The Last Word

As this is a blog about expanding our knowledge with regards to religion, ethics and morals, I feel it's important to take a moment to write a post about knowing ourselves, and learning to control our emotions. We have all been in a situation that makes us frustrated or irritated. Someone cutting us off on the road, somebody taking too long in the line at the grocery store, rude costumer service at a department store. How do we react to these everyday annoyances? It is only human to feel a sense of anger. Most people will speak up and make that anger known to the other person. Many people use cruel words, unkind gestures and even threats. However, are these instant, emotional reactions truly necessary?

Do you ever feel embarrassed or guilty after you have exploded with anger? This is most likely a sign that the situation could have been handled differently, and more important, it could have been handled better. Do we ever learn from our guilty conscience? Or do we think that because we got the last word in that makes us somehow better than the other person? But really, how does that make you any better of a person? You may feel better at the moment for having "one upped" your opponent, but in the end, who is the one who looks like a fool?

The other day I was told a story that really made me think. A man was having lunch at a near by fast food joint and struck up a conversation with one of the employees. This employee told the kind customer how just a few moments ago he had to deal with a very angry, very upset costumer. The employee expressed that he could not do anything for the rude costumer which only made the situation escalate. The kind costumer told the employee that he did nothing wrong in the situation and that he hoped the rest of his day would be better. After their discussion he went on and finished his lunch. Before he left he went up to order a smoothie from the same employee he talked to earlier. He ordered his one smoothie, and when the employee returned, he handed the kind costumer 2 smoothies, free of charge. He said "Sometimes it pays to be nice."

It would be an interesting experiment to test certain situations with acting angry, compared to acting kind and understanding. Even if in the end, you didn't necessarily get what you wanted, if you acted kind and understanding, don't you think you would feel better about yourself? And more importantly, the other person would feel good as well. Is it really worth it to ruin someone elses day just because you think it will make you feel better? People today are so concerned with being the one who gets the last word in they forget the bigger picture. Not realizing that one little rude thing to one person can affect so many people. Who would ever want to be the root cause of such a negative line of events?

If every person looked within themselves and found the ability to rationally react rather than emotionally react, the would could actually be a better place. If every person changed such a small thing about themselves, it could have a positive change that is so vast, we might just be able to say the peace is possible. But can you really be the "bigger person" and choose to not be the one who get's in the last word? Or is pride more important than respect, values and peace? It's up to you to decide how to react in your next frustrating situation.

The Rational of the Holy Ghost and Speaking in Tongues

An interesting conversation came up in the office today. However inappropriate the topic may have been for the work place, it was still thought provoking. Unfortunately, because I was in the office I made the decision not to discuss this topic any further with my own thoughts. On the other hand, writing about it and discussing it on here is an entirely different story.

The Holy Ghost was brought up from the Roman Catholic I spoke to. His indecisive thought process would rather bother such a rational thinker, in fact, it dreadfully did. He alluded to idea that he believes in the Holy Ghost, however, unlike other Roman Catholic’s, he does not believe the Holy Ghost can make you speak in Tongues. Speaking to a Pentecostal, or someone rather knowledgeable in that faith, this brought up further discussion. It was said that when someone speaks in Tongues, it is words of God in His language. Therefore, there is a need for a translator of someone who knows that language. His reason for not fully believing in a speaker of Tongues was because it is too “Sci-Fi” for him to wrap his head around. Is that kind of thinking rational? Is it acceptable to arrive at a conclusion with that sort of reasoning?

Let us try this as a thought process:

Every day I listen to an AM radio station at lunch. The show is called Born to Win with Ronald Dart on 1280 AM. Oddly enough, only a couple weeks ago he discussed the rational of speaking in Tongues. What was brought up is the idea of this being the Word of God. We discussed in the past how it is possible for all people to have knowledge and an understanding of God. We argued the idea that God would not expect something of us if it were not possible. Likewise, He expects us to have an understanding of Him, precisely because it is possible to have it.

If speaking in Tongues is only understood, if it even truly is understood, by the person speaking it and the translator, how is that a language that is knowable to all people? People who believe in the truth of Tongues also believe that it is a gift only given to select people. All the hundreds of languages around the world today are capable of being taught, as well as being learned and understood. All those except Tongues. How then, can God expect you to understand this language, if it is not possible to be taught, learned and understood?

