of my favorite quotes as well.

[rusmeister]

That one is very easy. Just look at the reaction of the Jewish leaders. THEY had no trouble understanding exactly what He meant. They weren't removed from the comment by 2,000 years and didn't have a bunch of modern scholars with modernist education to throw in all kinds of sophistry to confuse things (I'm not saying you do - only that that is the kind of nonsense you get today from said education) as if they were lawyers trying to find any loophole to "get Him off the hook".

I was going to add the response of the Jews when Jesus said I AM, they picked up stones to stone Him, b/c He blasphemed. As rus said, they knew what He meant by the statement. Yea, you'd have to change or ignore gospels to claim that Jesus didn't think He was God.

OK, I understand. But do we know that they would not have stoned anyone claiming to be the biological son of God? That might be considered a huge blasphemy, too.

The point is that they understand Christ's identification with God - that He was saying that he was God. It shows exactly how they understood the references in their own Scripture, however much modern scholars might fail to do so.

Rus, if you are really interested in how I believe and how I live my faith, I invite you to go to these two threads.

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1727

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743

IIRC, rus has already been pointed there.
[/quote]
Quite correct. That really requires a separate post, though.

[rusmeister]

Not sure what Furl's is saying - I guess I'd ask you, Furls, if you could clarify your comment. As you see it, was and is Jesus Christ the Son of God, part of the triune Godhead or not? (yes or no being the only understood answers there)

In a word...Yes.

And as far as my comment to Fist goes...I think he knew what I meant. He has said that same thing to me many times before. And I always agree with him. Jesus was/is gloriously wise, Jesus was/is a great Man, I just believe He was/is more. Jesus Christ is the Lord Saviour, the Blessed Redeemer, and yes, above all else...The Son of God.

Rus, if you are really interested in how I believe and how I live my faith, I invite you to go to these two threads.

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1727

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1743

The first one is sort of an introduction of sorts, so read that one first. It's only 3 pages long. The second...well that one is self-explanatory. In them, you will see what my faith truly is and you will see exactly what Jesus Christ means to me.

And Fist, yes Satan is an idiot. His goal is always to destroy God. What better way to do that then to temp His Son while He was a man? And because Jesus is God, the destruction would have been completely devastating. But, that wasn't going to happen, because Satan is also a coward, and he will never conquer that which is stronger than he is, the Divine Grace. That's why when I feel him lurking in the shadows I just utter the phrase..."God bless you." And he goes away. He can't stand it. Heh...

Thank you, Furl's. I did read the first few pages of the memorial thread.

I should preface any comments by iterating what I already said about the dartboard - that pretty much all faiths have some truth, the major and long-lasting ones have more, Christianity has more than the others, and Orthodoxy has the fullness of the Truth (that which has been revealed) - that IS the Orthodox claim. Therefore, by acknowledging Christ as God, you already have a big leg up on many others, in my book.
I think it also essential to say that I believe that God is pleased by all efforts to please, serve and worship Him, regardless of faith or denomination, and that it is not wrong to hope for the salvation of all - although, as Lewis said, our Lord's own words make that seem rather improbable.

I really don't feel that I have the luxury to go through dozens of pages trying to figure out what it is that you believe (I get little more than an hour a day now on the computer for all business and pleasure) - however, if there are any specific statements you have made anywhere in there, I would be interested in perusing them - I would compare them with Orthodoxy, of course, and think that both what we have in common and where we differ are important. (Obviously, if you said, "I am a United Methodist (or whatever) and here is our statement of faith" that would make things much easier - one of the things that I now reject, though, is a purely personal faith, based primarily or exclusively on one's own experience and knowledge.) I'm interested in paradosis, what has been handed down from the beginning, generally called "apostolic succession".

Where we differ - the things that offer cannon fodder for unbelievers - I (obviously, I hope) have to go with Orthodoxy, but I'm happy to "join forces" with you wherever we can witness for Christ based on what we share in common.

[StevieG]

Now, I have to preface this by saying that all my posts in this sub-forum have been ignored, and I don't expect this one to be heeded either. That is fine, because I'm really only writing this for my own benefit - to get it off my chest really.

I really don't feel that I have the luxury to go through dozens of pages trying to figure out what it is that you believe (I get little more than an hour a day now on the computer for all business and pleasure)

If there was one thing that I would urge you to make time to read, Stephen McKinney's thread is it (the Memorial thread, Stephen's writings, and Isiah's Glorious passing). It is a triumph of the human spirit, and anybody who doesn't read it in its entirety is missing an important part of their life.

[Fist and Faith]

rus, it sounds remarkably like you're saying you won't read many, many, many pages of something that you already know you will not entirely agree with just because a couple people are telling you it is gloriously wise and beautiful, and that it speaks what they believe to be Truth.

Now, I have to preface this by saying that all my posts in this sub-forum have been ignored, and I don't expect this one to be heeded either. That is fine, because I'm really only writing this for my own benefit - to get it off my chest really.

Your posts here are being ignored because you're supposed to be finishing MOI!!!!

[StevieG]

Your posts here are being ignored because you're supposed to be finishing MOI!!!!

It doesn't feel like that will ever happen! (I'm almost there.....)

[rusmeister]

Now, I have to preface this by saying that all my posts in this sub-forum have been ignored, and I don't expect this one to be heeded either. That is fine, because I'm really only writing this for my own benefit - to get it off my chest really.

I really don't feel that I have the luxury to go through dozens of pages trying to figure out what it is that you believe (I get little more than an hour a day now on the computer for all business and pleasure)

If there was one thing that I would urge you to make time to read, Stephen McKinney's thread is it (the Memorial thread, Stephen's writings, and Isiah's Glorious passing). It is a triumph of the human spirit, and anybody who doesn't read it in its entirety is missing an important part of their life.

Thanks, StevieG,
I do hear you, and I did read part of The Stephen memorial thread.
I guess I'd ask who here has read Lewis's "A Grief Observed" (or any other of the serious works I've recommended? The point is that I can and have said similar things, to encourage people to read things that I have found to be life-changing, that some people reject because of what they believe. Also, anything that requires a lot of reading IS a commitment, that does take time and other people really are unwilling to commit the time to read. I have nothing to say against Stephen or anyone else, particularly those who have stared death in the face. But I'd say what you call a triumph of the human spirit I have already found, for example, in the diaries of Fr Alexander Schmemann, which I similarly encourage you to read. But will you? I would bet against even two posters here picking them up. So with all due respect, I guess a lot of us are missing important parts of our lives.

[StevieG]

So.... you won't read what I recommend because you don't think I'll read what you recommend??

[Fist and Faith]

Not reading something that many of us say is an extraordinary exposition of Truth just because we haven't read what you say is an extraordinary exposition of Truth is not a good reason. Why limit possible exposure to the Truth because of pettiness?

However,I'm not going to assume that's why you won't read it, despite the majority of your post. More likely, you won't read it because you have already read enough to know that a) it does not reflect the Truth as you see Truth; and b) the truths it does contain are in other sources you've already read, and the kinds of things you might read that you know do reflect Truth as you see it. If that's why you won't read it, then you know very well why most of us don't read the huge things you want us to read, so you don't have to be upset with us for it, or take it personally.