Religious Preferences and Wilderness Cry

[Jabril Miller]

Having dealt with several proofs on the existence of God this isn't an attack on those subjects, but analyzing the author's personal justifications it doesn't seem as if they have any logically consistent way to get from their personal standpoint to the idea that the Christian god specifically exists, as opposed to any other god that could be inserted into this narrative (Zeus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.).

Instead, it seems as if they start from a position of Christianity naturally being the ideal religion for this topic and proceed onwards from there. Does this reveal a deep flaw in the author's method of thinking about this subject, or is there a way to staunch the gap in religious preference that has been left behind?

[Maddie Atkinson]

I think the author is just trying to make sense of their own religion and how it fits into their life as they have grown up. I think rather than trying to fill a gap, or have a particular method, they are just trying to answer their own questions. I also don't think they are really trying to prove the existence of a god, but rather explain their opinions on God and readings of the Scriptures, while questioning the Church's interpretations, or rather manipulations, of the Bible and God and how they can be so hypocritical, which is what led to the author's questions in the first place, if that makes sense?

[Juliet+1]

I think the author is just trying to make sense of their own religion and how it fits into their life as they have grown up. I think rather than trying to fill a gap, or have a particular method, they are just trying to answer their own questions. I also don't think they are really trying to prove the existence of a god, but rather explain their opinions on God and readings of the Scriptures, while questioning the Church's interpretations, or rather manipulations, of the Bible and God and how they can be so hypocritical, which is what led to the author's questions in the first place, if that makes sense?

I agree. It doesn't seem as though the author knows much about other religions. The only two he mentions are Christianity and Judaism. It's more that having felt deceived by a strict Catholic upbringing, he is struggling to determine whether he can still have faith in god. The book traces the path he follows in finding a way to retain that faith.

[Jabril Miller]

I think the author is just trying to make sense of their own religion and how it fits into their life as they have grown up. I think rather than trying to fill a gap, or have a particular method, they are just trying to answer their own questions. I also don't think they are really trying to prove the existence of a god, but rather explain their opinions on God and readings of the Scriptures, while questioning the Church's interpretations, or rather manipulations, of the Bible and God and how they can be so hypocritical, which is what led to the author's questions in the first place, if that makes sense?

Given how many values they insert that are predominantly Christian-oriented (such as continuous references to the Bible and the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving god) it's difficult to say that this book could have been written without heavy reliance on those subjects (an Islamic or Wiccan themed book would have an entirely different focus for instance). However, I do agree that they're not particularly attempting to enforce their idea of the concept of God and are trying to arrive at their own conclusion, though I
do wonder if their reliance on one predominant set of values is holding them back from reaching any deeper meanings in their writings.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The author has got the idea about the God from the teachings of Catholicism that he underwent from his childhood. With the gaining of knowledge he has begun to question those teachings and he has tried to study on them scientifically and philosophically. This is the result of his studies and here he tries to prove a presence of a superior being, which anyone with any religious belief can apply to them accordingly

And for the note, Lord Buddha is not a God (According to Therawada Buddhism. I don't know about the Mahayana concepts)

[Caroline Anne Richmond]

Growing up in a Christian religion would give you your own personal experience of that religion and it’s teachings. As the author has matured, many questions have arisen and the book details the exploration of this, including scientific theories. The process could be applied to any religion, questions would arise in any and the science theories will remain the same. I don’t think it’s necessary for the author to know about all other religious faiths, as the book is relating to personal experiences.

[Fozia RYK]

Numerous queries have emerged and the book subtleties the investigation of this, including logical hypotheses. The cycle could be applied to any religion, questions would emerge in any and the science speculations will continue as before. I don't believe it's fundamental for the writer to think pretty much any remaining strict religions, as the book is identifying with individual encounters.

[ciecheesemeister]

I feel the author was approaching the subject using his own experiences and religious teachings. He is a Catholic, and his experiences as such shape his writing. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I didn't have a problem with his personal experiences directing the narrative.

[Ahbed Nadir]

I think the author is just trying to make sense of their own religion and how it fits into their life as they have grown up. I think rather than trying to fill a gap, or have a particular method, they are just trying to answer their own questions. I also don't think they are really trying to prove the existence of God. They're simply answering their own questions about Him.

[zainherb]

Having dealt with several proofs on the existence of God this isn't an attack on those subjects, but analyzing the author's personal justifications it doesn't seem as if they have any logically consistent way to get from their personal standpoint to the idea that the Christian god specifically exists, as opposed to any other god that could be inserted into this narrative (Zeus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.).

Instead, it seems as if they start from a position of Christianity naturally being the ideal religion for this topic and proceed onwards from there. Does this reveal a deep flaw in the author's method of thinking about this subject, or is there a way to staunch the gap in religious preference that has been left behind?

Absolutely
The method used by the author is flawed deeply.
I think it would have been better if the author had focused on catholic christianity and discussed that instead since that is what she is familiar with.

They, perhaps study, with an open mind, other religions from those associated with them, before trying to generalise about all organised religion assuming they are all the same.

She might be surprised.

Questioning is healthy as long as it makes one thirst for real honest knowledge.

[Odette Chace]

Instead, it seems as if they start from a position of Christianity naturally being the ideal religion for this topic and proceed onwards from there. Does this reveal a deep flaw in the author's method of thinking about this subject, or is there a way to staunch the gap in religious preference that has been left behind?

I don't think the author's intention was to convert people of other religions or ways of thinking to Christianity. Rather, the author meant to provide a different perspective on the Bible for those already familiar with it. I think what you're asking for would be outside the scope of the book.

[Carina Jordaan]

I think the author brought up a typical Christian issue that a lot of people struggle with when getting hurt by a church. There is a big difference believing in God and believing in a church and unfortunately a lot of church goers loose sight of their belief. It is good to sometimes question belief, curiosity leads to growth.

[zulfiyya]

Absolutely and when writing a review on this book I specifically pointed out this logical inconsistency in his philosophy. He was starting from a place of faith and I think that any account for the coexistence of God cannot begin from a place of faith because if the whole point is prove how science and God can exist together, you are only really "proving" this idea for those already believe in God and not those who don't believe in God but believe in science.

[Fajarr]

I think the author is just trying to make sense of their own religion and how it fits into their life as they have grown up. I think rather than trying to fill a gap, or have a particular method, they are just trying to answer their own questions. I also don't think they are really trying to prove the existence of God. They're simply answering their own questions about Him.