OnlineBookClub.org

I’m not trying to vilify the author, but I'm curious to hear your opinions on this. Did you find his religious/spiritual approach to be colored by hypocrisy?

Early on, the author is put-off of Christianity because a woman told him that everyone who didn’t convert to her religion would go to hell. After talking it over with his father, he decided that was unfair and he would have no respect for such a god.

Later in the book, he explains his own spiritual revelation and says that if everyone doesn’t change their way of thinking to what he suggests then, “the suffering will be an immeasurable Hell on Earth.”

How is that any different or more fair/loving than the Christian woman’s beliefs? He goes even further to say that there will be near-extinction levels of destruction, and even if people do change and do exactly as he says, there will be incomprehensible suffering, because it’s already too late.

In between these two examples, he also judges an entire stadium of strangers, saying that there was something wrong in their hearts. Thousands of people he’s never even spoken to. He says he is motivated by love, but so do a lot of religions who come to similar conclusions.

It seems like he has a blatant double-standard for other beliefs vs his own spiritual assertions.
What do you guys think?

I am also still trying to come to terms with the author's ideology. He seems to be creating something entirely new and bringing in the same things he was trying to evade. The role of his father is greatly seen in how he shifts his belief system. It also puzzles me that he believes in Jesus but not God who is described as being tainted as a racist, angry, jealous, etc.

Kibetious wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 01:35 He seems to be creating something entirely new and bringing in the same things he was trying to evade.

It also puzzles me that he believes in Jesus but not God who is described as being tainted as a racist, angry, jealous, etc.

My thoughts exactly. His "new system" is straightforward enough, but his reasonings make little to no sense to me. His aversion to certain religious concepts that he then repurposes and integrates is bizarre.

Sounds to me like he's putting himself in the place of the very God he purports not to believe in. Who is he to pass judgment? I don't so much think he has a double-standard about other religions as much as he dismisses them entirely.

You make a good point about the double standard. I don't think I noticed it until you pointed it out. He discusses reincarnation, a belief that seems really important to him, but then suggests it isn't necessary to believe it.

How is that any different or more fair/loving than the Christian woman’s beliefs?

Maybe in that one is a God deliberately setting up a hell and putting people in it, the other is that people are causing it and not taking the way out. It reminds me of the Jewish - or Old Testament at least - way of following rules. Christians are told that they believed following rules made them holy instead of living that way being the result of being holy. Intention and process are different.

I am also having a hard time comprehending what the author is trying to say about his beliefs. Though hypocrite is such a strong word, I could agree on that based on the given examples. However, I always find this attitude in people in churches, especially in the Christian community. I'm not bad-mouthing this religion, in fact, I am one of them. But I do believe that being a Christian is hard work and a journey until death, not a brand you wave once baptized. It is like in the author's case, him not believing in God at such a young age and then shifting into being a believer later on in life is normal. I mean, don't we all undergo transformation and changes, even in our beliefs? I mean, we're learning every day of our lives, right?

The difference between him and the woman is that I think the way they said it. The woman gives only an option: believe or die in hell. The author lays out the love of Jesus first rather than condemning. Well, in the bible, you don't get the good stuff only, you also need to face the consequences, that is what he said about the suffering.

I agree with you though on that part about the stadium. I really don't like people judging other people just because they don't have the same faith as them. I think the author also needs to check himself. Being an extremist is the flaw of these religions; extremist in the sense that they condemn other people rather than helping them just to put themselves on a pedestal higher than anyone else.

Kibetious wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 01:35 It also puzzles me that he believes in Jesus but not God who is described as being tainted as a racist, angry, jealous, etc.

this might be because he focuses his belief system more on the new testament rather than the old. The old testament is really extreme. But the new testament counters most of those "rules" and gives hope.

I must admit that there seems to be an inconsistency in the author's perspective. He seems to advocate unconditional love (something he doesn't see in traditional Christianity because of its objective definitions of good and evil) but even in his own belief (which he considers not to be a belief at all), there are still many criteria needed for those who want to achieve peace, or happiness or whatever good he deems worth reaching for. Also, his basis for rejecting traditional Christianity is not very clear. There was no mention of a logical and thorough research to understand the Christian faith. The only thing I could remember that he mentioned was his conversation with his own father when he was still a child. This was about how a good God can send someone to hell. It was not explained however, how God respects the freewill of people and how it is the person himself who has the ability to reject God and thus go to hell if he does not desire to go to heaven.

I did not think there was any hypocrisy from the part of the author. According to my understanding, he wanted to say that religion is biased in the sense that the people who follow a particular religion think it to be better than the other religion. But spirituality is all-inclusive and as per this concept, all humans should be treated with the same kind of unconditioned love.

If it is about love and the view of other religions comparing themselves with another, then there would have been no need to form a new thing completely that seems to become a religion of its own. It seems the author's attempt is to amalgamate various teachings to form one that appears more appealing. The concept itself sounds great but I wonder how workable it is.

abbiejoice wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 23:49 I must admit that there seems to be an inconsistency in the author's perspective. He seems to advocate unconditional love (something he doesn't see in traditional Christianity because of its objective definitions of good and evil) but even in his own belief (which he considers not to be a belief at all), there are still many criteria needed for those who want to achieve peace, or happiness or whatever good he deems worth reaching for. Also, his basis for rejecting traditional Christianity is not very clear. There was no mention of a logical and thorough research to understand the Christian faith. The only thing I could remember that he mentioned was his conversation with his own father when he was still a child. This was about how a good God can send someone to hell. It was not explained however, how God respects the freewill of people and how it is the person himself who has the ability to reject God and thus go to hell if he does not desire to go to heaven.

This is true indeed. Therefore, it appears that he relied on one source of information which was incomplete and also biased and hence everything appears biased as well.

Kibetious wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 01:35 I am also still trying to come to terms with the author's ideology. He seems to be creating something entirely new and bringing in the same things he was trying to evade. The role of his father is greatly seen in how he shifts his belief system. It also puzzles me that he believes in Jesus but not God who is described as being tainted as a racist, angry, jealous, etc.

I definitely think he was dealing with some misconceptions and trying to be vague enough that anyone could relate. I think this vagueness is where the confusion comes from.

Interesting questions! I hadn't considered these aspects before, but now that you brought them up... I do see your point, although to me the author came across as such a lovable person, and with the purest intentions. Maybe my heart is too soft, or I'm a little gullible, or both. I don't know. But, again, I do see what you mean. It does seem inconsistent.

abbiejoice wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 23:49 I must admit that there seems to be an inconsistency in the author's perspective. He seems to advocate unconditional love (something he doesn't see in traditional Christianity because of its objective definitions of good and evil) but even in his own belief (which he considers not to be a belief at all), there are still many criteria needed for those who want to achieve peace, or happiness or whatever good he deems worth reaching for. Also, his basis for rejecting traditional Christianity is not very clear. There was no mention of a logical and thorough research to understand the Christian faith. The only thing I could remember that he mentioned was his conversation with his own father when he was still a child. This was about how a good God can send someone to hell. It was not explained however, how God respects the freewill of people and how it is the person himself who has the ability to reject God and thus go to hell if he does not desire to go to heaven.

I personally wish that the author had spent even half the time searching the Scriptures in the Bible to understand more fully the core of Jesus' teachings than all the years spent in traveling and learning the unfoldment process. I believe the true Christian perspective of God is that He has unconditional love for us and sent his Son, Jesus Christ to be our Savior and not to condemn us to hell.