Having knowledge about God and the good is not impossible; it is not meant to be impossible. It is meant to be taught and learned by all people, not just a select few chosen by God or the Holy Ghost. Can we say that speaking in Tongues is real? Only to the irrational, gullible believer. We must remember that all beliefs and conclusions must be rationally interpreted; it is then, and only then that we can know the Truth.

On Becoming a Leader: Warren G. Bennis

Warren Bennis is an American scholar, organizational consultant and author of a multitude of books. In this entry we will look at his book On Becoming a Leader and the section about personal habits. Bennis talks about freeing ourselves from habits and to become masters rather than slaves of our own lives, but I believe our habits are how we learn to become who we really are. Bennis states, that “we must first see and remember, and then forget” (p. 63). I agree with Bennis that we must first see and remember, but I disagree that he believes we must forget. It is the very reason that we learn certain things, whether they are true, false, or even absurd, that we become who we are today. However, it is important that we be aware of what we are retaining so that we don’t become victims to false details in the world.


Bennis talks about having to unlearn certain habits we have created in our lives. Is it true that it is necessary to unlearn things? We should not be so quick to say that we should actually have to unlearn things in our lives, but rather, we should learn further on certain things. For many children throughout their high school years there are several things, especially in history classes that may be over-looked that when they grow older they have learned about differently. I mention history because many teachers, and the text books used, portray America as the “winners” or the “rulers” of the world. While, on the other hand, in college, you learn about different arguments and hypotheses on the same topics. College, is a time to teach your mind how to work abstractly, to use it on your own, and not just regurgitate information back to one another. Bennis states that “every time we teach children something, rather than helping them learn, we keep them from inventing themselves” (p. 63). However, there must be a starting point for the children’s mind where he or she can expand from. This would be where Bennis would explain that “every great inventor or scientist has had to unlearn conventional wisdom in order to proceed with his or her work” (p. 63). It is understandable that if you learn something that has trained you to believe or work in a particular fashion, and later in life you learn it’s wrong or foolish, that you would have to learn the truthfulness of the matter, but what was originally taught should not necessarily be forgotten. Would it then not be foolish to not ask why one was taught such a false accusation? This could actually be an advantage for someone to use their mind in their own way to find the answer. However, we should not be accepting of everything we hear or everything we are taught. Bennis points out, the famous quote from Socrates, “The unexamined life is not worth living” (p 62). Every person has the ability to stretch their thinking abilities far and beyond what they are taught, and like I said before, there must be a starting point, even if it is feeding your mind unwise data. Something may spark, causing an interest, leading to further studying on the topic, where now the person is learning on his or her own.


Most people are raised not by a matter of choice, but how their parents bring them up. In many cases this results in cultural habits and beliefs, which may or may not be accurate to the actual purpose of traditions. Religion, for example, has been vastly morphed to better suit peoples lives. Most people may never realize the falseness in the beliefs the carry. However, some people, like myself, just happen to fall into a Religious Studies college course that opens their eyes to the Truth. With this, people may be led down a path of their own independent study, to ask their own questions, and to rationally find the answers. We would never say that we had to unlearn the things our teachers, parents, church leaders, or friends have taught us; we merely have continued to learn new things. If we do forget those things we were taught, then we would not be able to steer people away from those paths and show them that they may have become a believer of the typical, though false, ways of thought. However, Bennis does seem to agree with this idea as well when he states that “any gaps in your education can be filled, whatever your age or situation, by reading and thinking about what you read” (Bennis, 76). There is truth to that statement; however, it is unfortunate that many people in the world today don’t take the time to read, let alone to think about what they have read. The whole idea of our life is to learn, examine and grow. If we do not do these things, we become accustomed to believing the world’s lies, while battling the daily struggles of right and wrong. We cannot sit back and let others do the examining for us; we must all seek for knowledge by examining and rationally interpreting our experiences.

Right vs. Wrong: Why lie When you Know the Turth?

Determining whether an action is right or wrong is one of the more, if not the most, difficult decisions many humans will ever have to decide. Whether this decision is rationally thought through, or just the way someone feels because one way may be easier than the other, when a moral theory is applied to an action, sometimes feelings don’t always matter. Sometimes the easy things aren’t always the right things.

