A couple of points (okay, more than a couple):
(1) People seem to keep accusing ToO of hypocrisy. Now, I’ve argued with him a time or two, and accused him of a thing or two (in the spirit of debate, of course), but hypocrisy hasn’t been one of them. I don’t see where his hypocrisy lies—especially since I don’t recall his claiming the “Christian” label, or any other label for that matter. He claims to follow the teachings of Jesus as he sees them. That’s all, so far as I can see.
(2) I don’t see Epi or KM—or anyone else participating in this thread—as being hypocrites either; and I’ve known most of you for some time now.
(3) I think the opening post raises a valid question (which is how he raised it). If for no other reason than that “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”—which is exactly how ToO has posed this whole thing.
But—beyond the “sauce” question—ToO raises an issue that I have had kicking around in my mind for some time now. And that is the “religion as a strategy for hiding” issue, no matter what religion or what one may be hiding from. I see no reason why religionists ought to be more offended by that notion of “hiding” than they think atheists ought to be.
Hiding from god, hiding from death, hiding from fear, hiding from reason, hiding from—whatever. To put it in simplistic terms—that nevertheless capture the spirit of past arguments on here—those who value freedom have been accused of hiding from obedience, and those who value obedience have been accused of hiding from freedom. Etc., etc., etc.
Now, I don’t think there is a being-god of any kind. I also think that I tend toward greater vigilance about self-integrity versus self-deceit than many on here, and at least as much as anyone. That does not mean that I am free from error, only that I am dedicated to such vigilance.
Now, you—whoever you are—are either hiding or you are not, intentionally or not. Regardless of what any other religionists or atheists are doing. The notion that only atheists can be hiding from frightening truths, and that theists can have no strategies for such hiding within their religious paradigms, is absurd. ToO has merely pointed out one such strategy for hiding. Maybe no Christian posting here is guilty of using that strategy (consciously or not); maybe some others are.
I don’t find these generalities—all atheists are hiding from god/authority, all theists are hiding from reality—to be particularly helpful.
Let’s just (forgive me if this is out of line) take ToO as an example. He seems to have a fairly binary concept of righteousness/unrighteousness (for lack of better terms) as the keys to “salvation”. At the same time, he has not claimed perfection in such matters for himself. Am I the only one who sees such a stance as being both honest and brave?
I do not think that ToO always has the “truth” that he claims will set people free. [Sorry, ToO, to talk about you as if you weren’t here!] I think that he likely has some notions about the nature of illusion that are—well, illusory. But then, he and I have sometimes talked past one another and I might well be wrong. And I believe that he is a committed truth-seeker.
Likely, ToO and I will bang heads again—each thinking that the other is still mired in some aspect of illusion. I personally value such a banging of heads. I value ToO’s arguments against what he sees as my illusions. Ain’t that the name of the game here?
Let’s see now: I have also argued with Epi, with KM, with jaywill... I know for sure that I have accused those persons, directly or indirectly, of being under some illusion. I am pretty sure that I have said some things more sharply than perhaps I ought to have. I am also pretty sure that I have accused none of you of deliberate bad faith.
And yet, these arguments between Epi, KM and jaywill—on one side—and ToO, and sometimes Rajk (from a different point of view) on the other, seem to have degenerated to mostly accusations of deliberate bad faith.
And, at that point, that is the only thing about them that might be interesting to an outsider listening in. Personally, I don’t find it all that interesting—especially in light of the really interesting arguments I have had with each of you.
____________________________________
Again, I think that ToO’s opening post raised a valid question. No one is simply immune from hiding simply because of the faith (or lack thereof) that they claim. It is like accusations from some that others of us view “love” as some sort of warm “fuzzies”. I would say that love (agape) is a “consuming fire”, and that faith (as I define it) is always a risk, and that meditation is a danger to anyone who wants to rest secure in their thought-constructs, etc. I would say that many people—of various religions or non-religions—make mighty efforts to hide from the fire, the risk, the danger. Or to pretend that they aren’t there.
Here is where ToO perhaps nailed me with my own words: that I am a Zorbaist as much as a Zennist. Whatever I happen to believe or not believe, I do not attempt to hide from the existential risks.
This is life, and then there is death—where the hell would I hide?
Anyway, that is my response to the valid question of the opening post: god or no god, where the hell does anyone think they can hide?
God or no god, Christ or no Christ, grace/faith or works—whatever or whatever—there ain’t nowhere to hide. Any kind of existential hiding is always going to be some kind of self-deceit.