Hypocrisy?

[sush_destiny]

Yes, he does have a double standard. He talks about believing in certain concepts like reincarnation, but then says its not necessary to believe it.

[Jessacardinal]

I think Richard was at a different point in his life and his belief system between the experiences. For me, that explains his state of mind and opinion on each occurrence.

[Poppy Drear]

I'm quite tired of authors of these kinds of books assuming that others who haven't found "enlightenment" will never lead truly happy or spiritual lives. Certainly, some people can become complacent in their beliefs, but making a blanket statement like that about thousands of strangers is just absurd, in my opinion.

[NuelUkah]

I’m not trying to vilify the author, but I'm curious to hear your opinions on this. Did you find his religious/spiritual approach to be colored by hypocrisy?

Early on, the author is put-off of Christianity because a woman told him that everyone who didn’t convert to her religion would go to hell. After talking it over with his father, he decided that was unfair and he would have no respect for such a god.

Later in the book, he explains his own spiritual revelation and says that if everyone doesn’t change their way of thinking to what he suggests then, “the suffering will be an immeasurable Hell on Earth.”

How is that any different or more fair/loving than the Christian woman’s beliefs? He goes even further to say that there will be near-extinction levels of destruction, and even if people do change and do exactly as he says, there will be incomprehensible suffering, because it’s already too late.

In between these two examples, he also judges an entire stadium of strangers, saying that there was something wrong in their hearts. Thousands of people he’s never even spoken to. He says he is motivated by love, but so do a lot of religions who come to similar conclusions.

It seems like he has a blatant double-standard for other beliefs vs his own spiritual assertions.
What do you guys think?

I think you misunderstood the author. Seek first to understand and you will be understood. What Richard meant was that God is not a wicked God and he would not serve any god that tends to be wicked to send anyone to eternal damnation because they refused His ways. God does not send anyone to hell, people choose to go to hell. God created hell for Satan and the fallen angels. If you chose to follow Satan's way, you have just chose to go to hell to meet the one you chose to serve. If you choose to follow God's way, you have just chose to go to heaven to meet the one you chose to serve.
This book would be understood by those who feel awakened or are open to being awakened spiritually.

About the strangers in the stadium he clearly said he felt greed in their heart because of the things they said. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. He released love into the atmosphere. You may not understand all these until you open yourself to spiritual mysteries and they will begin to unfold to you.

[Katherine Smith]

I think that someone who has also been put off by Christianity I can see the author's perspective, but even I think that some of his beliefs were a little hypocritical at times. I also think that anyone who believes that those who don't strictly adhere to a certain set of beliefs is missing the point of religion. I think that many times, with or without him realizing it, he combined many religious principles into his ideology.

[spencermack]

I can completely understand your point of view here. I think when people try to take old ideas and show that new ideas are better, if it is not organized well enough, the message can get muddled and then turned on its head.

[Samy Lax]

It's been a while since I came across such a genuinely framed question. I agree with this completely. I have often been amazed by how ruthless some people can be while writing off non-believers as people with defects in their hearts. I am kind of sated with this kind of writing.

[Rangerkay]

For me this was difficult. I already struggle as a Christian with the church having hypocrisy. Then, to read that this man is trying to create almost his own religion with his own ideals, but still sharing the same views and hypocrisies is ironic.

He spent pages in the beginning about his own personal experience with it only to turn around and express the same things he was trying to avoid.

Also, just because one person made him feel negative towards the church and he judges all of us based off that left a bitter taste in my mouth. In the New Testament Jesus himself says the greatest rule is love. The whole backing behind many of his teachings in the Scriptures was about loving someone for who they are and not their sin. So, I feel that anyone trying to learn more about Christianity as a whole would have explored this topic as much as possible just to be able to say: "you aren't practicing what you preach". Which, sadly, is true for a lot of churches. They get caught up in the Old Laws listed in the Old Testament instead of what Jesus came to earth, preached, and died for in the New Testament.

[Kibet Hillary]

Interesting questions! I hadn't considered these aspects before, but now that you brought them up... I do see your point, although to me the author came across as such a lovable person, and with the purest intentions. Maybe my heart is too soft, or I'm a little gullible, or both. I don't know. But, again, I do see what you mean. It does seem inconsistent.

Indeed, the author came out as a lovable bad and his motivations were not bad at all. I tend to think it is just the points of view being different

[Kibet Hillary]

For me this was difficult. I already struggle as a Christian with the church having hypocrisy. Then, to read that this man is trying to create almost his own religion with his own ideals, but still sharing the same views and hypocrisies is ironic.

He spent pages in the beginning about his own personal experience with it only to turn around and express the same things he was trying to avoid.

Also, just because one person made him feel negative towards the church and he judges all of us based off that left a bitter taste in my mouth. In the New Testament Jesus himself says the greatest rule is love. The whole backing behind many of his teachings in the Scriptures was about loving someone for who they are and not their sin. So, I feel that anyone trying to learn more about Christianity as a whole would have explored this topic as much as possible just to be able to say: "you aren't practicing what you preach". Which, sadly, is true for a lot of churches. They get caught up in the Old Laws listed in the Old Testament instead of what Jesus came to earth, preached, and died for in the New Testament.

This is really true. I guess the fact that there is so much struggle around us as people try to lead their lives according to their beliefs should not lead us to drop our beliefs. It is also a great idea that issues have to be interpreted from different perspectives instead of relying on one point of view. It is sad to see that even in what the author comes up with, there is still punishment for those who do not need to be in the right way.

[vishu]

The author does seem to have some self important personality traits as shown by these examples.

[Kibet Hillary]

I am not sure about this but could we really call this hypocrisy given the reasons that drove the author to start the mission or there is something else to describe it? His mission was to find the essence of the teaching of Jesus and it seems that midway somethings are similar to what was the main flaw in the teachings about God he had run away from such as punishment.

[Beatus]

I will be wrong to tell a Muslim that if he/she does not convert to Christianity then hell is inevitable. But I won't be wrong if I tell schoolchildren that they risk losing trustworthyness if they embrace the habit of not telling the truth. There is no hipocrisy there either.

Being a Muslim or a Christian does not excuse you from losing credibility in your society because you are a liar. Furthermore being a Christian or a Muslim does not automatically make you trustworthy or heaven-bound.

[María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda]

You got me thinking and I think you're right. I don't approve of fear mongering: not from the Christian lady and not from the author. I think it's especially nasty to try to scare kids and trying to get them to convert their parents. But even from the author, it would've been nicer to focus more on the benefits of spiritual development and conscious expansion than starting with "a threat". But perhaps the author thought it might make his message more powerful? I don't know if it's exactly hypocrisy but it's not totally congruent.

[nooregano]

The author's "belief" is in non-belief. He advocates for unconditional love, but there are also a lot of conditions for people to reach it. He says that everyone is perfect the way they are because Isness just is, but people are making "bad choices" by being negative or selfish. However, since life is made up of contrasts, I'm not sure these statements have to be mutually exclusive or "hypocritical." I'm still reading this book. I'll have to think a bit more on this!