I want to take a look at right vs. wrong actions, specifically in lying and the truth. Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

Kant has 3 arguments to deduce how to do the right thing. His reasons and principles emphasizes on the intentions of these actions. Kant states that people cannot always control the consequences to actions, but people can control their intentions. It is our obligation to have the intention to do the right thing. I will briefly explain his theory and the 3 arguments, but for a more detailed explanation I suggest you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The first of Kant’s three formulas states that if you cannot make something a universal law, it is not the right thing to do. For example, a man cheating on his wife, according to Kant, it would never be possible to make adultery acceptable for everyone to do so it should never be done. A person would not say, I hope, that “you can cheat on me because I did it to you.” If something cannot be made a universal law, it is wrong.

Kant’s second formula says that you are to not use a person as a mere means to an end. This is because every human is a rational being who has dreams and goals just like any other person; henceforth, it would not be acceptable for another human to take that away from another.

His third formula is called The Kingdom of Ends. This means that your actions and intentions are a role model for all of humanity.

Using this theory, lets take a look at truth vs. lies.

When a person decides to create a lie rather then tell the truth they are then deciding what is their form of the truth. What we have come to understand, through the use of reason and general revelation, is that there can only be one truth. Why should this person who tells the lie be able to manipulate and deceive to other so they can better themselves? Because when we do tell a lie, what is the reason behind it? More often than not, it is because we have done something wrong and do not want to get caught for it. Are the consequences of telling the truth worse than morphing the truth? Where is it that we develop the right truth? For many people, as it should be, this is found from the teachings in the Bible. But if someone is a skeptic and chooses to not understand the Bible, where are they to find their parameters? There are many philosophical theories out there to help people figure out what is right and what is wrong. Kant’s, I believe, is one of the most difficult, and one of the strongest.

Say for example, someone is involved in car accident. The person, who was in the wrong, chooses that it is better for him or herself to drive off. What was, at the moment, thought to be their only option then turns into a dense web of lies. This person has now created their own form of the truth. What these people who lie don’t initially realize, is that one lie, no matter how minute, spirals into a negative change of life. The liars become the lie. Things become so complex that they must live the lie. Eventually resulting in a loss of what is rightfully true.

Kant would say, that hit and runs can never be made a universal law, and that this action is a mere means to an end, the liars end, and the liar could never be a good role model. Therefore, we shall never leave the scene of an accident.

Some say that when a lie is created to protect another person this is acceptable. However, let’s look at an argument of someone who has been kidnapped. Say the kidnapped person escapes and they are hiding in your home. Eventually, the kidnapper comes to your house asking if you’re hiding anyone; is it acceptable to lie and say you are not hiding anyone? If you think all forms of lying are wrong you would not lie to the kidnapper. However, does this mean you should say “yes, I’ve got your person right here in my closet!” There are ways to get around the question where you would still not be lying. Because consider that you told the kidnapper, “No, I’m not hiding anyone. There is no one in this house”, then the kidnapper would move along and continue to look for that person. But what if the person that was hiding left your house and was running down the street and the kidnapper found him after he left your home. Lying to the kidnapper still did not accomplish anything. Therefore, we can say that lying is never acceptable, even if you think it’s to protect someone.

Many people think Kant’s philosophies are too strict or too hard to follow, but in many cases, the easy things are usually the wrong things. Life wasn’t meant to be easy, people are meant to question, to ponder, to make mistakes; but in the end, learning and growing are the greatest things life offers. Through learning and growing, discovery takes place, discovering our inner selves, our true beliefs. Some things in life may be hard, but if people can get through those things by making the right decisions, what a great accomplishment to have gotten through something so difficult.

So whether someone believes in the teachings of the Bible or not, we should all be able to agree that lying, in the case of protecting yourself, and even others, is not the right choice. Lying creates false truths. Lying creates people who can no longer see right from wrong. They only see what is right for themselves. In the end, lying doesn’t result in helping anyone, even the liar.

Kuyper, Warfield, and Van Til

Abraham Kuijper generally known as Abraham Kuyper, was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman and theologian. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party and was prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905. Kuyper is well known for having started the discussion about "worldviews." He identifies people into two categories, the believers and non-believers. He argues that the non-believers are in a state of believing propositions that are false. He argues that both the believers and non-believers think they are doing what it takes to gain knowledge; however, according to Kuyper, these two people have two different basic principle views. These principles are not “common sense” and are not agreed upon by all humans. He states that because these two kinds of people have two different starting points, they in turn will have two different conclusions.

