> People from several schools of thought say that's the same thing. The basic theory is that as a creation (or a part of nature, or whatever you happen to believe in), a person has within them aspects of the Sacred, which may be understood if/when that person develops to a certain point. Note that there are plenty of further ways of looking at *this*

I notice C.S. Lewis hints particularly at this aspect of the Sacred in his fictional works. All of us, he suggests, have within ourselves a sense of the Creator merely because He created us with his imprint. A person may not know what that "sense of the Sacred" is *pointing to*, but nevertheless the *perception* of it is ever present. It is like a thorn in the unconscious mind; or an itch that can never be properly scratched.

>
> The real question comes down to whether you believe there is *one* way of knowing the Sacred (eg, through what is revealed in a particular religion) or more than one.

A question indeed that has led to a great deal of tears and blood being shed over the issue. I will not pretend that a Christian is not a 'fanatic', in the sense that s/he insists there is only ONE gateway to knowing the Sacred through Christ. Our insistence on that one path, of course, brands us as intolerant, and offensive, to those seeking consensus through the luxury of "relative religious pluralism", which is promoted to smooth over difficulties in our common Westernized culture. Few people seem to know that outside of North America, many Christians in the developing world today are dying pretty HORRIBLE deaths from persecution -- that is, paying the heavy price for believing and insisting that Christ alone is the way to life. It seems insane, doesn't it. I see your point. It would be so easy to just say there are "multiple paths" to knowing the Sacred, but here we are seeing 'fanatics' willing to give up their lives to say otherwise. Are they (and I) being deceived?


> Brunnen-"the most useful and wise precept is Never Get Involved In A Religious Discussion, and I just broke it"G

No, I especially enjoy hearing what you have to say. Accepting and considering the fruitful observations of an honest skeptic are necessary to keep faith from going crooked. A belief that strays too far -- from historical fact, and from factual aspects of currently-observable reality which any fool can objectively agree upon -- is frankly a belief in nothing but a lie. People often have a vested interest in shielding deeply cherished beliefs from outside attack; and so they get very touchy about this (which of course is why you suggest Never Get Involved in a Religious Debate, heh. ;-)

To put it bluntly: if Christ did not arise from death, then my faith is worthless. It would be nothing but a colorful though pernicious superstition which does not have the grace to give up, grow up, and disappear under the fine light of reason. Should I ever find good cause to believe that Yeshua was NOT who he says he was, then I *will* drop Christianity instantly like the hottest potato. This is what's at stake. For now, though, I find -- to my amazement now that I think of it -- that I spend almost all my free time with the Scriptures and thinking and discussing about God.

Wolf "Nothing is so shocking as seeing the Christian faith doubted, or seeing it practiced" spirit