Re (2): Proof is in the Pudding

I, too, have explored different religions by attending various houses of worship and reading sacred texts and literature of diverse people. of course, I cannot understand the teaching as fully as someone whose cultural heritage is vastly different from mine, but I have come to the conclusion that "A saint is a saint is a saint...." Their terminology may vary, but their descriptions of their EXPERIENCE of God's presence and love for them are quite similar. That's where I disagree with Harris. I suspect that if Gandhi, Mother Teresa and the Dali Lama all went out for a cup of tea and a quiet chat, they would have little problem at all understanding and comprehending each other.
Where I agree with Harris is his political attack on the religious right in this country. I read a survey recently that asked people what words they would use to describe Jesus and they replied, "Loving, Compassionate, Non-judgmental,etc." When asked what words they would use to describe Christians, they replied, "Intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, etc."
Depressing, isn't it?
But not surprising. As I said earlier, historical Christianity and spiritual Christianity are two separate issues.

PS. I agree with you, ridinghood, about the New Thought movement and sin. Whenever I went to one of their meetings I wanted to slam someone's finger in a door and then interview them about the illusion of evil.

• Re(3): Proof is in the Pudding - By karen July 1, 2005 at 04:36:52 PM
  • Re(4): Proof is in the Pudding - By sara July 1, 2005 at 05:47:35 PM
    • Re(5): Proof is in the Pudding - By karen July 1, 2005 at 06:24:18 PM
      • Re(6): Proof is in the Pudding - By sara July 1, 2005 at 07:03:56 PM
        • Re(7): Proof is in the Pudding - By karen July 1, 2005 at 07:18:54 PM
          • Re(8): Proof is in the Pudding - By Eric July 13, 2005 at 12:59:30 PM