What are the implications for reason and common ground if worldviews are each based on starting points that are irreconcilable? According to Kuyper, he does not believe that there are two different kinds of logic; he argues that there is only one kind; therefore, the unbelievers are not following the “right reason.” This logic does not make the first principle in the same way reason would because logic can only manage once there is the application from which to make the conclusion. This means that the two worldviews are contradictory and that they both cannot be true and they both cannot be false. Since Kuyper uses logic for the starting point, these lead to different conclusions, therefore there can never be a common ground between these two worldviews (believers and non-believers).

Benjamin Warfield, the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921, also agrees that there are two different worldviews. While he believes that the Christian worldview is the only rationally correct view, Warfield argues that the unbeliever is inconsistent in believing what their basic belief is. The unbeliever claims to still be using reason, but reason must also be consistent, which the unbeliever fails to be. Since the unbeliever is not consistent, Warfield believes that there is one common reason that will lead to one common truth and worldview.

Cornelius Van Til, a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist, argued that starting points (presuppositions) cannot be proven, they must be assumed without proof. He did not believe that this starting point leads a person to coming to have knowledge. Van Til instead argues that the interpretations of such assumptions are what lead people to have knowledge. The method Van Til used was called “presuppositional”. This is when the apologist will locate and challenge the first principle, which is a person’s most basic belief, on which the non-Christian view hinges. VanTil states that “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underline and control one’s method.” Does Van Til's position end in fideism? Is there any way out of this problem? It does seem as though his position ends in fideism, however, we need to understand that reason is to be used as the laws of all thought, not a presupposition precisely because reason is needed to establish any meaningful presupposition.

Van Til maintained that Adam and Eve had a direct, immediate, intuitive relationship with God before the Fall.

Does the temptation reveal that such a relationship is insufficient? How should Adam and Eve known God? If an intuitive relationship was insufficient then, what are the implications about knowing God now?

Although Adam and Eve were with God intuitively and immediately, this relationship appears to be insufficient because of the way they responded to the temptation. Van Til argues that fallen humans suppress what they know, in the sense of both knowing and trying not to know at the same time, resulting in the problem of desire. This means that a person knows that God is the source of all things good, but does not want the good. In knowing God, one knows that God is good; when someone fails to know this of God, they are failing to know God.

My Final Thoughts on GR, SR and the Existence of God

Using the reason within human nature, through general revelation is enough to show us that some things are clear, specifically about the nature of the Eternal. Although, there has been a rejection of general revelation, thus requiring there to be more knowledge, this found in scripture, but because scripture presupposes the existence of God, it is a necessity to learn the essentials from general revelation. I am not undermining the importance of redemptive revelation and sacred scripture; however, I am implying the importance to strive to have wisdom about the Eternal before one relies solely on scripture. With this said, because general revelation is available to all persons at all times, when studied rationally and properly, as I have done thus far, we will find there is a rightful path to follow, and that not all religions lead to the same Ultimate Truth, as John Hick states. A foundation must be established in order to find a commonality within the world’s different religions; general revelation is that foundation.

Skeptics believe that we cannot know about the Eternal because it is not clear, but now, with an understanding of general revelation, we come to see that this knowledge is clear. While knowing what is clear about the Eternal, brings meaning to life, because if nothing is clear then there can be no meaning. This meaning must be sought for; otherwise humans are living a meaningless, empty life. In Anselm’s preface to the Proslogion he states:

“I do not try, Lord, to attain Your lofty heights, because my understanding is in no way equal to it. But I do desire to understand your Truth a little, that truth that my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand so that I May believe, but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that “unless I believe, I shall not understand” (6).

Understanding and seeking knowledge about the world and what is clear about the Eternal (God), puts meaning into one’s life. For what we can know about the Eternal from general revelation is that there must be something eternal. For one to deny this argument, one would have to give up reason. As reason and rationality are our gifts of being human, it would be shameful to deny this assumption. But on the contrary, this is precisely why there are distortions within different religions. My claim is that if everyone thought critically and sought to understand the nature of God through general revelation, it would be clear that there can be a commonality, a correct path to attain the knowledge of God. Religious pluralism only delays conflicts we have in the world, it does not solve them. It does not solve these disputes precisely because not all religions lead to the same Ultimate Reality. Once general revelation is understood, clarity is found, leading one to know how to live and understand special revelation. But special revelation can never be fully comprehended until one accepts and values the necessity of general revelation to know the nature of God.

