The age of I and me is childishly busy

My God, in an interview with a Dutch pedagogue, Gert Biesta, about growing up, he described how the upbringing of children should be aimed at maturing, and that solidarity, the focus on the other, should become more important than the focus on the self. And then he noticed that the desire for an identity of his own can become childishly, because ...

Ultimately it is not about who you are, but how you are

Would You like to comment on this?

This touches one of the great principles in the spiritual world. When you arrive over there, you are not asked who you are, what you believe and what you have thought, but how you have lived and how you have responded.  

“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” , such as the great Son of Man has spoken.

How do you stand in life, how do you respond to difficulties, how do you look and listen to the other, how concerned are you with the fate of the other, of the society, of beauty, of the Earth mother, of nature? "Who you are" is peanuts for God, "how you are" is the measure by which God weighs your destiny on the golden scales of eternity.

Gert Biesta is blessed.
 
My blessings to you all

No 465

You don't need God to be good (quote from an atheist)

?

I would like to ask You. In my morning paper, a historian is rather furious against the religions and says that they have stopped positive developments. And that the great social developments were possible in those countries where the secularization of society is greatest, so to speak where the conservative churches could not stop the renewal. And actually I agree with him.
But he ends his argument with "I always remain on my guard for those who claim you
need God's permission for a moral life ”.
He actually says: you don't need God to be good. Would You like to comment on this?

We will immediately sharpen the discussion, my son, then it will become clearer.

Man can be good without religion, but not without God

In fact, the historian articulates that many established institutions become conservative and want to maintain the status quo and are against change. Many religions do that too. So he has a point. And then he observes that in countries where these established religions are losing power and democracy is taking over, many more changes are being made such as women's suffrage, protection of workers' rights, and provisions for the oppressed.

And the historian then draws the logical conclusion that people can do good without using the name of God, so can be moral without religion. He ends up with ‘one can be good without God’.

Oops, what am I supposed to say about this?

Simply this: a person can be moral, can be good without religion, without church, without God's servants on earth. But not without God.
An average atheist, or agnostic, who does not believe anything, can act very morally and be very good and think to do so out of himself and without God.

But in practice, each of the seven billion people depends on, whether he believes it or not, 100% on the power and might of his Spark of God. His conscience and his heart are, even if he does not believe it and does not participate in a religion, for 100% nourished by the influence, the energy, the impulses and powers of his Spark of God.

Man can be good without religion, but not without God

So an atheist thinks he has a conscience and uses it, but he has nothing of himself, he is known by God. Even though an atheist cannot of course see and believe and accept that. God works very well without the small mind of man.

In the meantime, the historian has been blessed.

My blessings to you all

No 464