Philosophers Arguments for Proof of God

It is inexcusable to not seek for knowledge about what it eternal, specifically the knowledge within general revelation; now that it is clear that there is something eternal, it is important to determine if and how this is the theistic God. Since having a religious experience is not valid enough for proof of the existence of God, we must, while using the knowledge from general revelation, study how to determine that this something that is eternal is the God of theism. It is clear that many people forget that having knowledge of God, or what is eternal, is not beyond man’s concepts. Now that we have a clear understanding that something must be eternal, our next step is to identify if this is proof for the existence of God, particularly in theism. I have already stated two philosophers who attempted to show the existence of God, René Descartes, and Blaise Pascal. There are in fact many different concepts, from many different philosophers and theologians, who make an effort to do this.

Famous for his ontological argument, Anselm of Canterbury “sought to prove the existence of God with a single proof rather than with several” (6). Anselm believed that there was one supreme good, and there was one supreme being higher than all others. In Anselm’s second chapter of his book, Proslogion, he states:

“Even the fool is convinced that there is something, at any rate in the understanding, than which nothing greater can be conceived, for when he hears this, he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it be in the understanding alone, it is possible to conceive it as existing in reality, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But this assuredly cannot be. Without any doubt, therefore, there exists something both in the understanding and in reality than which a greater cannot be conceived” (6).

In other words, Anselm believes that something exists that which nothing greater can be conceived in both the understanding and in reality. Critics of Anselm’s argument, such as Immanuel Kant don’t think this idea of a God is enough to prove it is actually God. Is Anselm’s argument proof for the God of theism? For Anselm, “God is absolutely simple; therefore, the divine attributed are not accidents but rather the very essence of God. God is present in every place and time and is not in any place or time, for all times and places are in God” (6). His attempts to prove the existence of God by rational means are worthy to take note of. More often than not, people already assume the existence of God, either because of certain scriptures, such as the Bible or the Koran for example, or more commonly because of lack of critical thought. What we have now discovered is that we must have knowledge and understanding of the eternal, through general revelation before we accept sacred scripture.

Another well known philosopher, of the thirteenth century, was Thomas Aquinas, who disagreed with Anselm’s argument that the idea of God was a necessary thought. Aquinas believed that “God can be proved by arguments drawn from the universe, from creation” (6). Aquinas gives five arguments for the proof of God’s existence, though his “way of “proving” God’s existence presupposes at least some kind of idea of god” (6). For Aquinas, “God is not a non-being but the supreme being, an ever active power” (6). He attributes properties to God for the being of God and his relation to the world, quite similar to the concepts of general revelation.

Both Anselm and Aquinas use similar arguments from the perception of general revelation. From the general knowledge within human nature we can derive how the eternal, or God, is to act, according to the nature of things. What we have established is the need and importance of coming to understand general revelation. This is vital because the good for humans is to find meaning of the world, while meaning of the world reveals the nature of the creator, this found through general revelation. All persons have the ability and responsibility to have this knowledge because it is general; however, we are then responsible for being able to take that knowledge and apply it to understanding sacred scripture properly.

Is Religious Experience Enough for Proof of the Existence of God?

Before I start discussing some quarrels of religious experiences, it is important that we understand what exactly this is. Religious experiences can also be known as sacred, spiritual or mystical experiences. A religious experience is a phenomenon that someone may have that they believe is divinely inspired. This, for the individual, is proof for the existence of God. To read more on religious experiences visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Some people believe that because they have a certain religious experience, that is enough proof for the existence of God, we will find that this is a false testimony, insofar that these experiences are interpreted differently through different people.

The importance behind religious experience for religious pluralism is different from a rational interpretation of religious experiences. According to John Hick, in his book The Problems of Religious Plualism, when asked the question of which religious experience is liable, or that the situation is indeed as one describes it, he answers “that he does not profess to know this, if by knowledge we mean infallible cognition. Nor indeed can anyone else properly claim to have knowledge, in this sense, of either the exclusivist or the inclusivist picture. All of them are, strictly speaking, hypotheses” (1). If Hick is concluding that no one is capable of having infallible knowledge, I would certainly disagree. As I have shown earlier, we have discovered what can be known about the Eternal through general revelation. It is possible to know fallacies to certain experiences with our ability to rationally interpret them. Religious experiences have meaning to the individual that they occurred to, but “interpretations of a given experience that contradict the nature of the eternal are not valid interpretations” (2). Hick asserts, “that there is in fact a good argument for the rationality of trusting one’s own religious experience, together with that of the larger tradition within which it occurs, so as both to believe and to live on the basis of it” however, he fails to demonstrate this argument (1). Hick also acknowledges the fact that if one is to treat one’s own religious experience as absolute, then that person must also accept that members of other religions will also have religious experiences in a different form, and that they are just as real as his own.

It is no doubt in my mind that people of different religions have different experiences of the Eternal, but what is of concern is how these experiences are interpreted. Someone of the Hindu or Buddhist religion may interpret an experience that is a contradiction to the nature of the Eternal I have thus far proved. The focus on the interpretations of these experiences is that they need to be less self-centered and more reality-centered. This way we can develop a common, rational interpretation that can be a form of “infallible cognition.” It is evident that this sort of interpretation is not being done today as a result from not knowing the Eternal through general revelation. This is evidence that people are not taking into the account of the reality of sin and the need for redemption revelation. This shows us that the “failure to draw the correct interpretation, and the failure to be reality-centered are faults that require redemption” (2). Because people have sinned and not sought to understand the need of general revelation, there is a necessity for scripture. Because we know from general revelation that something is eternal (in contrast to ‘none is eternal’ or ‘all is eternal’) we are then required to be aware of this, and not deny the truth and clarity of reason.

How we are to Know the Eternal: The First Step

The Eternal reveals itself in a way that makes knowledge of the Eternal possible to all persons. This means that, “the Eternal will act in a way to reveal its nature to humans. If the Eternal is loving, then it will act consistently with this” and again “if the Eternal is also just then it must act in a way that is consistent with this” (2). This leads me to ask, if one is to know God as the Eternal, through reading the Bible, and one does not have access to the Bible, how is this consistent with a God of love and who is just? A God of justice and love would never expect a person to do something they are incapable of doing. Along the same lines, the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes believes that “If God were a deceiving spirit, he could not be the most perfect being. The concept itself of the idea of the perfect being therefore includes not only the existence but also the truthfulness and goodness of God. A deceiver-God is impossible” (6). Descartes believed that God instilled his mind with the idea of a perfect being. According to Descartes, this idea of God is instilled in human beings and one that of which they are born with.

Although for some, such as Blaise Pascal for example, this still may not be enough to be proof for the existence of God. Pascal disagreed with Descartes on the grounds that “the God of Jesus Christ… can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospel” (6). Whereas Descartes believed that self-awareness and the idea of God is proof alone. Pascal believed the ultimate grounds of certainty was found in the Bible. But again, this brings me to the question of, if one does not have access to the Bible how is he expected to read it? Referring back to the God of love, this would be inconsistent with God’s actions.

Thus far, we have come to understand that there must be something eternal; this is not enough to state that this eternal is the God in theism. So what then is our next step?


(6) Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. The Doctrine of God. Michigan: Backer Academic, 2004.

5 Spititual Trends to Watch for in 2009

An article that discusses 5 spiritual trends to watch for in 2009 brings up many questions in my mind. I wonder if these things already exist today, or if they are expanding at a rate faster than we realize because of the falling economy?

I suggest you take a read, it’s quick and easy. Then think about these few questions, or develop some of your own.
1.) Why is it that Buddhism has such an appeal to Westerners? Is it acceptable to “mix” different religious aspects to best suit your own beliefs?
2.) Will we see more terrorist related wars in the upcoming years? Why is it that Muslims are so strongly related to terrorism? Are we too quick to assume someone could be a terrorist or have terrorist intentions? Take a look at this article where this exact assumption caused a terrible hold up on an airplane.
3.) Will we see more liberal activities and protests with the new presidency of Barack Obama or have they been there all along, we just notice them more now? Is it really such a bad thing that people are “working at reconciling religion and science and protecting the environment”?
4.) If evangelicalism is becoming less monotheistic (although I’d like to see the source for this), and apparently will be fearful to the “dominant culture” (is this in reference to the Democratic Party?) how can we expect to see a change in society? Is this something to fear or is it merely an assumption?
5.) Is there a difference between being religious and being spiritual? Can you be both? Do you need to be a member of an institution to be a follower of God? Why or why not?
I look forward to your thoughts…